I'm torn about this. India is a much more pluralistic society, and Pakistan is a failed state. But one of the points made early on in the article makes it seem as if the Partition was entirely Pakistan's idea, and the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people who died were all innocent Hindus being slaughtered at the hands of murderous Muslims. "But violence erupted, and it quickly became clear that in the new homeland for India's Muslims, there would be no place for its non-Muslim communities. Pakistan and India came into being at the cost of a million lives and the largest migration in history." Which is far from the reality; it was a clusterfuck all around, and communal violence was the rule of the day on both sides of the partition line.
It wasn't just Muslims in the 30s who called for two separate states. Many Hindus did too. It's true, the most prominent Hindu in the struggle (Gandhi) wanted a single state and tried to (in theory, at least) accommodate the large Muslim minority. For those efforts he was assassinated by a religious extremist.
Of course, you hear religious extremist and you might assume it was some Muslim who thought Gandhi was too effective a voice for unity. To the contrary, it was a Hindu nationalist who thought Gandhi was a sellout to the Muslims.
This strain of Hindu nationalism that endorses the use of violence has appeared again and again. As recently as 2002 a riot occurred in which a Hindu mob murdered around a thousand Muslims.
All this isn't to say the Muslims on the subcontinent are all paragons of virtue and liberalism. They aren't. But the story the author tells is just a pleasant story, meant to appeal to the baser instincts of Wall Street Journal readers. Maybe more than that, it's a story meant to appeal to India's own self conception, where it's as pure as snow and it's those dastardly Pakistanis who've made everything terrible.
Who says there are no extremists in Hinduism? Every religion has its fair share.
And its true our neighbor is a failed state and made everything terrible. Given a choice about living in India or any of our neighbors, everyone will choose India. Because we are pluralistic society where every religion is respected, which is not true about our neighbor!
And this article doesn't appeal India's self conception, this article speaks reality!
This is roughly what happened. The British cabinet committee had originally proposed a 3-tier federation: with the center at the top, a provincial grouping of states in the middle, and states at the bottom. There were 3 'groups': A: Hindu-majority areas of the North, West and South B: Muslim-majority areas of the North-West, C: Bengal and Assam. Jinnah and the communists had agreed to this plan, Nehru wanted to defer the decision to the Constituent Assembly. Jinnah saw this as a 'betrayal' and withdrew his support. Eventually, when this plan seemed in jeopardy, the cabinet committee proposed Partition. Jinnah accepted, Nehru disagreed. And then 'Direct Action Day' and riots happened. No looking back after that.
Comments
I'm torn about this. India is a much more pluralistic society, and Pakistan is a failed state. But one of the points made early on in the article makes it seem as if the Partition was entirely Pakistan's idea, and the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people who died were all innocent Hindus being slaughtered at the hands of murderous Muslims. "But violence erupted, and it quickly became clear that in the new homeland for India's Muslims, there would be no place for its non-Muslim communities. Pakistan and India came into being at the cost of a million lives and the largest migration in history." Which is far from the reality; it was a clusterfuck all around, and communal violence was the rule of the day on both sides of the partition line.
It wasn't just Muslims in the 30s who called for two separate states. Many Hindus did too. It's true, the most prominent Hindu in the struggle (Gandhi) wanted a single state and tried to (in theory, at least) accommodate the large Muslim minority. For those efforts he was assassinated by a religious extremist.
Of course, you hear religious extremist and you might assume it was some Muslim who thought Gandhi was too effective a voice for unity. To the contrary, it was a Hindu nationalist who thought Gandhi was a sellout to the Muslims.
This strain of Hindu nationalism that endorses the use of violence has appeared again and again. As recently as 2002 a riot occurred in which a Hindu mob murdered around a thousand Muslims.
All this isn't to say the Muslims on the subcontinent are all paragons of virtue and liberalism. They aren't. But the story the author tells is just a pleasant story, meant to appeal to the baser instincts of Wall Street Journal readers. Maybe more than that, it's a story meant to appeal to India's own self conception, where it's as pure as snow and it's those dastardly Pakistanis who've made everything terrible.
Who says there are no extremists in Hinduism? Every religion has its fair share.
And its true our neighbor is a failed state and made everything terrible. Given a choice about living in India or any of our neighbors, everyone will choose India. Because we are pluralistic society where every religion is respected, which is not true about our neighbor!
And this article doesn't appeal India's self conception, this article speaks reality!
You're right about the history of Partition.
This is roughly what happened. The British cabinet committee had originally proposed a 3-tier federation: with the center at the top, a provincial grouping of states in the middle, and states at the bottom. There were 3 'groups': A: Hindu-majority areas of the North, West and South B: Muslim-majority areas of the North-West, C: Bengal and Assam. Jinnah and the communists had agreed to this plan, Nehru wanted to defer the decision to the Constituent Assembly. Jinnah saw this as a 'betrayal' and withdrew his support. Eventually, when this plan seemed in jeopardy, the cabinet committee proposed Partition. Jinnah accepted, Nehru disagreed. And then 'Direct Action Day' and riots happened. No looking back after that.