What were India and Pakistan like before becoming Republics?

[MNoBody]

This was succinctly put by Saint Tulsi Das in a verse in his venerable Ramayana, 'Ram Charit Manas' - "kohu bhaye raja hamein ka hani?" (What loss do we suffer whoever be the king?), meaning that whoever ruled, people will have to pay taxes. So, empires and kings came and went, life nevertheless went on. Perhaps Indian had a better understanding of history.

yet it is so passive a stance....
life may be a dream,[maya, illusionary]
however what happens in the dream may be relevant in the context of the dream,
[It certainly seems to hold true, since one does not reap if they will not sow, typically -causality seems quirky that way]
and perhaps it has relevance "outside' the dream as well.

 

[Aupmanyav]

There was little that both Hindus and Muslims seem to have enjoyed more, as partition was ongoing, then slaughtering each other as they went their separate directions.

That too at that time, but then came Cricket, music, poetry, sufiism; and of course, Bollywood, kebab and biryani; and the languages Urdu, Sindhi, Punjabi, Saraiki, Multani, Jhangvi. I think we have too many things common between us to keep on hating each other.

 

[Aupmanyav]

yet it is so passive a stance....

Hindi film song (Film: Navrang, Writer: Bharat Vyas Singer: Mahendra Kapoor, Music: Ramchandra Chitalkar)

nā rāja rahega, nā rāni rahegī
yeh dunīya hai fanī fanī rahegī
yeh matī hai tabse nā jab tum the āye
yeh matī rahegī nā jab tum rahoge
is matī ke niche dabī sab kahānī
yeh khud hī kahegī re tum kya kahoge

Neither the king will remain nor the queen
this world is impermanent, it will remain impermanent
this soil is here since before you came
this soil will remain when you will not exist
all stories are buried beneath this soil
it will itself tell the story, it will not ask you to recount?

 

[exchemist]

Modi's rule will not change the picture in any way. Muslims will continue with their life as they were doing all this time. The Indian Constitution and the Indian Supreme Court has ruled for a uniform civil code. And that should be coming soon, perhaps before Indian goes to polls again in Feb. '24. A separate Muslim personal law will not last long. It is for this that Modi and the clerics are in conflict. A uniform civil code will pull the rug from under the feet of the clerics. And it will be good in general for Muslims and especially for Muslim women.

I do hope you are right. Modi seems to like to fan the flames of Hindu nationalism and to want to make Muslims feel unwelcome. A determinedly secular rule of law and constitution in India seems critical to me, for a healthy and tranquil society.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Modi seems to like to fan the flames of Hindu nationalism and to want to make Muslims feel unwelcome. A determinedly secular rule of law and constitution in India seems critical to me, for a healthy and tranquil society.

Modi is not doing anything of the sort. What all he has done till now is to make the practice of divorce by Muslim men on utterance of the word 'divorce' (Talaq) thrice 'at one go' unlawful. This was patently unfair to Muslim women. As per Muslim personal law, they can get divorce on on the pleasure of their husbands. Indian Constitution mandates equal rights for men and women. If Muslim men are angry because of this, they are most welcome to be angry. A law passed by both houses of the parliament according to regulations of the Constitution will not be retracted. This practice is banned in many other Islamic countries also. Part of the problem are the opposition parties whom Modi's party has replaced and who are inciting Muslims especially the former dynastic ruling party (Gandhis).

 

[pearl]

That is not true. India has no hatred for UK. What has happened has happened. How does it matter now? India and UK have had excellent relations during the last 72 years. India was a mature nation even when it became independent. I do not say that we did not make mistakes.

I wasn't referring to the UK but to the Hindu and Muslim population which I thought were united against the common enemy, the UK. I know little about it beyond the movie 'Gandhi', but found this that seems to support the creation of a new state, Pakistan.

In February 1947, the British government announced that India would be granted independence by June 1948. Viceroy for India Louis Mountbatten (1900–1979) pleaded with the Hindu and Muslim leaders to agree to form a united country, but they could not. Only Gandhi supported Mountbatten's position. With the country descending further into chaos, Mountbatten reluctantly agreed to the formation of two separate states.
Mountbatten proposed that the new state of Pakistan would be created from the Muslim-majority provinces of Baluchistan and Sindh, and the two contested provinces of Punjab and Bengal would be halved, creating a Hindu Bengal and Punjab, and Muslim Bengal and Punjab. The plan gained agreement from the Muslim League and the INC, and it was announced on June 3, 1947. The date for independence was moved up to Aug. 15, 1947, and all that was left was "fine-tuning," determining the physical border separating the two new states.
How India and Pakistan Were Created

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. but found this that seems to support the creation of a new state, Pakistan.

The Muslims were adamant on getting a country of their own, so, there was no other option.
There were killings in Muslim dominated Punjab and Bengal.

"In the few years before the partition, the Muslim League "monetarily subsidized" mobs that engaged in communal violence against Hindus and Sikhs in the areas of Multan, Rawalpindi, Campbellpur, Jhelum and Sargodha, as well as in the Hazara District. The Muslim League paid assassins money for every Hindu and Sikh they murdered. As such, leaders of the Muslim League, including Muhammad Ali Jinnah, issued no condemnation of the violence against Hindus and Sikhs in the Punjab."
All-India Muslim League - Wikipedia

 

[Shad]

OK, that's not the Civil War, then, it was 30 years after the Restoration. I presume that is what you mean by post Cvil War.

I used the term in a general as Parliament exercised far more power during the Civil War and after compared to previous Parliaments. Charles was executed after all. James the 2nd being disposed was the writing on the wall for William.

 

[Shad]

it has always been a curiosity to me as to how such an ancient and venerable culture such as India, with such rich heritage and traditions going back to pre-history, could be so easily put to hand by such upstarts as those the so called 'modern-age' landed on those shores.
That to me has been far more interesting than the ensuing historical account from that point.

The British, and other Europeans, used the divisions within India which existed already and the Mughal Empire's collapse to gain control over various nobles by force and money. There was no real political unity across the board.

 

[MNoBody]

The British, and other Europeans, used the divisions within India which existed already and the Mughal Empire's collapse to gain control over various nobles by force and money. There was no real political unity across the board.

well, yes, I have read some of the history over the years, it was just thought that i had at some point in the past while paying attention to that area of world history which i figured was worth mentioning

 

[exchemist]

I used the term in a general as Parliament exercised far more power during the Civil War and after compared to previous Parliaments. Charles was executed after all. James the 2nd being disposed was the writing on the wall for William.

I don't think that's quite fair to William of Orange. He was after all not a monarch in the Dutch Republic but the Stadhouder, with limited powers conferred on him by the member states and technically, if not in practice, chosen by them. So William would have been quite used to the idea of being constrained in what he could do by a wider body of representatives, with whom he was expected to collaborate.

 

[Shad]

I don't think that's quite fair to William of Orange. He was after all not a monarch in the Dutch Republic but the Stadhouder, with limited powers conferred on him by the member states and technically, if not in practice, chosen by them. So William would have been quite used to the idea of being constrained in what he could do by a wider body of representatives, with whom he was expected to collaborate.

Writing on the wall was regarding Parliament's position off the Crown as a power itself

 

[ronki23]

I'm confused- according to Wikipedia the Muslims who wanted to keep Pakistan (and Bangladesh) as part of India outnumbered the ones who wanted independence,

“The attendance at the Nationalist meeting was about five times than the attendance at the League meeting.” (The Bombay Chronicle, Apr.18, 1946

Also according to Wikipedia it says Bangladesh's Awami League was a remenant of the Muslim league but it also says Bangladesh's human rights for non Muslims tend to be better under Awami League

@Aupmanyav

 

[ronki23]

Is this true @Aupmanyav

I'm confused- according to Wikipedia the Muslims who wanted to keep Pakistan (and Bangladesh) as part of India outnumbered the ones who wanted independence,

“The attendance at the Nationalist meeting was about five times than the attendance at the League meeting.” (The Bombay Chronicle, Apr.18, 1946

Also according to Wikipedia it says Bangladesh's Awami League was a remenant of the Muslim league but it also says Bangladesh's human rights for non Muslims tend to be better under Awami League

@Aupmanyav

 

[Aupmanyav]

“The attendance at the Nationalist meeting was about five times than the attendance at the League meeting.” (The Bombay Chronicle, Apr.18, 1946)
@Aupmanyav

You have not given the link to the page from where you got this line.

 

[ronki23]

You have not given the link to the page from where you got this line.

All India Azad Muslim Conference - Wikipedia

 

[Aupmanyav]

Well, in the end the Muslim League prevailed and not the Azad Muslim League. And that was 72 years ago. Much water has flowed in River Indus since.

 

[ronki23]

Well, in the end the Muslim League prevailed and not the Azad Muslim League. And that was 72 years ago. Much water has flowed in River Indus since.

Was it because of Direct Action Day ? Surely a minority can't sour centuries of friendship between Hindus/Sikhs/Jains and Muslims unless they did something drastic ?

The Wikipedia states Bangladesh 's Awami League was an offshoot of the Muslim League but I thought Hindus and Christians in Bangladesh vote for Awami League ?

 

[Stevicus]

This was succinctly put by Saint Tulsi Das in a verse in his venerable Ramayana, 'Ram Charit Manas' - "kohu bhaye raja hamein ka hani?" (What loss do we suffer whoever be the king?), meaning that whoever ruled, people will have to pay taxes. So, empires and kings came and went, life nevertheless went on. Perhaps Indians had a better understanding of history.

It sounds like similar sentiments are shared by a good many US citizens, regardless of whoever gets elected president. It's a kind of "go with the flow" philosophy that a lot of Americans live by. (Not me, of course. I'm more of a "swim against the current" kind of guy.)

Nonetheless, it seems after a while, the people of India made it clear that the British had worn out their welcome.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Was it because of Direct Action Day ? Surely a minority can't sour centuries of friendship between Hindus/Sikhs/Jains and Muslims unless they did something drastic ?
The Wikipedia states Bangladesh 's Awami League was an offshoot of the Muslim League but I thought Hindus and Christians in Bangladesh vote for Awami League ?

Ronki, why are you so concerned about what happened 75 or 100 years ago? It is a different world now, the Covid-19 world! It is Modi's India and Bajwa's Pakistan.
What is, IS. We hardly think about it.

.. the people of India made it clear that the British had worn out their welcome.

Clement Attlee's labor government decided that it was not profitable for Britain to persist with the empire dream.