rangeelaraja Posted January 9 Posted January 9 Outcomes: 1) No persecution of Hindus in Pak or Bangladesh ( East Pak ) 2) No communal tension or violence in India. 3) Clean politics in India based on growth and prosperity without appeasement to one minority. 4) Yes, India would have lost many great Muslim luminaries Looking at the events in Bangladesh and Pak - I will it was a terrible decision not to implement his idea - one of the greatest blunders. From Gemini: Dr. B.R. Ambedkar strongly advocated for a compulsory population exchange between India and Pakistan around the time of Partition (1940s) to create homogeneous states and prevent future communal violence, viewing it as the only lasting solution for minority issues, inspired by the Greek-Turkish exchange. He argued that this "unmixing" would ensure peace by separating Hindus and Muslims into religiously homogenous territories, a proposal supported by figures like Patel but opposed by Gandhi and Nehru, who favored secularism and feared mass suffering, leading to its failure. Key Aspects of Ambedkar's Proposal: Homogeneity for Peace: Ambedkar believed that communal harmony could only be achieved if Hindus and Muslims lived in distinct, homogeneous states, citing the Greek-Turkish population transfer as a precedent. Timing: He first raised the demand in his 1940 book, Pakistan or The Partition of India, and reiterated it in 1945, arguing it was the logical consequence of Pakistan's creation. Rationale: He felt that safeguards for minorities were ineffective and that an exchange was the only real guarantee for reciprocal security, preventing perpetual conflict. Opposition: The Congress, led by Gandhi and Nehru, opposed the exchange, prioritizing a secular India and fearing the immense human cost, despite Ambedkar's logical arguments and Patel's potential support. Outcome: The compulsory exchange never happened, but a massive, chaotic, and tragic voluntary migration of millions occurred, resulting in immense suffering, deaths, and ongoing tensions, proving the logistical complexities Ambedkar foresaw.
Lone Wolf Posted January 9 Posted January 9 Subcontinent map would have likely looked a lot different if that had transpired. Lots of non Muslim majority areas also would have been transferred to fit in those extra Muslims of Pakistan. Bengal, Punjab, Kashmir, Gujarat and parts of Bihar would have revolted.. Ambedkar was right in his points pragmatic as well but comparison of Greeks and Turks with Indian populace and dynamics is just not it. Doing it post partition would have likely taken the whole country into a never ending civil war. Population transfer sounds rosy scenario but when you actually imagine how it would have went down it would have been a catastrophic failure in a country like India. Marathas failure to do a Spanish style reconquista in 1750's is to be blamed for the mess we are in today. They had the tools and political vaccum in the nation to do it. But they didn't.
IndianRenegade Posted January 9 Posted January 9 (edited) spilled milk. in an ideal world may be yes. But millions more would have died & it also means India had no right to have kashmir a mostly muslim region. India as a secular state wasn't the issue, indian version of secularism is. Edited January 9 by IndianRenegade
rangeelaraja Posted January 9 Author Posted January 9 39 minutes ago, IndianRenegade said: spilled milk. in an ideal world may be yes. But millions more would have died & it also means India had no right to have kashmir a mostly muslim region. India as a secular state wasn't the issue, indian version of secularism is. Democracy and Secularism are not compatible with Islam. How many Muslim majority countries of the 52 are secular ? NONE. How many of the Muslim majority countries have been true democracies ? NONE. In India, Muslim politics is ONLY about their community and never about uplifting the country at large. The excuse given is they are backward socioeconomically, sachar committee report blah blah blah.....how many cases have we seen recently of highly educated, well earning Muslims induling in most dangerous anti- national activities ?
EnterTheVoid Posted January 10 Posted January 10 1 hour ago, rangeelaraja said: Democracy and Secularism are not compatible with Islam. How many Muslim majority countries of the 52 are secular ? NONE. How many of the Muslim majority countries have been true democracies ? NONE. Singapore? Indonesia? Have you been to Bali? They've got hindu sculptures everywhere. Turkey? Dubai? Oman? Pakistan and Bangladesh may be extremist hell holes. There are a lot of Muslim countries where minorities are left alone to live and let alone. Also, what's a "true democracy" anyway? You go against the grain even in the most liberal of societies and they come down on you like a ton of bricks. Lord 1
rangeelaraja Posted January 10 Author Posted January 10 59 minutes ago, EnterTheVoid said: Singapore? Indonesia? Have you been to Bali? They've got hindu sculptures everywhere. Turkey? Dubai? Oman? Pakistan and Bangladesh may be extremist hell holes. There are a lot of Muslim countries where minorities are left alone to live and let alone. Also, what's a "true democracy" anyway? You go against the grain even in the most liberal of societies and they come down on you like a ton of bricks. What about these countries ? Singapore is not Islamic country. Majority is of Han Chinese ethnicity. Looks like you got deceived by the crescent moon on their flag because they are a former Malay territory The question is about EQUALITY. Can a non-muslim rise to the highest offices constitutionally in these countries ? NO. UAE and Oman are monarchies not democracies. its not just Pakistan and Bangladesh being extremist hellholes - Look at all of Africa.
EnterTheVoid Posted January 10 Posted January 10 10 minutes ago, rangeelaraja said: What about these countries ? Singapore is not Islamic country. Majority is of Han Chinese ethnicity. Looks like you got deceived by the crescent moon on their flag because they are a former Malay territory The question is about EQUALITY. Can a non-muslim rise to the highest offices constitutionally in these countries ? NO. UAE and Oman are monarchies not democracies. its not just Pakistan and Bangladesh being extremist hellholes - Look at all of Africa. Those countries have Muslim majority population. If that doesn't make them Islamic, what does?
vvvslaxman Posted January 10 Posted January 10 Why can't we do it now :) PIck an auspicious day and adopt all the Hindus from muslim countries. Let us start with Gujju Danish Kaneria.
EnterTheVoid Posted January 10 Posted January 10 14 minutes ago, rangeelaraja said: The question is about EQUALITY. Can a non-muslim rise to the highest offices constitutionally in these countries ? NO. How is this relevant to anything? Even if minorities can't rise to the highest offices constitutionally, it doesn't stop minorities from going there. Indians flock to the Middle East, as an example. They don't go there to rise through the political ladder. They go there to just live in peace.
coffee_rules Posted January 10 Posted January 10 Yes, that was the idea to begin with because in 1946 most of Indian Muslims voted for Pakistan and they intended to move there. In india Nehru and Gandhil convincd Muslim leaders to stay back and not go to Pakistan and probably to secure the vote bank. So migration continued till 1951,, a lot of Muslims migrated to Pakistan who were called Mohajirs and. Palkjabis got afraid and overwhelmed by the amount UP Bihari Muslims entering Pakistan..,Liaqat and Nehru worked out a pact that stopped all the trains going into Pakistan carrying Indian Muslims and negotiated a deal that the rest of the Muslims in india stayed Back. Otherwise a lot more Indian Muslims would have migrated to Pakistan.
Ranvir Posted January 10 Posted January 10 Hindus only have themselves to blame. Diversity and multiculturalism don't work.
Recommended Posts