What if India and Pakistan Never Separated?
Hello, friends! Have you ever wondered what would have been had India and Pakistan never been partitioned? When thinking about this situation, the very first thing people think of is Cricket. We could have had a stellar team, with Sachin Tendulkar and Shoaib Akhtar on the same team. With Babar Azam and Virat Kohli playing together. People talk about the music. The paradigm of music that would've been produced by the country, if the musicians of both nations could work together. But these are superficial matters. This can be discussed in depth. How would the economy of an United India be? How would it affect the international relations? How would it impact politics and media? Come, let's discuss this scenario seriously. And let's try to find out, with reference to the actual history, what could've been done, to prevent the partition?
Let's begin with the year 1857. The Revolt of 1857. In which Hindus and Muslims came together to fight the British. The British were largely taken back, and they implemented their Divide and Rule policy after that. In the late 1880s, the Two Nation Theory was discussed for the first time. By Syed Ahmad Khan. In this inciteful speeches.
In 1905, Bengal was partitioned, by the British along communal lines. Next year, in 1906, All India Muslim League was founded. Then in 1909 came the famous Morley-Minto Reforms, and in 1919 the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms. The British used these to politically divide people based on religion. By providing separate electorates. Separate Electorates meant seats for which only the people of the specific religion can vote. Such as some Muslim seats, for which only Muslims could vote. Due to this, the differences between Hindus and Muslims kept getting wider. In 1916, the Lucknow Pact was signed between Congress's Bal Gangadhar Tilak, and Muslim League's Mohammad Ali Jinnah. Accordingly, Congress accepted these separate electorates for Muslims. Why does Congress do this? They assumed this will create unity between Hindus and Muslims. But as Gandhi had once said, The intention to promote unity between Hindus and Muslims was commendable, but to use communal electorate as a shortcut, would be detrimental in the long term. But the Congress politicians didn't understand this. In 1915, the Hindu Mahasabha was established. And in 1923, Hitler's fanboy, Vinayak Savarkar wrote his book Essentials of Hindutva. In it, he writes about how Hindutva and Hinduism aren't connected. Hindutva is a political ideology, And that there's no place for Muslims and Christians in the country. He gets the support of RSS leader M.S. Golwalkar. Another fanboy of Hitler. Going forward in 1925, RSS or the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh was established. The RSS members were explicitly told not to participate in any movement against the British. That the Muslims and Christians were the real enemies. By this point in time, Hindus and Muslims both had organisations to promote the partition. Due to this, the period of the 1920s and 1930s, was full of large-scale communal riots between the two religions. The want for a partition was born here. In 1933, Rahmat Ali, another fanboy of Hitler, wrote a pamphlet titled, Now or Never Are We To Live Or Perish For Ever? This pamphlet is also considered as the Pakistan Declaration. This demanded that the five Northern Provinces Punjab, NWFP, Kashmir, Singh, and Balochistan be converted into a separate Muslim country under the name PAKSTAN. Pakstan was later modified to form the word Pakistan. In 1937, Savarkar reiterated his propaganda to divide the nation. In the Ahmedabad session of the Hindu Mahasabha, he stated that India is not a homogenous and unitarian nation. That there exists two nations in India. One for the Hindus and one for the Muslims. 3 years later, in 1940, Jinnah repeated the same thing in the Lahore Session. That the social order of Hindus and Muslims are different. They have different civilisations, So Muslims should have their distinct homeland. British Viceroy Linlithgow supported him. The then British Prime Minister Winston Churchill believed that if Pakistan became a country, it will remain a faithful friend of the West. And would act as a defensive wall against the Soviet Union and socialist India. In 1945, Viceroy Wavell stated that Winston Churchill favoured a partition. He wanted to create 3 countries. Pakistan, Hindustan, and Princestan. In August 1943, Savarkar said that he had no objection to Mr Jinnah's Two Nation Theory. He said that it was a historical fact that Hindus and Muslims are two distinct nations. In the midst of these communal speeches, in 1946, Elections were called in British India. In these elections, Muslims got separate electorates. As a result, the Muslim League won 425 seats in the elections. Although Congress was still leading with 923 seats. But it was clearly evident that the Muslim League was a powerful force. And the majority of the Muslim seats were won by the Muslim League. Many people point out this fact to say that this was the biggest example of Muslims voting in favour of Pakistan. Because back then, Muslim League clearly favoured the creation of Pakistan. But an important fact that is not discussed here is that there was no universal franchise in these elections. The age of voting was 21 years, And not every person could vote. There were strict limitations, There were property restrictions for voting, they needed land ownership, they would have paid taxes, there were several conditions And only by satisfying all conditions could a person vote in these elections. Overall, the franchise in the Central Assembly Only 3% of the total population of the country were eligible to vote. And only 13% of the population of the Provincial Assemblies. These were basically elections for the upper-class people. The average person didn't get the chance to participate in the elections. A fun fact, the Hindu Mahasabha won no seats in it. Since Muslim League won so many seats, in August 1946 the Muslim League called for direct action. Jinnah claimed that India would either be divided or destroyed. Large-scale violence was seen, More than 4,000 people died within 5 days. And majorly, the victims of this violence were Hindus. Gandhi put his life at risk and went to Noakhali to protect the Hindus. 14th August 1947, is considered Partition Day. But on that day, partition was merely formalised. It was formally implemented. In reality, the story of Partition spans decades as we saw now. To prevent this partition, what could have been done? Many leaders were against the partition. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Patel, Netaji Bose, Maulana Azad. Several political parties were also against the partition. Apart from the Indian National Congress, the All India Azad Muslim Conference, Unionist Party, in fact people like Gandhi and Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, did not accept the partition till the end. But Congress was forced to accept the plan of partition at the end because the Cabinet Mission Plan that was presented to them, Cabinet Mission was a plan in which India would not have been partitioned, the Central Government under that plan would have been very weak. And the various units of the country would have been entitled to reconsider their relationship with the Union every 10 years. Congress believed this plan to be even more detrimental to the integrity of India. Then, Sadar Patel said that They believed that accepting the partition would prevent bloodshed. They feared that if the partition was not allowed, the Muslim League would incite large-scale violence. That the communal tensions would be so enflamed, that perhaps even the regiments and police forces would be divided along the lines of religion. Whether this would have happened or not, is difficult to speculate, but one thing's for certain, despite the partition, unfortunately, there was nationwide bloodshed. Some people opine that to prevent the partition Jinnah should have been the Prime Minister. Because Jinnah was chasing after political power. Would this have prevented the partition? No. Because actually, Jinnah was not the first Prime Minister of Pakistan. That was Liaquat Ali Khan. In fact, the post of Prime Minister was offered to Jinnah thrice, In June 1940, Netaji Subhas made the offer, a few months later, C Rajagopalachari made the offer, and in April 1947, Gandhi offered Jinnah the post of Prime Minister hoping that it would avoid the partition. But this wasn't possible. In my opinion, there are three scenarios that could have prevented the partition. First, the most simple and perhaps the most unlikely. Gandhi somehow convincing Jinnah to prevent the partition. And Jinnah giving up his demand for the partition. If the leader of the Muslim League was convinced, for sure, the partition could have been avoided. The second scenario of Nathuram Godse assassinating Jinnah instead of Gandhi. Godse tried to kill Gandhi multiple times. Before the actual assassination of 1948. As you know, Gandhi was against the partition. And Jinnah was in favour of it. Even so, for some reason, Godse didn't try to kill Jinnah. Had Godse assassinated Jinnah, perhaps Muslim League would have been bereft of a leader to continue with the demand for the partition. And perhaps the partition would have been avoided. In this case, there could have been an alternate scenario. After Jinnah's assassination, perhaps nationwide communal riots would have been seen. And the divide between the people would have widened. But the third scenario is the most sure shot scenario in my opinion, of preventing the partition in the truest sense. In 1945, the government of Britain changed. Winston Churchill stepped down from the position of Prime Minister, And the new British Prime Minister was Clemen Attlee. of the Labour Party. Friends, interestingly, the Labour Party stood against Imperialism. And Clement Attlee was against India's Partition. This isn't an imaginary situation, this actually happened. he tried to prevent the partition. But he was quite late to take any action. Had the Labour Party come into power in Britain sooner, or had Prime Minister Clement Attlee taken action earlier to prevent communal actions in India, the partition could have been avoided. To do so, the first thing he needed to do was to repeal the policy of Reserved Electorate. To bring in a universal franchise. To give every adult Indian the right to vote. Had this happened and all citizens could vote, perhaps Muslim League would have faced heavy losses, in the 1946 elections. When Jinnah made the announcement for Direct Action, had the police arrested and imprisoned him, the riots could have been stopped. Had the British Indian government taken apt action by implementing laws against hate speech, to control the communal atmosphere, for sure, the partition could have been avoided. By doing so, by the time the British left our country in 1947 we would've been left with a Secular, Democratic United India. There's no doubt that United India would have been a secular country because Congress never compromised on the ideology of secularism. The first advantage is very clear. Nearly 20 million people were displaced due to the partition. Millions of families were torn apart. It's estimated that 200,000 - 2 million people died, during the partition. Their lives would have been saved. But this doesn't mean that the communal tensions between Hindus and Muslims spanning decades, would have abruptly ended. The new Prime Minister of the Nation, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, would have had to face a new challenge. To unite people from all religions. Today, 78% of the Indian population is Hindu, 14% Muslims, But the demographics of United India would have been 62% Hindus, and 32% Muslims. Overall, the total population of the country would have been 1.76 Billion. Easily the most populated country in the world. The initial years would have been crucial. People were wary of each other. That had to end. It would have been impossible to do so with only superficial steps. Like the Ethnic Integration Policy implemented in Singapore, Similar policies would have been needed to unite Hindus and Muslims in United India. In government housing, government societies, a percentage should be set for the maximum number of Hindus allotted homes there, and the maximum percentage of Muslims allotted homes there. so that various ghettos aren't formed. If, for any reason, it became impossible to keep the country united, the future would have been even more devastating. Yugoslavia is a big example of this. That was divided into parts, because they couldn't keep the ethnicities united. But let's assume the positive here, let's assume that Pandit Nehru turned out to be successful in keeping the nation united. Brotherhood among people was fostered, and they lived peacefully. The next impact would have been on the people of East Pakistan. The major reason for the creation of the country Bangladesh was the atrocities by the Pakistani government on the Bengali people. Urdu imposition was a big factor in this. People living in Bengal were forced to accept Urdu. This wouldn't have happened in United India. So there would've been no need to create the nation of Bangladesh. And once again, millions of lives would have been spared in this scenario. The illegal immigration from Bangladesh into the Northeastern States that we see today would not happen since it would be a part of our country. Another conflict, that would not have existed. United India would have been an even more diverse country than the present-day India, so the language of communication between various regions, would have remained English, as it is now. In fact, English would have gained more importance due to the higher population of Urdu and Bangla-speaking people. The domination of the Hindi language in United India would have been reduced. And the geopolitical impact of United India would have been very interesting. Because, friends, the 1970s was the era of the Cold War. The Cold War was in full fledge between America and the Soviet Union. While other countries were being pushed into it. Pakistan became a proxy of America. Since Afghanistan is a landlocked country, to send weapons to Afghanistan, in order to support the anti-Soviet fighters, America dispatched the weapons through Pakistan. This eventually led to the birth of Taliban. For their own interests, America supported religious extremism there. But had it been United India instead of Pakistan, a bigger and stronger country, in this Cold War, it would have been easier for a country of that size to remain neutral. In fact, India was neutral in the Cold War to a large extent. This would have left no other option for the Americans, for sending weapons into Afghanistan, so perhaps, Taliban wouldn't have existed. Had the Taliban not existed, And neither did the country of Pakistan, so the regional tensions that exist and the terrorist organisations that exist, none of them would have existed. Perhaps, Afghanistan would have been a major ally of India. In such cases, in terms of regional geopolitics, the Kashmir issue wouldn't have even started. In the 1980s, we saw the rise of terrorism in the Kashmir region. It is said that Pakistan played a major role in it. Kashmiri pandits went through an exodus, they had to flee their homes. Even now, the Kashmiri pandits are on a strike to demand their rights. Kashmiri Muslims live under the shadow of terrorism for 30 years. Look at this recent tweet from Kashmir's police, from 31st December 2022, In 2022, 29 civilians were killed by terrorists. Of which 21 were locals, 6 of them Hindus, 3 Kashmiri pandits, and 15 Muslims. There's a terrorist attack almost every month. All of this could have been avoided. On top of it, friends, 4 wars have been fought between India and Pakistan. In 1947, 1965, 1971, and in 1999. All of them could have been avoided. Hundreds of thousands of people who died in these wars, could have lived. Another result of this would be that the huge expenditure on defence by both countries, million would have been saved from there. In June 2022, Pakistan's Finance Minister, allocated PKR 1,523 Billion for defence. On the other hand, the Indian Finance Minister told us, that the Defence Budget of India for 2022-23 was ₹5,250 Billion. We could have saved nearly ₹7 Trillion every year. Imagine if this money was spent on things like Education, Healthcare, and Infrastructure. In terms of infrastructure and economic development, United India would have been much ahead. It's not that United India would not have needed to guard its borders, the threat from China would have still existed. But even a country like China would be wary about displeasing a country of this size. In terms of the people, for the people living in Pakistan their lives would have been better in United India. Because while India became a republic in 1950, and the first elections in India were conducted in 1952, "India, that is Bharat, shall be a Sovereign, Democratic, Republic." While on the other hand, it took many more years for Pakistan to adopt a Constitution. Their first constitution was adopted in 1956, after which it was suspended and martial law was imposed. Another constitution was adopted in 1962, another martial law was imposed after that. Another constitution in 1973, that was suspended yet again, and restored after 1985. "I would like to thank the House, for once again reposing confidence in me." It took so long to have a proper constitution. Repeated military coups were seen. Till now, none of Pakistan's Prime Ministers have been able to complete their full term of 5 years. In the Democracy Index, Pakistan scores a mere 4.31 out of 10. It is classified as a Hybrid regime. In the Global Peace Index, Pakistan ranks 147. In terms of GDP per capita, Pakistan is at 144th rank, and it has high inequality as well. Somewhere or the other, there's a correlation of these aspects with religion. Surveys conducted all across the world have repeatedly shown that how the poorest nations in the world place high importance on religion. And the developed countries of the world, do not consider religion to be important. Had Pakistan been a secular country, these factors would have shown improvements. Due to this extremism, minorities in Pakistan have to suffer. Sikhs, Hindus, Shia Muslims, Ahmadiya Muslims, have to face discrimination. But even the majority religion of the country isn't living happily. The problems of inflation and unemployment are keenly felt in Pakistan. And our selective media in India, likes to preach about this a lot. "Youth in Pakistan are struggling with unemployment. Pakistan is dealing with high inflation. Pakistan has forced its citizens to buy fuels are higher rates." So one thing is for certain that in United India, our media would have a scapegoat like Pakistan which they could drag about as news. Perhaps they would have talked more about Afghanistan then. Or maybe even about Iran. But they would've been forced to discuss meaningful things. It's not that the minorities in India do not have to suffer discriminations, like they do in Pakistan, In India, Muslims and Dalits are subjected to atrocities. Hindus are killed in riots too. But this isn't because India is secular. It is because the people dishing out the atrocities, consider secularism to be derogatory. We see religious extremism in India too. Which leads to such incidents. A major impact of United India would be on Internal Politics as well. The politicians that base their politics on Pakistan, About how they showed Pakistan its place, or how the opposition favours Pakistan, In United India, these conspiracy theories and propaganda would have failed. Perhaps then, they would have to use China to carry on their politics. A famous quote from George Orwell's book 1984 says, This book talks about a country that is constantly at war with other countries. The country with which they are at war isn't important. It's simply important to be at war. They need to be at war. Because war helps create this special mental atmosphere. Society remains misdirected. In terms of GDP, perhaps it might not have had a major impact, because India's GDP is quite high than Pakistan's or Bangladesh's. India doesn't lack natural resources, but there would have been a difference in the sense that had United India remained a stable secular country it would have attracted more foreign investment. It would have been a major market for the rest of the world, and the soft power of the country would have been much more than it is today. United India would have easily been on the same level as the USA and China. After hearing this you would want this to happen. But unfortunately, the country United India does not exist. Friends, do not be disappointed. It's true that our forefathers weren't successful in this. But remember that the future lies in our hands. What happens in the future we are the ones to decide that. We could not prevent the partition. But we can have a reunification. If East Germany and West Germany could reunite, If North Vietnam and South Vietnam could reunite, why can't India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh reunite? When people think of reunification, they think in a Top-Bottom Approach, they wait for a leader a great person to reunite India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Bringing forth a miracle. But friends, this won't happen. Change moves from the bottom to the top. The sentiment of reunification needs to come among the people. When the public supports this, it will give rise to a great politician who will take up the issue on behalf of the people, to get their votes. And only then can this be possible. As you have seen in this video partition didn't happen in a day. It was a long and complex process. From 1875 to 1947, it took place in different stages. When we talk about reunification, we need to understand that it is a long-drawn process. Step by step, the events that eventually led to the partition, we need to reverse those step-by-step. We need to end discrimination against minorities. We need to end communal politics. The politics using religion, needs to be put to an end. We need to end the hatred between Hindus and Muslims. And when all three countries, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, are successful at internally implementing this in their countries, eventually, this will foster cooperation between the three. And reunification will seem like the natural step. This was how the European Union was formed. Countries like Germany and France that were once great enemies, ended this hatred in their countries. Cooperation increased, unity deepened. And eventually, step by step, the European Union was formed. This is how an Asian Union could be formed. What do you think? Comment below. And do remember, the narrative will spread from bottom to top. Thank you very much!
Let's begin with the year 1857. The Revolt of 1857. In which Hindus and Muslims came together to fight the British. The British were largely taken back, and they implemented their Divide and Rule policy after that. In the late 1880s, the Two Nation Theory was discussed for the first time. By Syed Ahmad Khan. In this inciteful speeches.
In 1905, Bengal was partitioned, by the British along communal lines. Next year, in 1906, All India Muslim League was founded. Then in 1909 came the famous Morley-Minto Reforms, and in 1919 the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms. The British used these to politically divide people based on religion. By providing separate electorates. Separate Electorates meant seats for which only the people of the specific religion can vote. Such as some Muslim seats, for which only Muslims could vote. Due to this, the differences between Hindus and Muslims kept getting wider. In 1916, the Lucknow Pact was signed between Congress's Bal Gangadhar Tilak, and Muslim League's Mohammad Ali Jinnah. Accordingly, Congress accepted these separate electorates for Muslims. Why does Congress do this? They assumed this will create unity between Hindus and Muslims. But as Gandhi had once said, The intention to promote unity between Hindus and Muslims was commendable, but to use communal electorate as a shortcut, would be detrimental in the long term. But the Congress politicians didn't understand this. In 1915, the Hindu Mahasabha was established. And in 1923, Hitler's fanboy, Vinayak Savarkar wrote his book Essentials of Hindutva. In it, he writes about how Hindutva and Hinduism aren't connected. Hindutva is a political ideology, And that there's no place for Muslims and Christians in the country. He gets the support of RSS leader M.S. Golwalkar. Another fanboy of Hitler. Going forward in 1925, RSS or the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh was established. The RSS members were explicitly told not to participate in any movement against the British. That the Muslims and Christians were the real enemies. By this point in time, Hindus and Muslims both had organisations to promote the partition. Due to this, the period of the 1920s and 1930s, was full of large-scale communal riots between the two religions. The want for a partition was born here. In 1933, Rahmat Ali, another fanboy of Hitler, wrote a pamphlet titled, Now or Never Are We To Live Or Perish For Ever? This pamphlet is also considered as the Pakistan Declaration. This demanded that the five Northern Provinces Punjab, NWFP, Kashmir, Singh, and Balochistan be converted into a separate Muslim country under the name PAKSTAN. Pakstan was later modified to form the word Pakistan. In 1937, Savarkar reiterated his propaganda to divide the nation. In the Ahmedabad session of the Hindu Mahasabha, he stated that India is not a homogenous and unitarian nation. That there exists two nations in India. One for the Hindus and one for the Muslims. 3 years later, in 1940, Jinnah repeated the same thing in the Lahore Session. That the social order of Hindus and Muslims are different. They have different civilisations, So Muslims should have their distinct homeland. British Viceroy Linlithgow supported him. The then British Prime Minister Winston Churchill believed that if Pakistan became a country, it will remain a faithful friend of the West. And would act as a defensive wall against the Soviet Union and socialist India. In 1945, Viceroy Wavell stated that Winston Churchill favoured a partition. He wanted to create 3 countries. Pakistan, Hindustan, and Princestan. In August 1943, Savarkar said that he had no objection to Mr Jinnah's Two Nation Theory. He said that it was a historical fact that Hindus and Muslims are two distinct nations. In the midst of these communal speeches, in 1946, Elections were called in British India. In these elections, Muslims got separate electorates. As a result, the Muslim League won 425 seats in the elections. Although Congress was still leading with 923 seats. But it was clearly evident that the Muslim League was a powerful force. And the majority of the Muslim seats were won by the Muslim League. Many people point out this fact to say that this was the biggest example of Muslims voting in favour of Pakistan. Because back then, Muslim League clearly favoured the creation of Pakistan. But an important fact that is not discussed here is that there was no universal franchise in these elections. The age of voting was 21 years, And not every person could vote. There were strict limitations, There were property restrictions for voting, they needed land ownership, they would have paid taxes, there were several conditions And only by satisfying all conditions could a person vote in these elections. Overall, the franchise in the Central Assembly Only 3% of the total population of the country were eligible to vote. And only 13% of the population of the Provincial Assemblies. These were basically elections for the upper-class people. The average person didn't get the chance to participate in the elections. A fun fact, the Hindu Mahasabha won no seats in it. Since Muslim League won so many seats, in August 1946 the Muslim League called for direct action. Jinnah claimed that India would either be divided or destroyed. Large-scale violence was seen, More than 4,000 people died within 5 days. And majorly, the victims of this violence were Hindus. Gandhi put his life at risk and went to Noakhali to protect the Hindus. 14th August 1947, is considered Partition Day. But on that day, partition was merely formalised. It was formally implemented. In reality, the story of Partition spans decades as we saw now. To prevent this partition, what could have been done? Many leaders were against the partition. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Patel, Netaji Bose, Maulana Azad. Several political parties were also against the partition. Apart from the Indian National Congress, the All India Azad Muslim Conference, Unionist Party, in fact people like Gandhi and Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, did not accept the partition till the end. But Congress was forced to accept the plan of partition at the end because the Cabinet Mission Plan that was presented to them, Cabinet Mission was a plan in which India would not have been partitioned, the Central Government under that plan would have been very weak. And the various units of the country would have been entitled to reconsider their relationship with the Union every 10 years. Congress believed this plan to be even more detrimental to the integrity of India. Then, Sadar Patel said that They believed that accepting the partition would prevent bloodshed. They feared that if the partition was not allowed, the Muslim League would incite large-scale violence. That the communal tensions would be so enflamed, that perhaps even the regiments and police forces would be divided along the lines of religion. Whether this would have happened or not, is difficult to speculate, but one thing's for certain, despite the partition, unfortunately, there was nationwide bloodshed. Some people opine that to prevent the partition Jinnah should have been the Prime Minister. Because Jinnah was chasing after political power. Would this have prevented the partition? No. Because actually, Jinnah was not the first Prime Minister of Pakistan. That was Liaquat Ali Khan. In fact, the post of Prime Minister was offered to Jinnah thrice, In June 1940, Netaji Subhas made the offer, a few months later, C Rajagopalachari made the offer, and in April 1947, Gandhi offered Jinnah the post of Prime Minister hoping that it would avoid the partition. But this wasn't possible. In my opinion, there are three scenarios that could have prevented the partition. First, the most simple and perhaps the most unlikely. Gandhi somehow convincing Jinnah to prevent the partition. And Jinnah giving up his demand for the partition. If the leader of the Muslim League was convinced, for sure, the partition could have been avoided. The second scenario of Nathuram Godse assassinating Jinnah instead of Gandhi. Godse tried to kill Gandhi multiple times. Before the actual assassination of 1948. As you know, Gandhi was against the partition. And Jinnah was in favour of it. Even so, for some reason, Godse didn't try to kill Jinnah. Had Godse assassinated Jinnah, perhaps Muslim League would have been bereft of a leader to continue with the demand for the partition. And perhaps the partition would have been avoided. In this case, there could have been an alternate scenario. After Jinnah's assassination, perhaps nationwide communal riots would have been seen. And the divide between the people would have widened. But the third scenario is the most sure shot scenario in my opinion, of preventing the partition in the truest sense. In 1945, the government of Britain changed. Winston Churchill stepped down from the position of Prime Minister, And the new British Prime Minister was Clemen Attlee. of the Labour Party. Friends, interestingly, the Labour Party stood against Imperialism. And Clement Attlee was against India's Partition. This isn't an imaginary situation, this actually happened. he tried to prevent the partition. But he was quite late to take any action. Had the Labour Party come into power in Britain sooner, or had Prime Minister Clement Attlee taken action earlier to prevent communal actions in India, the partition could have been avoided. To do so, the first thing he needed to do was to repeal the policy of Reserved Electorate. To bring in a universal franchise. To give every adult Indian the right to vote. Had this happened and all citizens could vote, perhaps Muslim League would have faced heavy losses, in the 1946 elections. When Jinnah made the announcement for Direct Action, had the police arrested and imprisoned him, the riots could have been stopped. Had the British Indian government taken apt action by implementing laws against hate speech, to control the communal atmosphere, for sure, the partition could have been avoided. By doing so, by the time the British left our country in 1947 we would've been left with a Secular, Democratic United India. There's no doubt that United India would have been a secular country because Congress never compromised on the ideology of secularism. The first advantage is very clear. Nearly 20 million people were displaced due to the partition. Millions of families were torn apart. It's estimated that 200,000 - 2 million people died, during the partition. Their lives would have been saved. But this doesn't mean that the communal tensions between Hindus and Muslims spanning decades, would have abruptly ended. The new Prime Minister of the Nation, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, would have had to face a new challenge. To unite people from all religions. Today, 78% of the Indian population is Hindu, 14% Muslims, But the demographics of United India would have been 62% Hindus, and 32% Muslims. Overall, the total population of the country would have been 1.76 Billion. Easily the most populated country in the world. The initial years would have been crucial. People were wary of each other. That had to end. It would have been impossible to do so with only superficial steps. Like the Ethnic Integration Policy implemented in Singapore, Similar policies would have been needed to unite Hindus and Muslims in United India. In government housing, government societies, a percentage should be set for the maximum number of Hindus allotted homes there, and the maximum percentage of Muslims allotted homes there. so that various ghettos aren't formed. If, for any reason, it became impossible to keep the country united, the future would have been even more devastating. Yugoslavia is a big example of this. That was divided into parts, because they couldn't keep the ethnicities united. But let's assume the positive here, let's assume that Pandit Nehru turned out to be successful in keeping the nation united. Brotherhood among people was fostered, and they lived peacefully. The next impact would have been on the people of East Pakistan. The major reason for the creation of the country Bangladesh was the atrocities by the Pakistani government on the Bengali people. Urdu imposition was a big factor in this. People living in Bengal were forced to accept Urdu. This wouldn't have happened in United India. So there would've been no need to create the nation of Bangladesh. And once again, millions of lives would have been spared in this scenario. The illegal immigration from Bangladesh into the Northeastern States that we see today would not happen since it would be a part of our country. Another conflict, that would not have existed. United India would have been an even more diverse country than the present-day India, so the language of communication between various regions, would have remained English, as it is now. In fact, English would have gained more importance due to the higher population of Urdu and Bangla-speaking people. The domination of the Hindi language in United India would have been reduced. And the geopolitical impact of United India would have been very interesting. Because, friends, the 1970s was the era of the Cold War. The Cold War was in full fledge between America and the Soviet Union. While other countries were being pushed into it. Pakistan became a proxy of America. Since Afghanistan is a landlocked country, to send weapons to Afghanistan, in order to support the anti-Soviet fighters, America dispatched the weapons through Pakistan. This eventually led to the birth of Taliban. For their own interests, America supported religious extremism there. But had it been United India instead of Pakistan, a bigger and stronger country, in this Cold War, it would have been easier for a country of that size to remain neutral. In fact, India was neutral in the Cold War to a large extent. This would have left no other option for the Americans, for sending weapons into Afghanistan, so perhaps, Taliban wouldn't have existed. Had the Taliban not existed, And neither did the country of Pakistan, so the regional tensions that exist and the terrorist organisations that exist, none of them would have existed. Perhaps, Afghanistan would have been a major ally of India. In such cases, in terms of regional geopolitics, the Kashmir issue wouldn't have even started. In the 1980s, we saw the rise of terrorism in the Kashmir region. It is said that Pakistan played a major role in it. Kashmiri pandits went through an exodus, they had to flee their homes. Even now, the Kashmiri pandits are on a strike to demand their rights. Kashmiri Muslims live under the shadow of terrorism for 30 years. Look at this recent tweet from Kashmir's police, from 31st December 2022, In 2022, 29 civilians were killed by terrorists. Of which 21 were locals, 6 of them Hindus, 3 Kashmiri pandits, and 15 Muslims. There's a terrorist attack almost every month. All of this could have been avoided. On top of it, friends, 4 wars have been fought between India and Pakistan. In 1947, 1965, 1971, and in 1999. All of them could have been avoided. Hundreds of thousands of people who died in these wars, could have lived. Another result of this would be that the huge expenditure on defence by both countries, million would have been saved from there. In June 2022, Pakistan's Finance Minister, allocated PKR 1,523 Billion for defence. On the other hand, the Indian Finance Minister told us, that the Defence Budget of India for 2022-23 was ₹5,250 Billion. We could have saved nearly ₹7 Trillion every year. Imagine if this money was spent on things like Education, Healthcare, and Infrastructure. In terms of infrastructure and economic development, United India would have been much ahead. It's not that United India would not have needed to guard its borders, the threat from China would have still existed. But even a country like China would be wary about displeasing a country of this size. In terms of the people, for the people living in Pakistan their lives would have been better in United India. Because while India became a republic in 1950, and the first elections in India were conducted in 1952, "India, that is Bharat, shall be a Sovereign, Democratic, Republic." While on the other hand, it took many more years for Pakistan to adopt a Constitution. Their first constitution was adopted in 1956, after which it was suspended and martial law was imposed. Another constitution was adopted in 1962, another martial law was imposed after that. Another constitution in 1973, that was suspended yet again, and restored after 1985. "I would like to thank the House, for once again reposing confidence in me." It took so long to have a proper constitution. Repeated military coups were seen. Till now, none of Pakistan's Prime Ministers have been able to complete their full term of 5 years. In the Democracy Index, Pakistan scores a mere 4.31 out of 10. It is classified as a Hybrid regime. In the Global Peace Index, Pakistan ranks 147. In terms of GDP per capita, Pakistan is at 144th rank, and it has high inequality as well. Somewhere or the other, there's a correlation of these aspects with religion. Surveys conducted all across the world have repeatedly shown that how the poorest nations in the world place high importance on religion. And the developed countries of the world, do not consider religion to be important. Had Pakistan been a secular country, these factors would have shown improvements. Due to this extremism, minorities in Pakistan have to suffer. Sikhs, Hindus, Shia Muslims, Ahmadiya Muslims, have to face discrimination. But even the majority religion of the country isn't living happily. The problems of inflation and unemployment are keenly felt in Pakistan. And our selective media in India, likes to preach about this a lot. "Youth in Pakistan are struggling with unemployment. Pakistan is dealing with high inflation. Pakistan has forced its citizens to buy fuels are higher rates." So one thing is for certain that in United India, our media would have a scapegoat like Pakistan which they could drag about as news. Perhaps they would have talked more about Afghanistan then. Or maybe even about Iran. But they would've been forced to discuss meaningful things. It's not that the minorities in India do not have to suffer discriminations, like they do in Pakistan, In India, Muslims and Dalits are subjected to atrocities. Hindus are killed in riots too. But this isn't because India is secular. It is because the people dishing out the atrocities, consider secularism to be derogatory. We see religious extremism in India too. Which leads to such incidents. A major impact of United India would be on Internal Politics as well. The politicians that base their politics on Pakistan, About how they showed Pakistan its place, or how the opposition favours Pakistan, In United India, these conspiracy theories and propaganda would have failed. Perhaps then, they would have to use China to carry on their politics. A famous quote from George Orwell's book 1984 says, This book talks about a country that is constantly at war with other countries. The country with which they are at war isn't important. It's simply important to be at war. They need to be at war. Because war helps create this special mental atmosphere. Society remains misdirected. In terms of GDP, perhaps it might not have had a major impact, because India's GDP is quite high than Pakistan's or Bangladesh's. India doesn't lack natural resources, but there would have been a difference in the sense that had United India remained a stable secular country it would have attracted more foreign investment. It would have been a major market for the rest of the world, and the soft power of the country would have been much more than it is today. United India would have easily been on the same level as the USA and China. After hearing this you would want this to happen. But unfortunately, the country United India does not exist. Friends, do not be disappointed. It's true that our forefathers weren't successful in this. But remember that the future lies in our hands. What happens in the future we are the ones to decide that. We could not prevent the partition. But we can have a reunification. If East Germany and West Germany could reunite, If North Vietnam and South Vietnam could reunite, why can't India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh reunite? When people think of reunification, they think in a Top-Bottom Approach, they wait for a leader a great person to reunite India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Bringing forth a miracle. But friends, this won't happen. Change moves from the bottom to the top. The sentiment of reunification needs to come among the people. When the public supports this, it will give rise to a great politician who will take up the issue on behalf of the people, to get their votes. And only then can this be possible. As you have seen in this video partition didn't happen in a day. It was a long and complex process. From 1875 to 1947, it took place in different stages. When we talk about reunification, we need to understand that it is a long-drawn process. Step by step, the events that eventually led to the partition, we need to reverse those step-by-step. We need to end discrimination against minorities. We need to end communal politics. The politics using religion, needs to be put to an end. We need to end the hatred between Hindus and Muslims. And when all three countries, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, are successful at internally implementing this in their countries, eventually, this will foster cooperation between the three. And reunification will seem like the natural step. This was how the European Union was formed. Countries like Germany and France that were once great enemies, ended this hatred in their countries. Cooperation increased, unity deepened. And eventually, step by step, the European Union was formed. This is how an Asian Union could be formed. What do you think? Comment below. And do remember, the narrative will spread from bottom to top. Thank you very much!
0 Comments