THERE WAS NO “PARTITION”: For Britain ” ‘Indian’ Empire” included Somalia, Iraq, Burma, Singapore etc. For the French “India” included Vietnam (Indo-China). For the Dutch “India” included “Indo-n-asia”.

Posted on April 24, 2008 by Moin Ansari

 THE THESIS:

There was no “partition”

‘India is no more a country than the Equator’.Winston Churchill

Historians in general and many Pakistanis in particular take deep umbrage and dislike the usage of the term “partition” because “partition” implies the division of a whole. Pakistanis prefer Independence. Pakistanis will accept “Separation” but not “partition.” As the maps show, the term “India” was very ephemiral and put in vogue by the British. Before British times, there was no such word. Because there never was a country called “India” there was no partition.

 “India is no more a country than the Equator”  Winston Churchill

Initially when Lord Clive of the East Indian company defeated Shirijud Daulah, he called it British Bengal.  When the British formally came to the Subcontinent in 1857, they encountered more than 570 states. When they left the Subcontinent they left more than 570 independent states and two dominions, India and Pakistan. The states on the banks of the Indus decided to live together as Pakistan, as they had lived together for thousands of years. The states on the Gangetic plain banded together to form “Bharat”. The state on the Brahamaputra became its own state.

The earlier separations of Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) and Burma (now Myanmar) from the administration of British India were not called parition. Ceylon, part of the Madras Presidency of British India from 1795 until 1798, became a separate Crown Colony in 1798. Burma, gradually annexed by the British during 1826 – 86 and governed as a part of the British administration until 1937, was directly administered by the crown. Burma was granted independence on January 4, 1948 and Ceylon on February 4, 1948.  Nepal and Bhutan — having signed treaties with the British designating them as independent states, were part of British India and therefore their borders were consecrated in 1947.

Maps showing various sovereign, independent states in the Subcontinent during the British Raj

This map of 1853 “India” does not show half of Pakistan.Constables 1893 British map showing Pakistan, Afghanistan, Burma, Ceylon, Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim as part of “Indian Empire”Throughout history, the struggle for the independence of the Subcontinent has been struggle against centralism and the struggle has been waged to create for provincial autonomy. The Government of India Act of 1919 set out in clear terms the subjects which were to belong to the provincial sphere and those to the Central sphere. But both the Congress and the Muslim League boycotted the elections to the provincial and Central Legislatures held in November 1920 under the Act, because they felt that the Central vernment had still retained too much of power over the provinces.Presidencies 1893

Each state had its own currency, laws, jails, flag, crest, passport, military, treasury, and British forces were not allowed to enter the state. Many were ruled by Muslims rulers like Hydrabad, Bhopal, Junagarh etc. Maps showing various sovereign, independent states in the Subcontinent during the British Raj

.Hydrabad state wanted to stay independent MadrasBaroda stateBalauchistan 1906.

The separation of Burma is not called “partition”. The independence of Sri Lanka is not called “partition”. the removal of Iraq from the British Indian Empire is not called “partition”. The independence of Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan is not called “partition”. Aden and Somalia becmae independent in the British Indian Empire and are not lamented as being “partitioned” off. For the French, sperating Vietnam from their Indian Empire is not called “partition”. For the Dutch, removing Indonesia from Dutch “India” is not called separation.

“Pakistan” existed 5000 years ago. It was not called “Pakistan”. China 5000 years ago was also called something else. Egypt 5000 years ago was called something else.Baluch reliefHarappan sealsThe Western states had lived together in the Valley of the Indus for more than 5000 years together so it was natural for them to live together

THE BASIS FOR THE THESIS

“Pakistan” existed 5000 years ago. 

 

IVC. This is the land of the Indus which existed on the Indus. It is \

The 5000 year old ancient trade routes between Pakistan and China are being revived with modern freeways that were ocnstructed 20 years ago. 5000 years ago the

 5000 years ago Pakistan was probably not called “Pakistan”. China 5000 years ago was also called something else. Egypt 5000 years ago was called something else.

Kushan Parthian maps show different parts of the worldKushan Parthian map

Islamic CaliphatesThe Islamic Caliphate in the 8th century

Indian Empiure includes Ceylon, Burma, AfghanistanThe British Indian Empire included Somalia, Iraq, Aden, Burma and other states. Then there was the French “Indian” Empire, Dutch “Indian” Empire, “Portuguese” Indian Empire and even a Dansih “Indian” Empire. Each one had a different meaning of “India”.The French “Indian” Empire included Vietnam etc. The Dutch Indian Empire included parts of the Subcontinent and Indonesia. Columbus called America “India” and the local inhabitants Indian. Other islands in the new world were called East Indies. South East Asia was called Indo-China.

The French “Indian” EmpireFrench Indian EmpireThe French “Indian” Empire included parts of the Subcontinent and (Indo-China) Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos in it

The Dutch “Indian” Empire included Indonesia in itMany states included. Posessions of the Dutch empire in the Subcontinent

Map showing Burma, Aden, Iraq as part of the “Indian” EmpireRailway maps included Burma

Constables maps of 1893 not shwoing many part of Paksitan in the “Indian” Empireindian-empire-1893-constables-atlas.jpg

Map of Asia showing “India” without Pakistanmap of asia

Map of the Middle East does not show Pakistan as part of the SubcontinentMiddle East map of the 19th century

Timur’s Empire show Pakistan not part of the SubcontinentTimurs’ Empire

THERE WAS NO PARTITION

The Pakistan proposal “Now or Never” was not based on any partition. It was based on the Muslim majority areas coming together.

Muslim vs. HindusCh. Rehmat Ali Pakistannow-or-never-ch-rehmat-ali-pakistan.jpg

“Notwithstanding [a] thousand years of close contact, nationalities which are as divergent today as ever, cannot at any time be expected to transform themselves into one nation merely by means of subjecting them to a democratic constitution and holding them forcibly togdher by unnatural and artificial methods of British Parliamentary statutes. What the unitary government of India for one hundred fifty years had failcd to achieve cannot be realiscd by the imposition of a central federal government. It is inconceivable that the fiat or the writ of a government so constituted can ever command a willing and loyal obedience throughout the sub-continent by various nationalities, except by means of armed force behind it. Quaid E Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah: Founder of Pakistan and the Father of the Nation

 

Pakistan exsited 5000 Years ago as the IVCPakistanPakistan

These maps show the distribution of Muslim majority areas and other areas. The proposal called for Pakistan to be created in the Muslim majority areas

THE PROOF OF THE THESIS

How could a country be partitioned when it has existed for 5000 years as a separate entity. One hundred and Fifty years as part of the British empire does not make “India” a country

Pakistanis and historians detest the word that incorrectly describes the genesis of the country that has existed since time immemorial  

The greatest migration in history was the exchange of 11.5 million people between India and Pakistan in 1947 accompanied by the massacre of another half a million. The migration of 3.5 million Afghan refugees into Pakistan from 1979 to 1987 was almost as disruptive. The separation of Bangladesh was, until the dismemberment of the Soviet empire in 1991, the only successful secession of the post World War II era. Three wars with India over what is essentially a boundary dispute bloodied with ethnic cleansing in Kashmir, and now continued turbulence and terrorism based in part on drug distribution and in part on the presumption of the development of nuclear weapons capacity.When the Elephants dance, the grass gets crushed. The continued CIA involvement in Pakistan. Another Pakistani leaders falls to an international game between the USA, and China and Russia, and Pakistanis again pay the price The term “india” stems from the Arab usage of the word Hind from for the inhabitants who lived on the Sindhu (Indus) river. From Sindh to Hindh. In time all residents beyond the Indus were also called Hindus. 

The Western states, Kalat, Bhawalpur, and provinces Punjab, Sindh, Baluchistan, and NWFP banded together to form “Pakistan” and decided to live together as one country just like they had lived together for thousands of years before the British arrived in the Indus Valley Civilization that existed almost entirely on the banks of the Indus. The states of the Gangetic Civilization that existed on the banks of the Ganges banded together