--- "Dr. U. G. Barad" wrote: > > Without taking much space of Goa Net, I conclude > saying, had it not for Jawaharlal Nehru and Mahatma > Gandhi combine, our India would have continued > to be one single nation not bifurcated into India > and Pakistan. This is because Nehru's weakness was > taken advantage of by Lady Mountbatten who was > then the Vice-Roy of India. > Carvalho elisabeth_car at yahoo.com Tue Feb 5 14:23:21 PST 2008 > The creation of Pakistan has meant breathing space for Muslims in India, to grow in a democratic, secular country away, at least in part, from the yoke of Islam. Pakistan is testimony to how impoverished a political ideology shaped by Islamic fervour can be. Without Pakistan, you can be assured our energies would be frittered away on countless imagined slights blown out of proportion. And I use the word "blown" loosely. > Mario responds: > Dr. Barad, exactly when was Lady Mountbatten the Vice-Roy of India? I must have been pre-occupied when that happened. Oh, I get it. She was engaged in Vice in India:-)) Good one, Dr. Barad:-)) > Selmabai, > I disagree with your analysis of the "benefits" of the partition of the sub-continent, which I would argue was one of the most unfortunate and costly decisions in modern history. Here is a different view. > Nehru and Gandhi could do little to stop it - the partition was a demand of the paranoid and radical section among Indian Muslims led by Jinnah and the concept was unfortunately accepted by the Brits. Some have argued that Jinnah would have settled for being the PM of an undivided India, but Nehru wanted that post for himself. > As it turned out, most of the radicals, the radical-leaning, and the paranoid Indian Muslims followed Jinnah into Pakistan, and Pakistan's radicalism and continuing political mess is based on this skewed and misguided sample of Muslims, with its corresponding lack of diversity. Their periodic bouts of "democracy" last only as long as the Generals allow it to. > On the other hand, the sensible Muslims stayed behind and, because of this, the mentality of Indian Muslims is completely different and more secular than that of their religious brothers across the border. > Had there been no partition of the sub-continent Muslims would have been some 28% of the population of an undivided India, instead of 14%, which would have provided far more balance to the already secular-leaning Indian population. The radical Muslims would have been neutralized by the moderates who slightly outnumber them and would have acted as a calming influence on their Islamic fervor which is enhanced by the fact that almost all Pakistanis are Muslim. Over time, I believe the radical Muslims would have seen the benefits of living in a secular democracy. > The greater religious balance would have also benefited the smaller religious communities in India and offset the power of the Hindu-supremacists. > There would have been no Kashmir problem, no expensive competing nuclear interests, no border conflicts. BILLIONS in time, angst and treasure would have been saved that have been wasted in the ongoing conflicts between India and Pakistan, and the sub-continent would have been far more stable and stronger because of it. >