If He Had Reached Delhi.....

[Tshering22]

Move to china and enjoy the freedom there.

My aim is to make my country take the path of development that Chinese have... not to turn it into a communist madhouse. Either Indian population should have a social conscience and responsibility like the Europeans and Westerns and Japanese have to responsibly use democracy, punish the wrong doers and raise voice and hands against the wrong, or simply have a government that can guide them correctly.

As I said, the likes of you prefer enjoying the freedom to piss on the roads and such rather than prefer a government that can make them work ethically, properly and manage to give them a social conscience. I get the point.

And don't start using personal attacks if you cannot find a valid argument, just for the heck of arguing.

Are you seriously telling me that Japanese and Indian societies are same in terms of social mindset and national character? Don't bring in the "uniformity-diversity" bullshit. Ask any middle class Indian of any state and you'll see that everything he wants is the same as that of his other-state counterparts. So come up with something better to argue than "freedom" alone.

Because freedom without social conscience or national character becomes anarchy-- just like how South Asian style of democracy is.

 

[Tshering22]

If Netaji reached delhi he would have got down from the train and gone to the toilet, then taken some tea and pokada and sat back on the train and gone to Punjab!

Whats with this thread anyway, i am waiting for it to die off and keeps comeing up!

What's the matter? Topic too real a possibility to digest? Or can't handle the words against Nehru-Gandhi?

It is just a historical discussion. Your logic is applicable to the entire History section on this forum. Why hold a discussion on historical battles or political happenings in first place? Perhaps you could educate the moderators and admins of this forum on applying this logic better, o great sir.

 

[GPM]

My aim is to make my country take the path of development that Chinese have... not to turn it into a communist madhouse. Either Indian population should have a social conscience and responsibility like the Europeans and Westerns and Japanese have to responsibly use democracy, punish the wrong doers and raise voice and hands against the wrong, or simply have a government that can guide them correctly.

As I said, the likes of you prefer enjoying the freedom to piss on the roads and such rather than prefer a government that can make them work ethically, properly and manage to give them a social conscience. I get the point.

And don't start using personal attacks if you cannot find a valid argument, just for the heck of arguing.

Are you seriously telling me that Japanese and Indian societies are same in terms of social mindset and national character? Don't bring in the "uniformity-diversity" bullshit. Ask any middle class Indian of any state and you'll see that everything he wants is the same as that of his other-state counterparts. So come up with something better to argue than "freedom" alone.

Because freedom without social conscience or national character becomes anarchy-- just like how South Asian style of democracy is.

Some people want to have an extreme SECULAR only, where Hindus do not have any real rights. They are not much interested in developement unless it is SECULAR and INCLUSIVE. Does Narendra Modi build roads only for Hindus? Has he denied 24x7 power to muslims? Did he ask Tats to em-ploy ONLY Hindus in their Sanand plant?

But he will SHALL not allow likes of Ram Vilas Paswan to tote the pictures of Osama in election campagain. He will not allow Arundhati and Geelani to hold anti Indian seminars in Gujarat, like they did in Delhi.

What's the matter? Topic too real a possibility to digest? Or can't handle the words against Nehru-Gandhi?

It is just a historical discussion. Your logic is applicable to the entire History section on this forum. Why hold a discussion on historical battles or political happenings in first place? Perhaps you could educate the moderators and admins of this forum on applying this logic better, o great sir.

You want o be banned or what? Dynasty has sacred A$$e$, which should not be singed. Secularism is such a a scared thing that we SHALL disintegerate our country to uphold it.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

What's the matter? Topic too real a possibility to digest? Or can't handle the words against Nehru-Gandhi?

It is just a historical discussion. Your logic is applicable to the entire History section on this forum. Why hold a discussion on historical battles or political happenings in first place? Perhaps you could educate the moderators and admins of this forum on applying this logic better, o great sir.

I dont like "what if" threads, they are meaningless apart from being just an wet dream. I like to see "what is", i posted early on in this thread about what may have happened if Subash reached delhi. The odds are not good at all, we would have ended up as an dictatorship like Burma or Indonesia and Punjab,Sindh,Bengal all of it will be boiling over and we would have to see the partition take place now in our times. If Kashmir is an head ache then to have all these areas on the simmer would have been worse.

To disagree with you cant make an Gandhi Nehru follower by default, your not the pivot of anything.

 

[The Messiah]

Some people want to have an extreme SECULAR only, where Hindus do not have any real rights. They are not much interested in developement unless it is SECULAR and INCLUSIVE. Does Narendra Modi build roads only for Hindus? Has he denied 24x7 power to muslims? Did he ask Tats to em-ploy ONLY Hindus in their Sanand plant?

But he will SHALL not allow likes of Ram Vilas Paswan to tote the pictures of Osama in election campagain. He will not allow Arundhati and Geelani to hold anti Indian seminars in Gujarat, like they did in Delhi.



You want o be banned or what? Dynasty has sacred A$$e$, which should not be singed. Secularism is such a a scared thing that we SHALL disintegerate our country to uphold it.

Yes right now we live in a "extreme SECULAR" where hindus dont have any power in running the country and are barred from using roads or have electricity.

according to you arabs have all power in India

 

[GPM]

I dont like "what if" threads, they are meaningless apart from being just an wet dream. I like to see "what is", i posted early on in this thread about what may have happened if Subash reached delhi. The odds are not good at all, we would have ended up as an dictatorship like Burma or Indonesia and Punjab,Sindh,Bengal all of it will be boiling over and we would have to see the partition take place now in our times. If Kashmir is an head ache then to have all these areas on the simmer would have been worse.

To disagree with you cant make an Gandhi Nehru follower by default, your not the pivot of anything.

What an oxymoron post!!

 

[Godless-Kafir]

What an oxymoron post!!

LMAO..I know it sounds highly hypocritical, i said dont like "what if" threads but i myself indulged in 'what if' but even if i dont like dwelling in the past, it does not mean i dont have an opinion!

 

[Tshering22]

I dont like "what if" threads, they are meaningless apart from being just an wet dream. I like to see "what is", i posted early on in this thread about what may have happened if Subash reached delhi. The odds are not good at all, we would have ended up as an dictatorship like Burma or Indonesia and Punjab,Sindh,Bengal all of it will be boiling over and we would have to see the partition take place now in our times. If Kashmir is an head ache then to have all these areas on the simmer would have been worse.

To disagree with you cant make an Gandhi Nehru follower by default, your not the pivot of anything.

Sorry. Couldn't resist. .

Again with the "oh-my-God-such-a-terrible-dictatorship-democracy-a-God-given-gift" mentality. Listen, I as an Indian also love my freedom but don't think an average citizen needs so much freedom that he or she becomes directionless and deprived at the same time. An Indian would have been still free to choose what he or she wants to be, to achieve and to succeed in life, but would have had better guidance in terms of social conscience and national character--something that India lacks now big time. A country of a billion cannot run on a billion opinions and directions. Democracy is meant to be used responsibly and if there isn't enough maturity

How would you expect Netaji to react? He would have simply asked those who have an itch denying their past and asking a new country, to get lost to middle east or something. We could have simply had more land and evenly distributed our population, neither we would have had any issues at our borders. INA would have crushed any terrorism with an iron first rather than blaming local population of it.

Rather than partition of the nation, those who wanted to separate would have been thrown out of the country straight to any place they liked. Rather than giving up land like Gandhi, INA would have combed the country for those with separatist mentality and either shot them or shunted them off to some other place by force. His first step would have been getting rid of Jinnah, so as not to let the idea of Pakistan simmer. If you think his friendship or cordial talks (pictures) with him was going to come in the middle of deciding the separation of motherland, you're wrong.

And BTW, everyone lives in "what is". But "what ifs" are discussed to speculate and have a debate on possibilities, especially for someone as significant as Bose and what he did for the country. I am not a blind worshipper and agree that he might have had some weaknesses as well, but the nation would have been in a far better off position.

 

[Tshering22]

Yes right now we live in a "extreme SECULAR" where hindus dont have any power in running the country and are barred from using roads or have electricity.

according to you arabs have all power in India

Mate, why are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? Never expected this from a class poster like you. You know that mainstream Hindus aren't the only ones having such problems. It is just that they are more into the spotlight. The point of that argument was what the Burkha Dutts, Teesta Sethalvads tried to do and how they ended up getting into trouble themselves. I don't like violence needlessly but whatever has happened is simply because there is something wrong. And wherever there is smoke, there's bound to be fire. Not accepting it will not undo the problem.

 

[The Messiah]

Mate, why are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? Never expected this from a class poster like you. You know that mainstream Hindus aren't the only ones having such problems. It is just that they are more into the spotlight. The point of that argument was what the Burkha Dutts, Teesta Sethalvads tried to do and how they ended up getting into trouble themselves. I don't like violence needlessly but whatever has happened is simply because there is something wrong. And wherever there is smoke, there's bound to be fire. Not accepting it will not undo the problem.

It was not directed at your post. Everyone who isn't blind knows the likes of barkha dutt have agendas and to get high trp's. This gpm's point is of a extremist nature and needs to be condemned. Secularism doesn't mean only minorities should have rights...it means they should not be excluded and every Indian citizen should have equal rights (do you disagree that all Indian's should have equal rights ?). Now politicians do use this card to get votes but they are politicians and will use anything to get votes so it doesn't mean we should do away with secularism all together. If someone uses something for other than its intended purpose then it doesn't mean we should do away with it. An example...if half of police is inept and corrupt then it doesn't mean we should ban police alltogether rather we should "clean" them. Similarly people who use minority card for votes and do nothing afterward should be dealt with harshly rather than showing our back on secularism itself. Here i agree with you that our voters aren't intelligent enough to see through lies of politicians. We must analyze things rationally rather than mindless rhetoric which gpm is fond off.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Before Delhi, One should think what was the first place he was about to arrive ?

That move changes every thing..

 

[Godless-Kafir]

Sorry. Couldn't resist. .

Again with the "oh-my-God-such-a-terrible-dictatorship-democracy-a-God-given-gift" mentality. Listen, I as an Indian also love my freedom but don't think an average citizen needs so much freedom that he or she becomes directionless and deprived at the same time. An Indian would have been still free to choose what he or she wants to be, to achieve and to succeed in life, but would have had better guidance in terms of social conscience and national character--something that India lacks now big time. A country of a billion cannot run on a billion opinions and directions. Democracy is meant to be used responsibly and if there isn't enough maturity

How would you expect Netaji to react? He would have simply asked those who have an itch denying their past and asking a new country, to get lost to middle east or something. We could have simply had more land and evenly distributed our population, neither we would have had any issues at our borders. INA would have crushed any terrorism with an iron first rather than blaming local population of it.

Rather than partition of the nation, those who wanted to separate would have been thrown out of the country straight to any place they liked. Rather than giving up land like Gandhi, INA would have combed the country for those with separatist mentality and either shot them or shunted them off to some other place by force. His first step would have been getting rid of Jinnah, so as not to let the idea of Pakistan simmer. If you think his friendship or cordial talks (pictures) with him was going to come in the middle of deciding the separation of motherland, you're wrong.

And BTW, everyone lives in "what is". But "what ifs" are discussed to speculate and have a debate on possibilities, especially for someone as significant as Bose and what he did for the country. I am not a blind worshipper and agree that he might have had some weaknesses as well, but the nation would have been in a far better off position.

This is the silliest thing i have ever read, with 400million muslims in the subcontinent, killing a few heads and taking out a few thousand activists would have solved everything wont it? This shows how much you know history, if USSR could not subdue Afganistan with such a small population, how do you think Subash could have held such a fast population down?

If you have gone to or spoken to any of those Kashmirs you would know it is not just the leader, the common people there are as aggressive as their leaders. Killing a few heads wont solve the issue. What would have happened to all those muslims soldiers in his army? First he would have has a huge mutiny in his own army which has a lot of Muslims and followed a civilian blood bath of indescribable proportions. He neither would have had the resource to control all that or the loyalties. For a guy who could not even fathom a guerrilla tactic to hold on to Burma, you give to much credit to his strength and intelligence.

As for freedom and democracy, i understand Indian freedom and democracy is a bunch of bull but i cant think of anything else filling the vacuum, simply because i dont have wet dreams of what could have been.

 

[Tshering22]

This is the silliest thing i have ever read, with 400million muslims in the subcontinent, killing a few heads and taking out a few thousand activists would have solved everything wont it? This shows how much you know history, if USSR could not subdue Afganistan with such a small population, how do you think Subash could have held such a fast population down?

This is the most naive description I've ever seen. You're counting on the Muslim population of today. 180+160 million is 340 Million and that is by today's date. Wonder where you came up with that inflated figure. Assuming that Netaji had reach Delhi and formed a government in 1945 (during WW2 ending), the population then was very low of the entire country. You're forgetting the mentality and mindset of Indian people then was very different from what it is today. These things look silly when mentioned individually but collectively as a nation, these 2 factors are very important. A nation especially after an oppressive and exploitative foreign rule is like a raw sapling; needing guidance. For instance, what mentality of Chinese people you find today is not because they were always like this because they got moulded by the government in China that formed after civil war and WW2. Every chaotic situation leaves people looking for a mould to either fit into or getting someone to make a mould and give them.

Comparing USSR's objectives and situation in USSR to that of INA and India in 1940s is like comparing cabbage and watermelon. USSR's objective to strike in Afghanistan was not the annihilation of Afghans but to keep their puppets in Kabul safe, while getting another ally in South Asia. On the other hand, do you think that INA would have spared those separatists (predecessors of today's Pakistanis) demanding to tear out a part of India as a separate nation? He might have given them some grants and some advantages but once talks came for separatism, INA would have crushed the separatism with iron fist. Similar to Mao. And for some reason, I don't think that would have been bad (to rational people, but liberal self-appointed intellectuals will cry here as well) as we would have avoided this menace that we have had today. Even with Gandhian lunacy, we saw so much bloodshed during partition. The point is which of these two would have been better: the former that rid us of a potential future menace and allow us to freely become stronger and a world power or something that cost lives for absolutely NO PURPOSE. You're seeing this scenario from a politically correct perspective rather than national interest. But sadly, most of our fellow Indian brothers have have this suicidal tendency, moulded out of the Nehru-Gandhi education.

If you have gone to or spoken to any of those Kashmirs you would know it is not just the leader, the common people there are as aggressive as their leaders. Killing a few heads wont solve the issue. What would have happened to all those muslims soldiers in his army? First he would have has a huge mutiny in his own army which has a lot of Muslims and followed a civilian blood bath of indescribable proportions. He neither would have had the resource to control all that or the loyalties. For a guy who could not even fathom a guerrilla tactic to hold on to Burma, you give to much credit to his strength and intelligence.

You really think INA lacked aggression if it was to come to blows? Mao would have been made to look like a saint had INA got on against the separatist Muslims of Kashmir. Again, you're seeing this from the perspective of today's Muslim population. The whole reason why Pakistan cropped up was because Jinnah got a free run with Congress party. Under INA, the concept would itself have been "eliminated" just as most other authoritarian governments do when they seize power. Do you seriously think all Muslims would have retaliated? Then how come we have Muslims in India today as well? How come all of them didn't leave for Pakistan? You see, what happened then, under INA could have never taken place at all and even if it did, it would not have been so spontaneously devastating as what really happened was.

INA's objective was Delhi, not Burma. What would Netaji do with just Burma? Even Mao during the civil war didn't have the capability or strategy to handle entire China. Only once Kuomintang retreated to Taiwan, weary of fighting the Japanese, was Mao able to come out of jungles and take over a government-less China. Can you say that about today's China? I think not.

Don't you think INA would have had a national governance strategy too if they had decided to wage a war on British to seize India by force at that time? You're imagining a lot of present-day conditions to be prevalent at that time, hence you speak thus. Try rewinding for sometime and analyze. INA would have executed the entire Congress for being traitors to the country and allied to British forces as well as the Muslim League by default for attempting to formant separatism in the country. What's more, had they won the war and formed government, they would have been even more determined to hold onto then-India buoyed by their success. We talk from what mould Congress gave the country today to shape national mindset. Netaji would have given the country a far different mould.

As for freedom and democracy, i understand Indian freedom and democracy is a bunch of bull but i cant think of anything else filling the vacuum, simply because i dont have wet dreams of what could have been.

This is a history discussion mate. Why involve in any historical debate or open a thread at all if you are so keen about what is, only? Perhaps you could take this up with the forum's creators.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

This is the most naive description I've ever seen. You're counting on the Muslim population of today. 180+160 million is 340 Million and that is by today's date. Wonder where you came up with that inflated figure. Assuming that Netaji had reach Delhi and formed a government in 1945 (during WW2 ending), the population then was very low of the entire country. You're forgetting the mentality and mindset of Indian people then was very different from what it is today. These things look silly when mentioned individually but collectively as a nation, these 2 factors are very important.

What about Bangladesh? 180+164+160=?...Your mind is not even looking at the complete picture, i estimated today's population because invariably we may have to face that today. Even at the time of freedom struggle the muslim masses where indoctrinated enough, with huge crowds turning out in support of muslim league.

A nation especially after an oppressive and exploitative foreign rule is like a raw sapling; needing guidance. For instance, what mentality of Chinese people you find today is not because they were always like this because they got moulded by the government in China that formed after civil war and WW2. Every chaotic situation leaves people looking for a mould to either fit into or getting someone to make a mould and give them.

They already had a model, the Islamic model of governance! The muslims always say Islam is a complete religion because it also speaks of how to govern a nation, so the mould was always there, its naive to think they had none.

Comparing USSR's objectives and situation in USSR to that of INA and India in 1940s is like comparing cabbage and watermelon. USSR's objective to strike in Afghanistan was not the annihilation of Afghans but to keep their puppets in Kabul safe, while getting another ally in South Asia. On the other hand, do you think that INA would have spared those separatists (predecessors of today's Pakistanis) demanding to tear out a part of India as a separate nation? He might have given them some grants and some advantages but once talks came for separatism, INA would have crushed the separatism with iron fist. Similar to Mao. And for some reason, I don't think that would have been bad (to rational people, but liberal self-appointed intellectuals will cry here as well) as we would have avoided this menace that we have had today. Even with Gandhian lunacy, we saw so much bloodshed during partition. The point is which of these two would have been better: the former that rid us of a potential future menace and allow us to freely become stronger and a world power or something that cost lives for absolutely NO PURPOSE. You're seeing this scenario from a politically correct perspective rather than national interest. But sadly, most of our fellow Indian brothers have have this suicidal tendency, moulded out of the Nehru-Gandhi education.

INA would have crushed with an iron fist? LMAO..

Who where the main INA Generals? How many where muslims?

What was the troop strength of INA as compared to British Indian army?

How much soldiers did INA have to govern a vast nation as India?

How many percentage of INA was muslim?

Please post these and then we can discuss objectively.

Also just to remind you, British Indian Army was the largest army ever assembled.

You really think INA lacked aggression if it was to come to blows? Mao would have been made to look like a saint had INA got on against the separatist Muslims of Kashmir. Again, you're seeing this from the perspective of today's Muslim population. The whole reason why Pakistan cropped up was because Jinnah got a free run with Congress party. Under INA, the concept would itself have been "eliminated" just as most other authoritarian governments do when they seize power. Do you seriously think all Muslims would have retaliated? Then how come we have Muslims in India today as well? How come all of them didn't leave for Pakistan? You see, what happened then, under INA could have never taken place at all and even if it did, it would not have been so spontaneously devastating as what really happened was.

Eliminating Congress means eliminating Muslims in India or does it mean eliminating muslim leadership in INA who would not have had their own opinions?

Moreover please name the regiments of INA and you will see how like minded it was to Congress.

INA's objective was Delhi, not Burma. What would Netaji do with just Burma? Even Mao during the civil war didn't have the capability or strategy to handle entire China. Only once Kuomintang retreated to Taiwan, weary of fighting the Japanese, was Mao able to come out of jungles and take over a government-less China. Can you say that about today's China? I think not.

Don't you think INA would have had a national governance strategy too if they had decided to wage a war on British to seize India by force at that time? You're imagining a lot of present-day conditions to be prevalent at that time, hence you speak thus. Try rewinding for sometime and analyze. INA would have executed the entire Congress for being traitors to the country and allied to British forces as well as the Muslim League by default for attempting to formant separatism in the country. What's more, had they won the war and formed government, they would have been even more determined to hold onto then-India buoyed by their success. We talk from what mould Congress gave the country today to shape national mindset. Netaji would have given the country a far different mould.

'

The fellow did not even hold up in Burma for couple of months, there was no way he could have reached Delhi. The INA's impact on the war and on British India after the war has been analyzed in detail. The INA's role in military terms is considered to be relatively insignificant, given its small numerical strength, lack of heavy weapons, relative dependence on Japanese logistics and planning as well as its lack of independent planning. He never stood a fighting chance to gain any ground, it is only a propaganda in Modern India about INAs strength, in reality it was nothing and it would have never ever succeeded.

Thats why i say this whole topic is a waste because he would have never reached delhi.

This is a history discussion mate. Why involve in any historical debate or open a thread at all if you are so keen about what is, only? Perhaps you could take this up with the forum's creators.

Then who asked you to respond to my opinion? I like your posts and i think over all your a nice dude but i dont agree with you on this one, simply because it could have never ever happened.

 

[Tshering22]

What about Bangladesh? 180+164+160=?...Your mind is not even looking at the complete picture, i estimated today's population because invariably we may have to face that today. Even at the time of freedom struggle the muslim masses where indoctrinated enough, with huge crowds turning out in support of muslim league.

There could have been variations. Today it has come to this simply because of our government's follies post independence. There were ways in which an authoritarian government would have dealt effectively.

They already had a model, the Islamic model of governance! The muslims always say Islam is a complete religion because it also speaks of how to govern a nation, so the mould was always there, its naive to think they had none.

Yeah it is the perfect system; we can see that how perfect it is in Pakistan today. I was not talking about Muslims; I was talking about the entire subcontinent as such in that context, man.

INA would have crushed with an iron fist? LMAO..

Who where the main INA Generals? How many where muslims?

I know they were significant. But they did not join INA to form a separate nation. Don't you get it? The whole Pakistan idea came because of Gandhi's weakling tactics and Nehru's obsession to rule combined with Jinnah's stubborn stand to demand for power based on religion. INA was a national socialist party who did not believe in something called opposition. Which included forming a separate nation.

What was the troop strength of INA as compared to British Indian army?

How much soldiers did INA have to govern a vast nation as India?

Do you know what was the troop strength of Chiang Kai Shek and Mao Ze Dong when they decided to take on the Japanese before civil war? Numbers matter little.

How many percentage of INA was muslim?

Refer to my post 2 posts earlier.

Please post these and then we can discuss objectively.

Also just to remind you, British Indian Army was the largest army ever assembled.

Do you know how many British came to India first when they started East India Company? Compared to even a single significant kingdom's population then, they were not even a hundredth. It is not the size of an army but proper strategy combined with excellent financing and arming that makes a victor.

Even today Israeli military is only less than one tenth of its enemies and still it outflanks them everywhere. As I said, INA would have been on a winning track had the Axis won WW2. Otherwise it wasn't possible.

The British were facing not just INA but entire AXIS including Nazis and Italians in Europe. Had Axis won, Britain would have been reduced to ashes and whatever remained of it would have been colonized by Germans.

Eliminating Congress means eliminating Muslims in India or does it mean eliminating muslim leadership in INA who would not have had their own opinions?

That exists even today in party politics. Please observe how authoritarian regimes function. Muslims are no special case. Those having a different opinion won't have been entertained but those who were interested in nation building would have remained. By your logic, all Muslims should have packed their bags to Pakistan and none should have remained in India at all. Well it didn't happen. Instead of Land partition, it could have been just population migration like how Jews left their native countries to come to Israel.

Moreover please name the regiments of INA and you will see how like minded it was to Congress.

I know: Gandhi Regiment, Nehru Regiment etc. But what's in a name when their actions were different? I am not saying that INA was divine and supreme good; it was simply a better model than what shamocracy gave us.

The fellow did not even hold up in Burma for couple of months, there was no way he could have reached Delhi. The INA's impact on the war and on British India after the war has been analyzed in detail. The INA's role in military terms is considered to be relatively insignificant, given its small numerical strength, lack of heavy weapons, relative dependence on Japanese logistics and planning as well as its lack of independent planning. He never stood a fighting chance to gain any ground, it is only a propaganda in Modern India about INAs strength, in reality it was nothing and it would have never ever succeeded.

Sadly yes. Because INA did not have a national foundation and more or less was like a unit. Their victory depended entirely on Axis' victory.

Then who asked you to respond to my opinion? I like your posts and i think over all your a nice dude but i dont agree with you on this one, simply because it could have never ever happened.

Appreciate your compliment man. But I just recommended a chat for history section with the admin that's all. Nothing serious.

 

[The Messiah]

Idea of a separate nation came late in the day and was a power play between nehru and jinnah.

I agree that by eliminating top leadership of separatist muslims would have not caused problems if they were replaced by sensible people and also by eliminating few hindu radicals that were at the other end. For it to succeed the message would have to be nationalistic rather than religious.

 

[civfanatic]

Idea of a separate nation came late in the day and was a power play between nehru and jinnah.

I agree that by eliminating top leadership of separatist muslims would have not caused problems if they were replaced by sensible people and also by eliminating few hindu radicals that were at the other end. For it to succeed the message would have to be nationalistic rather than religious.

The creation of Pakistan was almost entirely the result of political moves by the British.

 

[GPM]

Previously Jinnah's agenda was being served admirably. But in mid 40s he proposed to Lord Wellingdon an Anglo-muslim condiminium over India, leaving Hindus almost no political rights. But Wellingdon rejected it. When Jinnah realised that in a new set up, the muslims would lose many privileges, he demanded Pakistan. That created a total muslim support for ML, so much so that every muslim candidate of Congress was defeated in UP, including the show boy Maulana Azad.