Pakistan, Bharat, British India - What came first, what came after?

[Indus Pakistan]

A question arose in another thread thats quite interesting. Which is did Pakistan get partitioned from India? I noticed the majority view amongst the Indian's was their country 'India' was carved up..

I absolutely reject this contention. My view is that a territory was divided into two states from British India which is not the exact same entity as today's Indian Union.
I stated in my previous argument that at the heart of this fallacy is that it was not 'India' as in the present Indian Union that was divided in 1947 and that this misunderstanding rests in the nomenclature. This untruth has been peddled since 1947 and today it's almost accepted as a given.

My argument is subtle but the result if I can prove my contention is profound. We in Pakistan don't have to sit like some new upshot in the shadow of a mature, established state to our east. We can look at our neighbour in the eye as a equal.

First of all I would suggest we sort out the nomenclature issue, which is and has been the cause of this misunderstanding in South Asia and the world. I will give numbered points for ease of discussion and referance.

1. Today we have two nation states, Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Republic of India. To avoid the nomenclature mixup I will henceforth refer to the Republic of India as Bharat and of course Republic of Pakistan as simply Pakistan.

2. Prior to 1947 there was no nation state ( I stress this point ) in the sub continent There existed a territory acquired by a foreign power, piece by piece through hook and crook and driven by imperial greed.

3. This foreign power had over time taken over almost a entire region ( a geographic defintion ) called India.

4. This label 'India' had been around in various forms since antiquity. It had derived from the Sanskrit Sindhu for the river Indus. The Greeks had used label 'India' and it's meaning would have been the land adjacent to Indus River. That is the Sindh Province, today in Pakistan.

5. Over time this very restricted meaning or understanding of the word 'India' extended eastwards until almost the entire geographic region we call South Asia today came be known as India. Therefore the term India was synonymous with the region we call today South Asia.

6. Thus not only was the term India synonymous with todays South Asia much like other geographic regional names in use today like Iberia, Scandinavia, Balkans, Maghreb or Indochina.

7. Maghreb as a region has been known as such for over a millenia, as has Scandinavia but Libya or Finland are recent 'inventions'. If Finland decided to appropriate the regional geographic name Scandinavia for itself it would not then mean that this nation state now going as the Scandinavian Republic has been around since antiquity.

8. Also just because it ( Finland ) had appropriated a geograhic regional name for itself it would not mean that it could claim everything within that region, that is the entire history of that region as its own. That would be tantamount to intellectual fraud. That is exactly what Bharat has been doing since 1947. It is almost bordering on identity fraud.

9. Now lets go to before 1947. We had a British colony. It's borders were drawn arbitrarily and represented the maximum extent of British power, Had the British been weaker, those borders would have been less extent. Had they been even stronger those borders would have been even more extent.

10. That British colony existed within a region, we would call that South Asia today but then it was known as India ( like Scandinavia etc ) thus this colony was titled 'British India'. Today's Pakistan or Bharat share the exactly the same relationship to British India. The only advantage Bharat has gained is because it also chose the style 'India' which happened to to share the same nomenclature with the British Colonial entity and before that the geograhic region.

11. In a strange twist of history a name 'India' that had meant just the land adjacent to River Indus, came over time to mean the entire region we call South Asia and now in a total leap of disconnect it has come to refer to a nation state called Bharat. The disconnect being that it originally just meant a area in today's Pakistan and now has come to mean a area that is a total disconnect from the original land ( which is in todays Pakistan ) , to what is today Bharat ( which is well to east of the original meaning ). This can 'identity theft' today can throw up all sort of strange situations as I shall point out later.

12. Indian independance Act 1947:-

(1)As from the fifteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, two independent Dominions shall be set up in India, to be known respectively as India and Pakistan.

(2)The said Dominions are hereafter in this Act referred to as “the new Dominions”, and the said fifteenth day of August is hereafter in this Act referred to as “the appointed day”.

2.—(1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (3) (4) of this section, the territories of India shall be the territories under the sovereignty of His Majesty which, immediately before the appointed day, were included in British India except the territories which, under subsection (2) of this section, are to be the territories of Pakistan.

13. We can adduce certain facts from the above Act.

(i) That there existed a British Colony known variously as 'British India' or just plain 'India' ran by a London appointed official called a Viceroy which was part and parcel of the British Empire.

(ii) That this adminstrative structure would cease to exist in 1947 and in it's place two nation states shall come into existance viz Republic of Pakistan and Bharat Republic.

(iii) That the territory adminstered by the said structure would be apportioned out betwen both nation states.

(iv) That as a function of decribing the precise apportionment it states that Bharat shall be British India minus Pakistan.

(v) That when you cut something you slice the smaller piece from the bigger, not slice the bigger piece from smaller. The language of the act just follows that function.

(vi) We cannot use the fact that the term India is being used because that only proves my contention, that is it goes back to the heart of what I have been saying, namely the nomenclature. That is why I am using the term Bharat to prove my point. Both Republics, Pakistan and Bharat if I may draw the analogy just plain wines.

(vii) Whereas the impression given is Pakistan is some new immature wine lacking any pedigree whereas Bharat is some vintage Champagne thats been cultivated for centuries.

14. The truth is both Republics are modern creations dating from 1947. Both are as vintage or lack of as much as each other. The nomenclature is just a dupe, a gloss that obfuscates the reality. Just because Bharat decides to appropriate the name 'India' unto itself does not mean that it suddenly becomes a vintage wine as much as a cheap wine does not become a true Chamapagne just because it labels itself as such.

15. A point was made that Bharat is indeed the sole successor to British India. That is absurd notion. It indeed was a successor state to British India but so was Pakistan.

16. How else would the assets that belonged to British India get divided to both Bharat and and Pakistan? Why and how did the territory held by British India be apportioned to both with some going to Pakistan and some to Bharat if the former was also not also a succerssor state?

17. Contention was made that Bharat the is the sole successor state by stating that United Nations seat held by British India was given to Bharat contrary to Pakistan's efforts.

18. Well the person who made this point (16) should know that not all things can be apportioned. If a father left a horse as inheritance to two sons, they could not divide it into two. By the same logic you cannot apportion a seat. Only one party can have it.

19. If my father left a club membership to me and my brother we very well could not both demand it, when there would only be one. Clearly we would have to resolve the matter by some other means, perhaps the older one getting it. In the instance of the UN seat Bharat gets it because clearly it was the largest piece out of the defunct British India.

So gentleman ( ladies ) I put it to you that this is all about nomenclature. I have avoided the term India to prove my point. We all know that Bharat has used that label and continues to use it, although as a nation state, it is as young as Pakistan. But by using the name India it as gained a historical link goin back to 5,000 years.

Could people please do me enormous favour, please only contribute to this thread if you can add something for or against based on the points made, preferably reasioned out. Lets keep this focussed.

 

[Coltsfan]

It would be wrong to say India was partitioned in 1947. Had it not for Britishers we would not have India, but a loose federation of Kingdom and Fiefdoms.

Hard to argue with much of your post........ am sure there are gonna be members who beg to differ though.

11. In a strange twist of history a name 'India' that meant land adjacent to River Indus, came over time to mean the entire region we call South Asia and now in a total leap of disconnect it has come to refer to a nation state called Bharat. The disconnect being that it originally just meant a area in today's Pakistan and now has come to mean a area that is a total disconnect from the original land, to what is today Bharat. This can 'identity theft' today can throw up all sort of strange situations as I shall point out later.

Waiting for you to point out the strange situations.

 

[DRaisinHerald]

Well, technically speaking British India came first; then Pakistan (14th) and then India (15th).

Do remember "India" existed only as part of the British Raj, and before that it was simply the name for the whole Subcontinent. "Bharat" also existed the name way, but not as a solid political entity.

It would be wrong to say India was partitioned in 1947

Partition of British India; or the Indian Subcontinent would be more proper

 

[Pakistanisage]

How about the fallacy that Muhammad Ali Jinnah is the Founder of Pakistan. The real Founder of Pakistan was Jawahar Lal Nehru who created Pakistan the moment he walked away from the " Cabinet Mission " Plan. Jinnah had already agreed to undivided India as envisaged under the Cabinet Mission plan and signed the document. It was Nehru who walked away from the Cabinet mission plan after he already signed up on the plan but later reneged. After Nehru reneged on the agreement, Jinnah was left with no option other than asking for Pakistan.

 

[Joe Shearer]

A question arose in another thread thats quite interesting. Which is did Pakistan get partitioned from India? I noticed the majority view amongst the Indian's was their country 'India' was carved up..

I absolutely reject this contention. My view is that a territory was divided into two states from British India which is not the exact same entity as today's Indian Union.
I stated in my previous argument that at the heart of this fallacy is that 'India' as in the present Indian Union was divided and that this fallacy rest in the nomenclature. This untruth has been peddled since 1947 and today it's almost accepted as a given.

My argument is subtle but the result if I can prove my contention is profound. We in Pakistan don't have to sit like some new upshot in the shadow of a mature, established state to our east. We can look at our neighbour in the eye as a equal.

First of all I would suggest we sort out the nomenclature issue, which is and has been the cause of this misunderstanding in South Asia and the world. I will give numbered points for ease of discussion and referance.

1. Today we have two nation states, Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Republic of India. To avoid the nomenclature mixup I will henceforth refer to the Republic of India as Bharat and of course Republic of Pakistan as simply Pakistan.

2. Prior to 1947 there was no nation state ( I stress this point ) in the sub continent There existed a territory acquired by a foreign power, piece by piece through hook and crook and driven by imperial greed.

3. This foreign power had over time taken over almost a entire region ( a geographic defintion ) called India.

4. This label 'India' had been around in various forms since antiquity. It had derived from the Sanskrit Sindhu for the river Indus. The Greeks had used label 'India' and it's meaning would have been the land adjacent to Indus River. That is the Sindh Province, today in Pakistan.

5. Over time this very restricted meaning or understanding of the word 'India' extended eastwards until almost the entire geographic region we call South Asia today came be known as India. Therefore the term India was synonymous with the region we call today South Asia.

6. Thus not only was the term India synonymous with todays South Asia much like other geographic regional names in use today like Iberia, Scandinavia, Balkans, Maghreb or Indochina.

7. Maghreb as a region has been known as such for over a millenia, as has Scandinavia but Libya or Finland are recent 'inventions'. If Finland decided to appropriate the regional geographic name Scandinavia for itself it would not then mean that this nation state now going as the Scandinavian Republic has been around since antiquity.

8. Also just because it ( Finland ) had appropriated a geograhic regional name for itself it would not mean that it could claim everything within that region, that is the entire history of that region as its own. That would be tantamount to intellectual fraud. That is exactly what Bharat has been doing since 1947. It is almost bordering on identity fraud.

9. Now lets go to before 1947. We had a British colony. It's borders were drawn arbitrarily and represented the maximum extent of British power, Had the British been weaker, those borders would have been less extent. Had they been even stronger those borders would have been even more extent.

10. That British colony existed within a region, we would call that South Asia today but then it was known as India ( like Scandinavia etc ) thus this colony was titled 'British India'. Today's Pakistan or Bharat share the exactly the same relationship to British India. The only advantage Bharat has gained is because it also chose the style 'India' which happened to to share the same nomenclature with the British Colonial entity and before that the geograhic region.

11. In a strange twist of history a name 'India' that had meant just the land adjacent to River Indus, came over time to mean the entire region we call South Asia and now in a total leap of disconnect it has come to refer to a nation state called Bharat. The disconnect being that it originally just meant a area in today's Pakistan and now has come to mean a area that is a total disconnect from the original land ( which is in todays Pakistan ) , to what is today Bharat ( which is well to east of the original meaning ). This can 'identity theft' today can throw up all sort of strange situations as I shall point out later.

12. Indian independance Act 1947:-

(1)As from the fifteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, two independent Dominions shall be set up in India, to be known respectively as India and Pakistan.

(2)The said Dominions are hereafter in this Act referred to as “the new Dominions”, and the said fifteenth day of August is hereafter in this Act referred to as “the appointed day”.

2.—(1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (3) (4) of this section, the territories of India shall be the territories under the sovereignty of His Majesty which, immediately before the appointed day, were included in British India except the territories which, under subsection (2) of this section, are to be the territories of Pakistan.

13. We can adduce certain facts from the above Act.

(i) That there existed a British Colony known variously as 'British India' or just plain 'India' ran by a London appointed official called a Viceroy which was part and parcel of the British Empire.

(ii) That this adminstrative structure would cease to exist in 1947 and in it's place two nation states shall come into existance viz Republic of Pakistan and Bharat Republic.

(iii) That the territory adminstered by the said structure would be apportioned out betwen both nation states.

(iv) That as a function of decribing the precise apportionment it states that Bharat shall be British India minus Pakistan.

(v) That when you cut something you slice the smaller piece from the bigger, not slice the bigger piece from smaller. The language of the act just follows that function.

(vi) We cannot use the fact that the term India is being used because that only proves my contention, that is it goes back to the heart of what I have been saying, namely the nomenclature. That is why I am using the term Bharat to prove my point. Both Republics, Pakistan and Bharat if I may draw the analogy just plain wines.

(vii) Whereas the impression given is Pakistan is some new immature wine lacking any pedigree whereas Bharat is some vintage Champagne thats been cultivated for centuries.

14. The truth is both Republics are modern creations dating from 1947. Both are as vintage or lack of as much as each other. The nomenclature is just a dupe, a gloss that obfuscates the reality. Just because Bharat decides to appropriate the name 'India' unto itself does not mean that it suddenly becomes a vintage wine as much as a cheap wine does not become a true Chamapagne just because it labels itself as such.

15. A point was made that Bharat is indeed the sole successor to British India. That is absurd notion. It indeed was a successor state to British India but so was Pakistan.

16. How else would the assets that belonged to British India get divided to both Bharat and and Pakistan? Why and how did the territory held by British India be apportioned to both with some going to Pakistan and some to Bharat if the former was also not also a succerssor state?

17. Contention was made that Bharat the is the sole successor state by stating that United Nations seat held by British India was given to Bharat contrary to Pakistan's efforts.

18. Well the person who made this point (16) should know that not all things can be apportioned. If a father left a horse as inheritance to two sons, they could not divide it into two. By the same logic you cannot apportion a seat. Only one party can have it.

19. If my father left a club membership to me and my brother we very well could not both demand it, when there would only be one. Clearly we would have to resolve the matter by some other means, perhaps the older one getting it. In the instance of the UN seat Bharat gets it because clearly it was the largest piece out of the defunct British India.

So gentleman ( ladies ) I put it to you that this is all about nomenclature. I have avoided the term India to prove my point. We all know that Bharat has used that label and continues to use it, although as a nation state, it is as young as Pakistan. But by using the name India it as gained a historical link goin back to 5,000 years.

Could people please do me enormous favour, please only contribute to this thread if you can add something for or against based on the points made, preferably reasioned out. Lets keep this focussed.

I might be able to contribute, but we have been through these same discussions dozens of times before. Suppose I give you references to some of those earlier discussions. Would you look them up? Or do you want to put a senior citizen through hoops from the word 'go'? Be merciful.

 

[rubyjackass]

^^^
Lol at the argument of identity theft.
My only points are these:
Whatever the origin story of the word India, by the time the British came in, the term 'India' included the current India. And as you said, Pakistan also was a heir(and definitely not all South Asian countries can claim this. Srilanka for example has always been Ceylon or Simhala. The fact that British East India company ruled the South Asian region means squat.) to the name of India. But then all the fight was to achieve 'Pakistan'. Despite the protests of Jinnah about India adopting the name 'India', he had no choice. After all the Arabs and others don't complain if Pakistan names its missiles as Abdali, Ghauri and Ghazni. Simply because it was Pakistan which accepted itself as the heir of those men's achievements. India took the name India because the word represented the nation the best.
Jinnah always naively insisted that the non-Pakistan part of India should have Hindustan as its name(like the secular Congress was going to say 'Yes Sir'). But obviously he should not have expected others to have his communal bent. So he and his men left the legacy of the name 'India' unclaimed. We took it. Simple as that.
And forget about India. You cannot stop some obscure country in the Micronesia from calling itself Pakistan today.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

I said at (11) above that this mix up with nomencature can through up some strange results today which goes to the 'false identity' issue i brought up.

Large majority of people, if asked where is Harappa? Reply will be India. We all know it is in Pakistan.
Again if asked where is Mohenjo Daro? Reply will be India. We all know it is in Pakistan.
Ask people where Gandhara was/is? Reply again will be India. We all know it is in Pakistan.
Ask people when Alexander crossed the Hydaspes which country was in? Reply India. We know that is modern Jhelum in Pakistan.
Ask people which country would you go to to follow Alexander's march in South Asia? Reply will be in India.

Well we know they could chose to go to India but hell other the claim to the name India they would not be marching in the footsteps of Alexander. I make these points to show how this mix up of nomenclature has created a very wrong impression. I have had to correct people. These have been reasonably read and intelligent people. Some have even laughed when I said Pakistan. Only when challanged to check their facts did they realize their incorrect understanding.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

I WILL SAY IT AGAIN PLEASE IF YOU DISAGREE DO NOT LAUGH - GRAB EACH NUMBERED POINT AND KNOCK IT OUT WITH FACTS. I MIGHT HAVE TO CONTACT THE MODS. TO KEEP THIS A SERIOUS DISCUSSION BASED ON FACT. USE YOUR LOGIC, REASON TO PROVE ME WRONG. DON'T USE THIS SPACE UP FOR OPINIONS, SILLY REMARKS OR VENT. FACTS, REASON, POINT BY POINT, WHICH IS WHY I TOOK THE TIME TO BLOODY NUMBER THE DAMN THINGS. RUBY JACK A*S DO YOU UNDESTAND?

 

[Hulk]

I would consider birth of India in 1947, before that there were rulers and boundries kepts changing based on who one the battles. It was rule of kings and not of the people hence the wish of people was not taken into consideration.

Modern India was born in 1947 and I am not someone who will fight for the history that hardly matters. People talk about History too much when they have nothing in present to talk about.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

India is the land traditionally part of the vedic civilization,which later was mixed with other cultures that came here.And an unified indian entity was there long before the british,the mauryas,then the guptas ruled for hundreds of years.India is as much a nation state as it is a civilization state.

 

[rubyjackass]

How about the fallacy that Muhammad Ali Jinnah is the Founder of Pakistan. The real Founder of Pakistan was Jawahar Lal Nehru who created Pakistan the moment he walked away from the " Cabinet Mission " Plan. Jinnah had already agreed to undivided India as envisaged under the Cabinet Mission plan. It was Nehru who walked away from the Cabinet mission plan after he already signed up on the plan but later reneged.

This is not true. In hindsight, Cabinet Mission Plan was a bad plan. For one, it would not have led to just two Indias. There were to be princely states which have the right to complete independence. And there would be two Muslim blocs of provinces and a Hindu bloc of provinces, leading to parity at Central legislature. The Centre would have just three subjects; not even Pakistan today(Quaid's dreamland federation) gives such wide ranging powers to provinces. This would have definitely led to even more division.

Not only that, the division would be in such a manner where the main Indian entity(current India or the envisaged Hindu bloc) would not have had its current Punjab, Bengal, Assam(basically entire North East). And Pakistan would have all this territory. It is not hard to imagine that this would have led to a situation where Pakistan is larger than the so called Hindu-bloc. Only an idiot will agree to this. And Jinnah did assure that these Muslim blocs will stay as part of India. But who cares about his assurances. There would a 100 provinces and princely states, each would do as he/she pleases, and when they did not like any trivial decision at the centre, they can always play the card of secession. A country cannot be run that way.

Nehru may have agreed to it initially as you said. But there was enough opposition in the Congress that the plan would not be acceptable. Remember Congress was a very representative organization back then. Even Gandhi was opposed to it.

Instead Jinnah kept asking for his Pakistan, some say, as a bargaining chip. Congress called his bluff and said you can have your Pakistan but you have to partition Punjab and Bengal and give up the Hindu parts to India. In the end Jinnah ended up with 'a moth-eaten' Pakistan. If you ask me Nehru or whoever(there must be many individuals who made the decisions) has done very well. They let the troublemakers(by that I don't mean in a derogatory manner, Jinnah was indeed a troublemaker for Congress' secular dreams) go with minimal territory. The partition was a horror, but IMO the violence was to happen one place or the other, the villages of Punjab or the streets of Calcutta.

So I guess the conclusion is: your founder is Jinnah himself not Nehru.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Hello people, I made some serious typos in the original, I have edited them out, if you can please read the edited version thanks but before I go off please by all means slice and dice my argument but can you do it point by point please, they are all numbered. Thank you.
I am strong believer in exposing your view to a full onslaught and because if there are any flaw in your thinking it will be exposed and that gents. allows you to fine tune your thinking to perfection. It is late and I am off.
and Joe- S you may have done this before but not with me. I can slice and dice and then some more like a razor!!!

 

[Joe Shearer]

Hello people, I made some serious typos in the original, I have edited them out, if you can please read the edited version thanks but before I go off please by all means slice and dice my argument but can you do it point by point please, they are all numbered. Thank you.
I am strong believer in exposing your view to a full onslaught and because if there are any flaw in your thinking it will be exposed and that gents. allows you to fine tune your thinking to perfection. It is late and I am off.
and Joe- S you may have done this before but not with me. I can slice and dice and then some more like a razor!!!

Please, Atanz, I'm not into ego-trips. When I tell you this has been discussed before and the three subjects you have bundled together are boring at this very late stage, I was not trying to say that your arguments, or your ability to present a case, were inferior. It is just that your precise arguments came up, we discussed them, we exchanged authorities and came to conclusions. Don't you think you could at least glance at them before asking me to warm up the whole brew all over again?

 

[rubyjackass]

I WILL SAY IT AGAIN PLEASE IF YOU DISAGREE DO NOT LAUGH - GRAB EACH NUMBERED POINT AND KNOCK IT OUT WITH FACTS. I MIGHT HAVE TO CONTACT THE MODS. TO KEEP THIS A SERIOUS DISCUSSION BASED ON FACT. USE YOUR LOGIC, REASON TO PROVE ME WRONG. DON'T USE THIS SPACE UP FOR OPINIONS, SILLY REMARKS OR VENT. FACTS, REASON, POINT BY POINT, WHICH IS WHY I TOOK THE TIME TO BLOODY NUMBER THE DAMN THINGS. RUBY JACK A*S DO YOU UNDESTAND?

You are the one who wanted to 'prove' your contention. You might as well, shut your eyes and ears and then say to yourself:'Hence proved'. I dont have the time to 'knock down' your points. When I get the time, may be. In the mean time, suffice it to say Pakistan's leaders did not take much political pain to claim the legacy of 'India'. And India's political leaders played the game well and got that UN seat and legitimacy for the name India. To have the name India was a political decision for India. It has no relation to what you feel is 'justice'.

 

[Fazlu]

Jinnah himself appears to have been unsure of how to deal with partition and the creation of Pakistan. He came up with the bizarre notion that the Pakistan Constituent Assembly should meet in Delhi! He objected to India using the name ‘India’ - he preferred ‘Hindustan’. Perhaps he did not want to view Pakistan as splintering away from India, but rather India dividing into Pakistan and Hindustan. One gets the impression that Jinnah did not want to uproot himself from his beloved Bombay and move to Pakistan. He chose not to sell his house in Bombay, which was worth a fortune. Nor did he donate it to the new state of Pakistan (as Liaquat Ali Khan did with his). When, after independence, his house was in danger of being declared ‘evacuee property’, Jinnah pleaded with the Indian High Commissioner (Ambassador) to Pakistan. “Sri Prakasa, don’t break my heart. Tell Jawaharlal not to break my heart. I have built it brick by brick. Who can live in a house like that? What fine verandahs? It is a small house fit only for a small European family or a refined Indian prince. You do not know how I love Bombay. I still look forward to going back there.” This, after independence. It appears that the Quaid-e-Azam had very little desire of spending the rest of his life in Pakistan.

Please, Atanz, I'm not into ego-trips. When I tell you this has been discussed before and the three subjects you have bundled together are boring at this very late stage, I was not trying to say that your arguments, or your ability to present a case, were inferior. It is just that your precise arguments came up, we discussed them, we exchanged authorities and came to conclusions. Don't you think you could at least glance at them before asking me to warm up the whole brew all over again?

Hey Joe, would you mind posting links to those discussions ? It would helpful to others like me, looking for more information.