What's new

Comparing Partition of sub-continent(1947) with American civil war(1865)

future_bound

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Sep 4, 2012
Messages
168
Reaction score
-10
Why do some indians (or hindus) blame Congress and Nehru for eventually agreeing to partition and compare that scenario with the American civil war?
Some argue that if Nehru aggressively tried to prevent partition like Abraham Lincoln wanted to keep America united at all costs even if it meant a civil war, Akhand bharat might still exist :lol: :lol:
Are the 2 situations not completely different, true that around a million people died at partition but without it millions more could have died in a bloody civil war. Forget Akhand bharat and instead of the sub-continent remaining united after that crisis, there could have been complete balkanization. The land may have been partitioned into around dozen countries instead of just two.

Atleast in the American civil war, majority on both sides was white anglo-saxon by race and Christian(mainly protestant) by faith so they were able to move on after Civil war ended. In the sub-continent scenario, the Muslim vs hindu divide is eternal. The muslims wanted their own land and there was nothing that Nehru and Congress could have done to prevent it
 

Back
Top Bottom