Separation of subcontinent
 

I read a theory that the division of subcontinent in 1947 into independent States was not as it is presented, as the result of struggle by people of subcontinent, but it was merely another implementation of "divide and rule". As if English had left India as a single country it may have emerged as another super power, and a threat to currently super powers. So they divided it into piece and left Kashmir and other as conflict so that countries remain busy in local conflicts and slow down their own development . Remain divided and being ruled by others.

Your analysis regarding to this will be highly appreciated.
Regards

A.O.A,

It's a bit lengthy and boring but you'll find a few of your answers in it.

First of all, our history is distorted. The struggle for Pakistan was started by Ch. Rehmat Ali and not by M.A Jinnah or M. Iqbal, Jinnah was a politician, Iqbal was a poet and Ch Rehmat was a student leader who started his movement for a separate homeland way before 1930's by distributing a 'Now or Never' pamphlet among the Muslims, So Mr. Rehmat Ali's Pakistan was:

'P' for Punjab
'A' for Assam and Bengal
'K' for Kashmir
'I' for Indus (Sindh)
'S' for Sarhad 'Frontier' (now K.P.K)
'Tan' for for Balochistan's 'tan'

Mr. Rehmat Ali's Pakistan was scattered in the partition process because the major cities of Muslim culture and majority were awarded to the Hindus i.e Dehli, Agra, Lucknow etc. Now after the evacuation of Assam, Bengal and Kashmir, the word 'Pakistan' should be 'Pistan' because the country has no longer its real ideology which was the so called 'Two Nation Theory' and the cleverest phase of the Britishers 'Divide and Rule' policy, which was started from Aligarh, after the British principal of Aligarh brainwashed Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, also the Syed Ahmed Shaheed's movement was another face of Britishers former policy, he waged a holy war against the Sikhs but not against the Englishmen.

Mr. Jinnah was a blind supporter of combined India, because Muslims and Hindus were living peacefully together also there were no sectarian problems throughout the subcontinent but all this was before the 18th century but when the Britisher's stepped in this part of the world, the subcontinent was never the same again nor are there any possibilities that this continent will recall its peace and prosperity unless there's a miracle of God. There's a lot of historic evidence that the clashes between Hindus and Muslims and the sectarian plantation were the real milestones of England in this continent, but the sad part of the story is that we are not aware of our history, we are only taught that our ancestors were lying dead on the day of independence and our territory is the result of the most bloodiest revolutions in the history but that is not true.

A super-power in this region can only emerge by having a war-treaty signed among all countries of the continent of Asia, which is almost impossible. Right now we have troubles regarding our all fronts, if we are at war with India on the western front, none of our fronts are secured, the point is that India-Pakistan peace must be held at any costs. On the Eastern front, the situation has changed sufficiently, after the evacuation of U.S troops in Afghanistan, we will find some trouble on the entire 'Durand Line' and also our eastern front with Iran is not as secure as it was in the past. A communist China, a Hindu India, a Shia Iran and a Pentagon controlled Afghanistan are all the neighbours that a politically unstable Pakistan have.

Well that's a vast discussion and will never bring us to some satisfactory conclusion, because that was our past. Currently we have a wonderful land and we are an efficient atomic power of the world, we have to move forward at all costs, but again the saddest part of the story is that the country's democratic leaders are having problems of their own, some want to enjoy their democratic term, some are blaming rigging and electoral system and some are dealing with the impossibles i.e baseless revolutions etc. The youth of this soil, under these circumstances, are failing to devote their entire energies in the development of this country. The way the Muslims are being treated in several parts of the world is no longer a top secret. Inside the country we must forget our sect, caste etc and being a nationalist we all must play our part to serve and save the country. Long Live Pakistan!


I tried hard to answer your questions, but they're very complicated.
Thank you!
With best regards!

[QUOTE=BabarRehmanShah;742466]A.O.A,

It's a bit lengthy and boring but you'll find a few of your answers in it.

First of all, our history is distorted. The struggle for Pakistan was started by Ch. Rehmat Ali and not by M.A Jinnah or M. Iqbal, Jinnah was a politician, Iqbal was a poet and Ch Rehmat was a student leader who started his movement for a separate homeland way before 1930's by distributing a 'Now or Never' pamphlet among the Muslims, So Mr. Rehmat Ali's Pakistan was:

'P' for Punjab
'A' for Assam and Bengal
'K' for Kashmir
'I' for Indus (Sindh)
'S' for Sarhad 'Frontier' (now K.P.K)
'Tan' for for Balochistan's 'tan'

Mr. Rehmat Ali's Pakistan was scattered in the partition process because the major cities of Muslim culture and majority were awarded to the Hindus i.e Dehli, Agra, Lucknow etc. Now after the evacuation of Assam, Bengal and Kashmir, the word 'Pakistan' should be 'Pistan' because the country has no longer its real ideology which was the so called 'Two Nation Theory' and the [B]cleverest phase of the Britishers 'Divide and Rule' policy, which was started from Aligarh, after the British principal of Aligarh brainwashed Sir Syed Ahmed Khan[/B], also the Syed Ahmed Shaheed's movement was another face of Britishers former policy, he waged a holy war against the Sikhs but not against the Englishmen.

Mr. Jinnah was a blind supporter of combined India, because Muslims and Hindus were living peacefully together also there were no sectarian problems throughout the subcontinent but all this was before the 18th century but when the Britisher's stepped in this part of the world, the subcontinent was never the same again nor are there any possibilities that this continent will recall its peace and prosperity unless there's a miracle of God. There's a lot of historic evidence that the clashes between Hindus and Muslims and the sectarian plantation were the real milestones of England in this continent, but the sad part of the story is that we are not aware of our history, we are only taught that our ancestors were lying dead on the day of independence and our territory is the result of the most bloodiest revolutions in the history but that is not true.

A super-power in this region can only emerge by having a war-treaty signed among all countries of the continent of Asia, which is almost impossible. Right now we have troubles regarding our all fronts, if we are at war with India on the western front, none of our fronts are secured, the point is that India-Pakistan peace must be held at any costs. On the Eastern front, the situation has changed sufficiently, after the evacuation of U.S troops in Afghanistan, we will find some trouble on the entire 'Durand Line' and also our eastern front with Iran is not as secure as it was in the past. A communist China, a Hindu India, a Shia Iran and a Pentagon controlled Afghanistan are all the neighbours that a politically unstable Pakistan have.

Well that's a vast discussion and will never bring us to some satisfactory conclusion, because that was our past. Currently we have a wonderful land and we are an efficient atomic power of the world, we have to move forward at all costs, but again the saddest part of the story is that the country's democratic leaders are having problems of their own, some want to enjoy their democratic term, some are blaming rigging and electoral system and some are dealing with the impossibles i.e baseless revolutions etc. The youth of this soil, under these circumstances, are failing to devote their entire energies in the development of this country. The way the Muslims are being treated in several parts of the world is no longer a top secret. Inside the country we must forget our sect, caste etc and being a nationalist we all must play our part to serve and save the country. Long Live Pakistan!


I tried hard to answer your questions, but they're very complicated.
Thank you!
With best regards![/QUOTE]

thank you for your precious analysis, so you also think that divide and rule element was present.

Yes, it was, it is and it will remain until we are not politically, historically and economically sound.

To Babar Rahman Shah
 

If Quaideazam was in the favor of United India-subcontinent then why he joined Muslim League? Do you know who was Allama Mashriqi and anything about his khaaksaar moment?? He was a staunch supporter of the point that subcontinent shpuld be ruled by Muslims and he was against division. If Quaideazam was of the same opinion too why didn't he join his moment??

Where was Quaid e Azam, when 'khutba e Allahabad' was delivered? What were the basic idea behind the creation of 'AIML'? We can'y say that it was created for a separate homeland, the Hindus at that time were demanding an independent subcontinent not an independent 'Hindustan', whereas the Muslim leaders thought that the Hindus will be the only beneficiaries from the English masters, that's why they created their own political party. Quaid e Azam was a secular and open-minded politician, in round table conference when he saw that others were trying to dominate his point of views, he decided to walk away. He was with Congress for a good number of years but he was a Muslim too, also if you had taken the pain to study 'khutba e Allahabad', it clearly refers that M. Iqbal is asking for an independent 'province' Punjab and not a separate homeland. The word 'state' with small 's' and the word 'State' with a capital 'S' are two different theories. On the other hand the ML leaders had the point of view that whoever was and would be their masters "Britishers", their religion 'Islam' teaches them to be loyal with their masters. Now can you say that Quaid e Azam was from the same school of thought?
M. Iqbal wrote a good number of letters to M. Jinnah about the political condition of that time but Jinnah never replied, also Jinnah was disliked at that time by all three brains, the Hindus thought that he was a myth, the Muslims thought that he was an idealist and the Englisher leaders took him as nothing.

You didn't reply to my question. Anyway, now you are saying that quaideazam was a secular person that's why he joined congress but actually he was a muslim so he decided to shift his loyalties towards Muslims and worked hard to give them a muslim state, don't you think that these two statements are contrary to each other?? If he had a secular mind he shouldn't have joined the cause for separate homeland for Muslims,if you are agreeing with the divide and rule theory,then you are saying that Quaideazam was used by Britain against Muslims and people of subcontinent,which resulted in an uneven distribution of territories.

Dear was he not a secular human? Was he not a Muslim?