http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n14/perry-anderson/why-partition

Two things strike me about your observations regarding Partition. First, how do you know that “every one in Pakistan is most decidedly happy about it”? Second, and in the same vein, when you refer to the Indian side you speak, correctly, of ‘pak-lovers,’ whatever that might mean. Presumably you refer to a set of Indians holding a particular opinion about Pakistan. When you speak of the Pakistan side, you slip into the generalization “how can we make Pakistan hate us a little less” as if the country were a person. Is it plausible to believe that in a country as fractured as Pakistan everyone would have the same opinion about anything? Could something like this be assumed about any country?

the one thing that fascinates me is how many people from india bemoan the partition while every one in pakistan is most decidedly happy about it

so for all the pak-lovers in india… here is the million dollar question.. why dont you guys come up with concrete proposals on how we can make pakistan hate us a little less ?

As for Hindus having collaborated with Muslim rulers…..So what? Did not Indians collaborate with British rulers?

As for the idea that a British census can create the Hindu-Muslim split: what sort of unity was it that could be split so easily?

Why dream about a unity that is illusory?

Just accept the division and live with it. India puts up with a separate Lanka and Nepal, which have infinitely more in common with India culturally than Pakistan and Bangladesh….Why can’t it accept a separate Pakistan and Bangladesh?

Aurangzeb would have killed Dara Shikoh no matter how Islamic the latter was. Granted. BUT Aurangzeb would not have been able to moblise the orthodox Muslim ulema against Dara, in that case. So it WAS a struggle concerning orthodox Islam fighting more tolerant trends.

Why deny the OBVIOUS?

Why try to pretend black is white?

You KNOW Muslims don’t get on with Hindus and loathe Hinduism. Why deny it? Just accept their right to a separate country. No one is OBLIGED to love Hindus.

Hats off to Nehru for putting through this NEEDED divorce !!!!

So it was never Hindus arrayed against Muslims.
Yet, when certain battles went one way and a supposed “Muslim” won, despite Hindu help, HINDU TEMPLES were destroyed, and MOSQUES built on their sites.

A coincidence.

What would it take to convince you that religious identity mattered to Muslim rulers of India, and for that matter to Hindus as well?

Their repeated statements to this effect clearly do not qualify.

Sivaji said in so many words that restoring Hindu life disrupted by Muslim rule was very important to him. This doesn’t fool you.

The Sikh grus complained about Muslim oppression. Can’t fool you.

Every Muslim ruler with rare exceptions showed great concern to contain and push back Hinduism. Even the relatively broad-minded Akbar destroyed Hindu temples. None of this convinces you.

So what will?

Just let us know.

No one I have heard of sighs and moans about the good ole blissful pre-Partion days in smelly old Dhaka.

Grow up, all you Partition whiners.

Pakistanis and Bangladeshis certainly don’t want to unite with their alleged Hindu “brothers”.

Quit all this garlicky moaning about Jinnah and just accept that we Hindus have got rid of a huge burden and are INFINITELY better off without so many Muslims. If we are having endless trouble over 150 million Muslims, who but a mad man wants to add 300 million more to the explosive brew?

what would it take to convince you that Muslims had a profound opposition to the Hindus in the times of Muslim rule in India?

The FACT that rulers like Aurangzeb rpeatedly expressed acute contempt and for Hinduism and the desire to eradicate it is not enough.

The FACT that Muslim rulers destroyed vast numbers of Hindu temples on any number of pretexts is not enough.

The FACT that Hindus were subject to all manner of disabilities under Muslim rule is not enough.

Then what is?

As for Hindus having collaborated with Muslim rulers…..So what? Did not Indians collaborate with British rulers?

As for the idea that a British census can create the Hindu-Muslim split: what sort of unity was it that could be split so easily?

Why dream about a unity that is illusory?

Just accept the division and live with it. India puts up with a separate Lanka and Nepal, which have infinitely more in common with India culturally than Pakistan and Bangladesh….Why can’t it accept a separate Pakistan and Bangladesh?

They were thereby rid of two-thirds of an extremely demanding and violent Muslim population, and also kept all the good land in India, except the Western Punjab.

Almost all Hindus were united by Partition in one country while the Muslims are more or less equally divided between three.

These are huge advantages for Hindus.

Without Partition the Muslims in a couple of generations would equal and surpass the Hindu population in numbers. Given much greater communal consciousness and readiness to resort to violence among them, the Islamisation of India would then be a foregone conclusion.

So a Hindu India survives THANKS to Partition.

Well done, Jinnah !!!!

An India without Partition would be a land of ceaseless riots and civil war.

As for Aurangzeb destroying Hindu temples not proving he hated Hinduism – he said he hated himself. I believe him.