Jump to content

Talk:Partition of India

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bookishness (talk | contribs) at 21:01, 1 October 2013 (→‎POV issues with the article: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured article candidatePartition of India is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 16, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted

Template:Past cotw


Treatment of minorities

Few days ago User:Pee3.14159 with this edit added some content along with a source. While reading the same source I found some more related information and added it, but it was changed to a version that is grossly misrepresentation of the source. I have tried explaining to the user to on his/her talk but this seems futile. --SMS Talk 19:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it is misrepresented revert it. Ih he does not listen warn him about the sanctions in the topic area, failing that file an AE. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to understand why this content is being removed:
Pakistani Hindus worst victims of rape: US report[1]--Pee3.14159 (talk) 23:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1947 India partition memorial

More than a million were killed in this migration. Total of 15 to 18 million people migrated from one to other country. Absolutely there was no law and order. British were leaving and new country Pakistan was born. Hindus and Sikhs from Pakistan were moving to India side and Muslims from India were migrating to Pakistan side. British probably should have supervised this migration.

This was not a war by any means. People were given choice to move if they wished. It could have been done in a orderly fashion. More than million people who lost their lives were totally innocent people, with absolutely no fault of their own. I would say they got into circumstances. I believe India and Pakistan governments should hav thought about a monument and historical archives at the border. At least should have promoted the idea at private level if not public. It is still time, that like minded people to come forward and let us do something. We have daily events at the wagah border and a monument along with will be a wise investment.

I am willing to work on this project but we need many more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.140.21.202 (talk) 02:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed changes

Please list major changes here.--Crème3.14159 (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make nonsensical edits. This page is a part of the "Colonial India" template. It covers subcontinental history until 1948. I am the main contributor to this article. See here. I've been working on it for 6 years, not like you for one week in August 2013. I've added pretty much all the maps and pictures from personal copies. I know what the page is about. It is not about the status of minorities in India or Pakistan today. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes

Would User:Crème3.14159 please explain why he thinks the treatment of minorities deserves to be in an article on partition? Darkness Shines (talk) 07:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I did not create the subsection. I readded it because it was unjustifiabley removed by Fowler&fowler. The reason why it needs to be there because the whole idea of Partition is based on majority-minority concept- Hindus being majority and Muslims being minority in India, and the opposite in Pakistan. Hence, it is pertinent that in the "Aftermath" section of the article, treatment of minorities be given its due place, regardless of how it makes one feel and the mention of four wars and arms race not be expunged simply because Fowler&fowler dislikes it. As far as I can see, nobody prior to Fowler&fowler's sanitization of the page had ever even proposed removing the bit about war and minorities. So, how come it is suddenly a national issue?--Crème3.14159 (talk) 08:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see here[1], Fowler&fowler was happily contributing to the minorities subsection. What has suddenly made him so outraged that he expunged large portions of text on minorities (demographics etc), calling it irrelevant and "personal grievances based on family lore"? How come nobody had a problem all these years?--Crème3.14159 (talk) 09:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
C-3, I wasn't happily contributing, only making minor corrections because I was away and did not have time. I do have time now. That is why I cleaned up the article, which had a pro-India spin, such as connecting "religious demographics" to the "Two-nation theory" in the lead, which I also did away with, etc. etc. The British did not accept the two-nation theory; they partitioned the subcontinent because there was no other way for them to leave it without a much greater level of carnage than happened in 1947; eventually Nehru and Patel came to agree with their assessment and agreed (though they too did not accept the two-nation theory). People, usually those favoring the Indian POV have been adding biased, cherry picked statements, which are sourced to books published by Concept Publishers in Delhi, which have already been deemed unreliable on many WT:INDIA discussions. On the other hand, the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in the princely states of Rajasthan and the Sikh states of East Punjab, reliably written up by some of the best historians of the partition, such as Ian Copeland, go unmentioned. What does a listing of the religious demographics of India and Pakistan have to do with the partition? If you are going to include that, why not include everything: economy (which would have been different if the BIE had not been split), cricket and field hockey, Al Qaeda, Osama, etc etc. All those histories might have been different if the partition had not occurred. This article, as I've said, is about the partition and its immediate aftermath, and about the lives of those directly affected by the partition, not those of their children, grandchildren, and fellow sympathizers, whether they are Hindu nationalist or Muslim nationalist. There are already two sections on the settlement of refugees. That is as far as the article goes. Besides all these new disputed sections mention parent articles (and indeed the sections you have added to do), but they are not higher level summaries of the parent articles; rather, they are independent articles with different sources. Indeed, you C-3, have made no contributions to any of the parent articles. I will be moving those sections to a section here on the talk page and we can discuss the fine points here, but they don't belong to the main article. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed Sections

I'm happy to discuss the disputed sections, which I have moved below:

Treatment of minorities by Pakistan and India

Further information: Hinduism in Pakistan
Further information: Persecution of Muslims § Communal violence in India
1971 newsreel film about the partition and its aftermath

Before independence, Hindus and Sikhs had formed 20 per cent of the population of the areas now forming Pakistan, presently the percentage has "whittled down to one-and-a half percent".[2]: 66  M. C. Chagla, in a speech at the UN General Assembly said that, Pakistan solved its minority problem by the ethnic cleansing of the Hindus, resulting in "hardly any" Hindu minority population in West Pakistan.[3] India suspected Pakistan of ethnic cleansing when millions of Hindus fled its province of East Pakistan in 1971.[4] Hindus remaining in Pakistan have been persecuted.[5][6] Yasmin Saikia writes that "although a large number of Muslims migrated to Pakistan in 1947, the bulk of the Muslim population chose to stay in their homelands in India".[7] According to Azim A. Khan Sherwani, the Hashimpura massacre case is "a chilling reminder of the apathy of the (Indian) state towards access to justice for Muslims", he writes that the case demonstrates that it is not just the Hindutva lobby, but also the Congress-Left and the socialists that are apathetic, and that Muslim "leaders" are more concerned with their personal ambitions and not with "issues afflicting the community".[8] In Pakistan, Hindus have been facing discrimination and often forced to convert to Islam.[9][10]

Pakistan tried preventing Harijans (untouchables etc) from leaving Pakistan so that they stayed to clean toilets and other things. To this effect, the Government there passed the Essential Services Maintenance Act barring their emigration.[11] Eagerness to woo the Harijans was shown by India by instituting constitutional reforms for their upliftment[12] and setting up of various institutions for their rehabilitation.[13]

Integration of refugee populations with their new countries did not always go smoothly. Some Urdu speaking Muslims (Muhajirs) who migrated to Pakistan have at certain times complained of discrimination in government employment. Municipal political conflict in Karachi, Pakistan's largest city, often pitted native Sindhis against Muhajir settlers. Sindhi, Bengali, and Punjabi refugees in India also experienced poverty and other social issues as they largely came empty-handed. However, fifty years after partition, almost all ex-refugees have managed to rebuild their lives[citation needed]. The repression of minorities in Pakistan remains a global concern but Pakistani politicians have largely ignored the issue. Those who have attempted to lobby or campaign on this issue have been threatened and murdered like Sherry Rehman, and Salman Taseer and Shahbaz Bhatti.[14]

All three nations resulting from the partition of India have had to deal with endemic civil conflicts. Inside India, these have been largely due to inter-religious unrest and disruptive far left forces. Civil unrest inside India includes:

Within Pakistan, unrest is mainly because of ethnicities, with Sindhis, Bengalis, Balochis, all vying for more representation within the federation and in some cases, the creation of an independent state.

Current religious demographics of India proper and former East and West Pakistan

Despite the huge migrations during and after Partition, India is still home to the third largest Muslim population in the world (after Indonesia and Pakistan). The current estimates for India (see Demographics of India) are as shown below. Islamic Pakistan, the former West Pakistan, by contrast, has a much smaller minority population. Its religious distribution is below (see Demographics of Pakistan). As for Bangladesh, the former East Pakistan, the non-Muslim share is somewhat larger (see Demographics of Bangladesh):

India (2006 Est. 1,095 million vs. 1951 Census 361 million)

  • 80.5% Hindus (839 million)
  • 13.10% Muslims (143 million)
  • 2.31% Christians (25 million)
  • 2.00% Sikhs (21 million)
  • 1.94% Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and others (20 million)

Pakistan (2005 Est. 162 million vs. 1951 Census 34 million)

  • 98.0% Muslims (159 million)
  • 1.0% Christians (1.62 million)
  • 1.0% Hindus, Sikhs and others (1.62 million)

Bangladesh (2005 Est. 144 million vs. 1951 Census 42 million)

  • 86% Muslims (124 million)
  • 13% Hindus (18 million)
  • 1% Christians, Buddhists and Animists (1.44 million)

India and Pakistan after the Partition

Main article: Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts

In the aftermath of the bloody Partition, India and Pakistan have had strained relations. One of the biggest contentions is over the disputed region of Kashmir, over which there have been three wars. India and Pakistan have fought the following four wars since:

  • Indo-Pakistani War of 1965: Pakistani-backed guerrillas invaded Jammu & Kashmir state of India. India is generally believed to have had the upper hand when a ceasefire was called. Whereas Pakistan believed its air-superiority over army and navy against India in the war to be key achievement and future success if war continued.[25]

India and Pakistan have also engaged in a nuclear arms race.

Discussion of these disputed sections

Let us discuss the issues here rather than edit-warring on the main page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler's issues

Colonial India
British Indian Empire
Imperial entities of India
Austrian India 1778–1785
Swedish India 1731–1813
Dutch India 1605–1825
Danish India 1620–1869
French India 1668–1954
Portuguese India
(1505–1961)
Casa da Índia 1434–1833
Portuguese East India Company 1628–1633
British India
(1600–1947)
EIC in India 1600–1757
Company rule in India 1757–1858
British rule in Portuguese India 1797–1813
British Raj 1858–1947
British rule in Burma 1824–1948
Princely states 1721–1949
Partition of India 1947
  • Main issue: This section and those below it are outside the scope of the Partition of India page. The page is a part of the "Colonial India" template; in fact, colonial India ends with the partition. It is OK to have sections on the rehabilitation (or lack thereof) of the refugees of the partition, but what does the status of minorities have to do with the partition? What does the simple list of the various wars fought between India and Pakistan have to do with the partition?
  • Minor Issues: M. C. Chagla was India's rep to the UN. Why is his take notable, reliable or neutral but not that of Muhammad Zafarullah Khan, his Pakistani counterpart? Indeed where is Khan's response? Where is the balance? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

username1's issues

username2's issues

References

  1. ^ "Pakistani Hindus worst victims of rape: US report". Times of India. Jul 19, 2013.
  2. ^ Outlook. Hathway Investments Pvt Ltd. 2003. Retrieved 25 March 2012.
  3. ^ Jai Narain Sharma (1 January 2008). Encyclopaedia of eminent thinkers. Concept Publishing Company. pp. 20–. ISBN 978-81-8069-493-6. Retrieved 25 March 2012.
  4. ^ Rainer Münz; Myron Weiner (1997). Migrants, refugees, and foreign policy: U.S. and German policies toward countries of origin. Berghahn Books. pp. 276–. ISBN 978-1-57181-087-8. Retrieved 25 March 2012.
  5. ^ US Congress religious freedom report on Pakistan, 2006. State.gov.
  6. ^ US Congress religious freedom report on Pakistan, 2004. State.gov.
  7. ^ Yasmin Saikia (2005). Assam and India: fragmented memories, cultural identity, and the Tai-Ahom struggle. Permanent Black. p. 44. ISBN 978-81-7824-123-4. Retrieved 25 March 2012.
  8. ^ Khan Sherwani, Azim A. (26 September 2006). "Hashimpura Muslim Massacre Trial Reopens: Can Justice Be Expected?". Countercurrents.org. Kumaranalloor PO, Kottayam District, Kerala. Retrieved 25 March 2012.
  9. ^ "In pictures: Hindus in Pakistan". BBC News. Retrieved 4 July 2012.
  10. ^ Walsh, DEclan (25 March 2012). "In Pakistan, Hindus Say Woman's Conversion to Islam Was Coerced". New York Times. Retrieved 6 July 2012.
  11. ^ Bhutalia, Urvashi (2000). The Other Side of Silence: Voices from the Partition of India. Duke University Press.
  12. ^ "Constitution of a High Level Committee to prepare a report on the socioeconomic, health and educational status of the tribal communities of India" (Press release). Press Information Bureau , Government of India. 17-August, 2013. Retrieved 18-August, 2013. {{cite press release}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
  13. ^ Urvashi Butalia (27 August 1998). The Other Side of Silence: Voices from the Partition of India. Penguin Books. p. 323. ISBN 978-0140271713. Retrieved 22 August 2013.
  14. ^ Saeed, Nasir (July 30, 2013). "PAKISTAN: World's concern about minorities in Pakistan". Asian Human Rights Commission.
  15. ^ Kumar, Ram Narayan, et al., Reduced to Ashes: The Insurgency and Human Rights in Punjab, p. IV.
  16. ^ The Kashmiri Pandits: An Ethnic Cleansing the World Forgot,South Asia Terrorism Portal
  17. ^ Back to roots: Kashmiri Pandit youth fight back,Rediff.com
  18. ^ Katzman, Joe. (30 October 2005) Kashmir's Ethnic Cleansing & the Strangling of Tolerant Islam. Windsofchange.net.
  19. ^ The South Asian Overlooked and ignored – Kashmiri Hindus
  20. ^ Panun Kashmir. Panun Kashmir.
  21. ^ "Has the peace process forgotten the Pandits". September 22, 2005.
  22. ^ Bajoria, Jayshree; Kaplan, Eben (May 4, 2011). "The ISI and Terrorism: Behind the Accusations". Council on Foreign Relations.
  23. ^ Bodansky, Yossef; Forrest, Vaughan S. (June 22, 1994)). "Paskistan Supports Terrorist Rebels In Kashmir (Extension of Remarks)". Federation of American Scientists. House of Representatives, USA. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  24. ^ Leading News Resource of Pakistan. Daily Times (14 June 2005).
  25. ^ The 1965 war with Pakistan – Encyclopædia Britannica
  26. ^ India encircles rebels on Kashmir mountaintop[dead link], CNN

POV tag

Currently the text of this article is not adhering to the WP:NPOV policy and for this reason I am tagging it as such. Unless the so obvious NPOV issues are resolved this tag will stand ( like the use of word "touted"). --SMS Talk 15:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

POV issues with the article

Please discuss any POV issues with the article here. I believe that merely quoting Ambedkar on Savarkar (an enemy of the Congress) is not enough but a quote from Jinnah should be included as well, in particular, that on civil war and Direct Action Day. Neither Ambedkar, nor Savarkar had any say in the Partition, it should be noted. --Bookishness (talk) 21:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Partition_of_India&oldid=575342630"