Topic For Hongkongfeuy

**Ray** · 07 Sep 05,, 09:33

Read the post in the overall context with segementisation!

My contention is on the psyche.

It is not only the Bengalis who have their own culture, every other community, be it in India or Pakistan, has its own culture.

One has to be sensitive to them and not try to steamroll one culture that is alien to some extent to the others. Or else, you and India will have many Bangaldeshes.

Fortunately, in India, they are sensitive to a great extent, even if not wholly.

**ajaybhutani** · 07 Sep 05,, 13:20

Originally Posted by Hongkongfuey

Yes, Sepoy mutiny was mainly of the Muslim Bengali Army.

huh..... where did u read that?? i m getting a lot of doubts about ur sources wether its about aircrafts or indian history.

**~~Sameer~~** · 07 Sep 05,, 16:21

You people spend wayyy to much time trying to discuss logic with a troll that spends his day crating one Kashmir thread after anther.

**lemontree** · 08 Sep 05,, 06:58

Originally Posted by Hongkongfuey

You need to understand the demographics of India at the time. India was 25% Muslim in 1940 (from the censuses). India had a population of around 320 million. That's nearly 100 million Muslims. A strictly one person-one vote system would ignore the voices of a large proportion of the Indian population that was Muslim, therefore the need for a weightage or reservation system to be implemented - Not an unfair demand, considering the size of the population. I'm not sure what the figure was, but 25% reservation would at that time have been quite reasonable.

The 1936 elections were basically done when Jinnah had only recently returned and re-united the party following its scism. Your portrayal of the provincial elections is incorrect. There were nearly 500 seats reserved for Muslims in 9 provinces. Of these the Muslim League won the most (106), Congress won 26. The vote was split and the 1946 provincials were a completely different picture, and more accurately reflect the mood at the time of partition.

That is my point exactly. When the ML did well in the other provinces why did it feel it required reservation and why did it feel that the democratic system would not address muslim issues. That answer may lie in personal ambitions of individuals.

The important point is that although the Muslim League did badly in the 1936 provincials, it still was the most popular party amongst the Muslim voters. The situation got better for them a decade later.

Was that before or after the riots of 1946 "Direct action" of Jinnah? (I am asking as I could not find the dates of the elections and the riots.)

**~~Aryan~~** · 08 Sep 05,, 14:18

Originally Posted by lemontree

That is my point exactly. When the ML did well in the other provinces why did it feel it required reservation and why did it feel that the democratic system would not address muslim issues. That answer may lie in personal ambitions of individuals.

Or maybe because "muslim issues" were a lot more than domestic issues. We had our own agenda on issues such as foreign policy, and felt it would be more appropriate to apply this in a democratic state of our own, rather than have to fight 200 million opposing hindus drowning out our voices. Not dissimilar to the argument for splitting Ukraine.

BTW Muslim League was formed for preserving the interests of Muslims in India for which they had to be supportive to British rule. ML was never a freedom fighter organisation.

Not had to, it was in our interests to. To be honest, we never really did oppose British rule, as it suited us very well. The British build a fine irrigation system, built schools and universities, improved our curriculum and legal system and through the Indian Army provided us with jobs. It is also why the Sepoy mutiny was just that to us, a mutiny that needed to be put down.

**Ray** · 08 Sep 05,, 20:42

Aryan,

At that time all were looking at their own sectarian interest, hardly anyone understood or bothered about things like foreign policy.

There was hardly any maginificent strategy to worry about in foreign policy. Three quarters of the world were colonies of the Europeans and their mindset and goal was similar - bleed the colonies white so that their home country flourished!

You must have noticed how Great Britain, the mightest power on Earth was reduced to a third rate power as soon as she lost India including the part that became Pakistan!

**lemontree** · 09 Sep 05,, 07:15

Originally Posted by Aryan

Not had to, it was in our interests to. To be honest, we never really did oppose British rule, as it suited us very well. The British build a fine irrigation system, built schools and universities, improved our curriculum and legal system and through the Indian Army provided us with jobs.

That is true for many parts of India, as British rule brought about political stability and peace, that allowed the people to prosper economically. The reason for the Punjabi support (both Muslim and Sikh) were entirely different as was the case with the other regions of India that provided troops to quell the rebellion.

It is also why the Sepoy mutiny was just that to us, a mutiny that needed to be put down.

When you "us", do you mean the Punjabi muslims or Hindustani muslim? Because the flare up at Merrut on 10 May 1857 was by 3 Cavalry which was predominently muslim.