Difference between revisions of "Indian reunification"
(Created page with "'''Indian reunification''' refers to the land being occupied by the states of Pakistan and Bangladesh being reabsorbed back into India, with nationals of these cou...") |
(→top: fixed formatting error) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Indian reunification''' refers to the land being occupied by the states of [[Pakistan]] and [[Bangladesh]] being reabsorbed back into [[India]], with nationals of these countries all regaining Indian citizenship. | '''Indian reunification''' refers to the land being occupied by the states of [[Pakistan]] and [[Bangladesh]] being reabsorbed back into [[India]], with nationals of these countries all regaining Indian citizenship. | ||
| − | In '' | + | In ''The Nation'', Kashmiri Indian politician Markandey Katju has advocated the reunification of India with Pakistan under a secular government.<ref name="Katju2013">{{cite web |author1=Markandey Katju |url=http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/columns/02-Mar-2013/the-truth-about-pakistan |publisher=[[The Nation (Pakistan)|The Nation]] |title=The truth about Pakistan|accessdate=29 January 2019 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20131110103720/http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/columns/02-Mar-2013/the-truth-about-pakistan |archivedate=10 November 2013 |language=English}}</ref> He stated that the cause of the partition was the divide and rule policy of Britain, which was implemented to spread communal hatred after Britain saw that [[Hindu-Muslim unity|Hindus and Muslims worked together]] to agitate against their colonial rule in India.<ref name="Katju2013"/> Katju called for the organization of the IPBRA (Indo-Pak-Bangladesh Reunification under a secular government Association) to spread the cause of Indian reunification.<ref name="Katju2017">{{cite web |author1=[[Markandey Katju]] |title=India And Pakistan Must Reunite For Their Mutual Good |url=https://www.huffingtonpost.in/markandey-katju/india-and-pakistan-must-reunite-for-their-mutual-good_a_22033158/ |publisher=[[The Huffington Post]] |language=English |date=10 April 2017}}</ref> |
| − | Pakistani historian Nasim Yousaf, the grandson of | + | Pakistani historian Nasim Yousaf, the grandson of Allama Mashriqi, has also championed Indian Reunification and presented the idea at the [New York Conference on Asian Studies on 9 October 2009 at [[Cornell University]]; Yousaf stated that the partition of India itself was a result of the British interests and their divide and rule policy that sought to create another [[buffer state]] between the Soviet Union and India to prevent the spread of Communism, as well the fact that a "division of the people and territory would prevent a united India from emerging as a world power and keep the two nations dependent on pivotal powers."<ref name="Yousaf2009"/> Yousaf cited former Indian National Congress president [[Maulana Abul Kalam Azad]], who wrote in the same vein:<ref name="Yousaf2009"/> |
{{quotation|If a united India had become free...there was little chance that Britain could retain her position in the economic and industrial life of India. The partition of India, in which the Moslem majority provinces formed a separate and independent state, would, on the other hand, give Britain a foothold in India. A state dominated by the Moslem League would offer a permanent sphere of influence to the British. This was also bound to influence the attitude of India. With a British base in Pakistan, India would have to pay far greater attention to British interests than she might otherwise do. ... The partition of India would materially alter the situation in favour of the British.<ref name="Yousaf2009"/>}} | {{quotation|If a united India had become free...there was little chance that Britain could retain her position in the economic and industrial life of India. The partition of India, in which the Moslem majority provinces formed a separate and independent state, would, on the other hand, give Britain a foothold in India. A state dominated by the Moslem League would offer a permanent sphere of influence to the British. This was also bound to influence the attitude of India. With a British base in Pakistan, India would have to pay far greater attention to British interests than she might otherwise do. ... The partition of India would materially alter the situation in favour of the British.<ref name="Yousaf2009"/>}} | ||
| − | Yousaf holds that "Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the President of the All-India Muslim League and later founder of Pakistan, had been misleading the Muslim community in order to go down in history as the saviour of the Muslim cause and to become founder and first Governor General of Pakistan."<ref name="Yousaf2009"/> Allama Mashriqi, a nationalist Muslim, thus saw Jinnah as "becoming a tool in British hands for his political career."<ref name="Yousaf2009"/> Besides the pro-separatist Muslim League, Islamic leadership in British India rejected the notion of partitioning the country, exemplified by the fact that most Muslims in the heartland of the subcontinent remained where they were, rather than migrating to newly created state of Pakistan.<ref name="Yousaf2009"/> India and Pakistan are currently allocating a significant amount of their budget into military spending—monies that could be spent in economic and social development.<ref name="Yousaf2009"/> Poverty, homelessness, illiteracy, terrorism and a lack of medical facilities, in Yousaf's eyes, would not be plaguing an undivided India as it would be more advantaged "economically, politically, and socially."<ref name="Yousaf2009"/> Yousaf has stated that Indians and Pakistanis speak a common lingua franca, [[Hindi-Urdu]], "wear the same dress, eat the same food, enjoy the same music and movies, and communicate in the same style and on a similar wavelength".<ref name="Yousaf2009"/> He argues that uniting would be a challenge, though not impossible, citing the fall of the [[Berlin Wall]] and the consequent German Reunification as an example.<ref name="Yousaf2009">{{cite web |last1=Yousaf |first1=Nasim |title=Pakistan and India: The Case for Unification |publisher=New York Conference on Asian Studies (NYSCAS) |language=English |date=9 October 2009}}</ref> | + | Yousaf holds that "Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the President of the All-India Muslim League and later founder of Pakistan, had been misleading the Muslim community in order to go down in history as the saviour of the Muslim cause and to become founder and first Governor General of Pakistan."<ref name="Yousaf2009"/> Allama Mashriqi, a nationalist Muslim, thus saw Jinnah as "becoming a tool in British hands for his political career."<ref name="Yousaf2009"/> Besides the pro-separatist Muslim League, Islamic leadership in British India rejected the notion of partitioning the country, exemplified by the fact that most Muslims in the heartland of the subcontinent remained where they were, rather than migrating to newly created state of Pakistan.<ref name="Yousaf2009"/> India and Pakistan are currently allocating a significant amount of their budget into military spending—monies that could be spent in economic and social development.<ref name="Yousaf2009"/> Poverty, homelessness, illiteracy, terrorism and a lack of medical facilities, in Yousaf's eyes, would not be plaguing an undivided India as it would be more advantaged "economically, politically, and socially."<ref name="Yousaf2009"/> Yousaf has stated that Indians and Pakistanis speak a common lingua franca, [[Hindi]]-[[Urdu]], "wear the same dress, eat the same food, enjoy the same music and movies, and communicate in the same style and on a similar wavelength".<ref name="Yousaf2009"/> He argues that uniting would be a challenge, though not impossible, citing the fall of the [[Berlin Wall]] and the consequent German Reunification as an example.<ref name="Yousaf2009">{{cite web |last1=Yousaf |first1=Nasim |title=Pakistan and India: The Case for Unification |publisher=New York Conference on Asian Studies (NYSCAS) |language=English |date=9 October 2009}}</ref> |
== References == | == References == | ||
Revision as of 11:58, February 4, 2019
Indian reunification refers to the land being occupied by the states of Pakistan and Bangladesh being reabsorbed back into India, with nationals of these countries all regaining Indian citizenship.
In The Nation, Kashmiri Indian politician Markandey Katju has advocated the reunification of India with Pakistan under a secular government.[1] He stated that the cause of the partition was the divide and rule policy of Britain, which was implemented to spread communal hatred after Britain saw that Hindus and Muslims worked together to agitate against their colonial rule in India.[1] Katju called for the organization of the IPBRA (Indo-Pak-Bangladesh Reunification under a secular government Association) to spread the cause of Indian reunification.[2]
Pakistani historian Nasim Yousaf, the grandson of Allama Mashriqi, has also championed Indian Reunification and presented the idea at the [New York Conference on Asian Studies on 9 October 2009 at Cornell University; Yousaf stated that the partition of India itself was a result of the British interests and their divide and rule policy that sought to create another buffer state between the Soviet Union and India to prevent the spread of Communism, as well the fact that a "division of the people and territory would prevent a united India from emerging as a world power and keep the two nations dependent on pivotal powers."[3] Yousaf cited former Indian National Congress president Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, who wrote in the same vein:[3]
If a united India had become free...there was little chance that Britain could retain her position in the economic and industrial life of India. The partition of India, in which the Moslem majority provinces formed a separate and independent state, would, on the other hand, give Britain a foothold in India. A state dominated by the Moslem League would offer a permanent sphere of influence to the British. This was also bound to influence the attitude of India. With a British base in Pakistan, India would have to pay far greater attention to British interests than she might otherwise do. ... The partition of India would materially alter the situation in favour of the British.[3]
Yousaf holds that "Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the President of the All-India Muslim League and later founder of Pakistan, had been misleading the Muslim community in order to go down in history as the saviour of the Muslim cause and to become founder and first Governor General of Pakistan."[3] Allama Mashriqi, a nationalist Muslim, thus saw Jinnah as "becoming a tool in British hands for his political career."[3] Besides the pro-separatist Muslim League, Islamic leadership in British India rejected the notion of partitioning the country, exemplified by the fact that most Muslims in the heartland of the subcontinent remained where they were, rather than migrating to newly created state of Pakistan.[3] India and Pakistan are currently allocating a significant amount of their budget into military spending—monies that could be spent in economic and social development.[3] Poverty, homelessness, illiteracy, terrorism and a lack of medical facilities, in Yousaf's eyes, would not be plaguing an undivided India as it would be more advantaged "economically, politically, and socially."[3] Yousaf has stated that Indians and Pakistanis speak a common lingua franca, Hindi-Urdu, "wear the same dress, eat the same food, enjoy the same music and movies, and communicate in the same style and on a similar wavelength".[3] He argues that uniting would be a challenge, though not impossible, citing the fall of the Berlin Wall and the consequent German Reunification as an example.[3]
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 The truth about Pakistan (English). The Nation. Archived from the original on 10 November 2013. Retrieved on 29 January 2019.
- ↑ India And Pakistan Must Reunite For Their Mutual Good (English). The Huffington Post (10 April 2017).
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 (English). New York Conference on Asian Studies (NYSCAS) (9 October 2009).
You must specify title = and url = when using {{cite web}}. Available parameters:
{{cite web |url = |title = |accessdate = |accessdaymonth = |accessmonthday = |accessyear = |author = |last = |first = |authorlink = |coauthors = |date = |year = |month = |format = |work = |publisher = |pages = |language = |doi = |archiveurl = |archivedate = |quote = }}