Sunday, July 20, 2014

1945-1946 Elections, Who voted for separate nation Pakistan?


OpIndia has brought it as well
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Indian secularism and so called Hindu Muslim unity is as fake, as idea of some people who supported the idea of Pakistan, telling that Pakistan would be very congenial brother, our relation will be like milk and sugar. Since Pakistan was formed and that idea got exposed. If Pakistan did not form, they would keep harping that stance even now. 

It has been very secular to discuss and research Muslim voting pattern in all election these days, so why not this special election in 1945-46 which was watershed in History of India and history of world? It was most fateful election in India, our mother India's limb were cut off.

Partition of India became imminent the day Muslims all over India voted for Muslim League and Jinnah in 1946 elections, hence supporting Jinnah two nation theory. Rest was just formality. Tragedy of partition was, except Congress everyone thought they (Congress) were representing Hindus, while Congress under Gandhi, Nehru, Azad thought and acted as representatives of Muslims.

Many prominent historians have turned the partition story other way around. Claiming partition was necessitated because Muslims felt unsafe because of RSS. RSS came into existence in 1925, and before that there were many massacres of Hindus in 1921 in Malabar, and other places. 

In 1921, 10000 Hindus were killed by Mappila Muslims, 300 temples were razed, poor Hindus were forcibly converted to Islam, 2 lakh Hindus had came as a refugees in the neighboring areas. Leftists have written it as Malabar rebellion in history books, where as it was nothing like rebellion, it was genocide of Hindus in Muslim areas of Malabar. And there was no reaction from majority Hindus even after such large scale killings. 

Bengal was divided in 1906 based on religious lines, two decades before RSS came into existence. If Muslims felt unsafe then why Muslims stayed in India after partition? And instead Hindus left from Muslim areas.


It is another form of  वैचारिक  आतंकवाद  (Intellectual Terrorism) practiced by leftists and Islamists, if you don't accept that Muslims are victims, they will do your character assassination and even kill you. If Muslims felt unsafe they wont start Direct action, if Muslims had any respect for Gandhi, they wont cold bloodily start Killing Hindus in Kolkata in 1946. Partition was genocide of Hindus but they have claimed otherwise that Muslims felt unsafe.

While court cases are still going on for Babri structure demolition (as of now in 2015), not a single inquiry has ever been set to find out who all Indians were involved in creation of Pakistan. Just like entire population of Kashmiri Hindus were wiped out from Kashmir and no politician or other was ever held responsible. Jawahar Lal Nehru hastened to ban RSS which fought against partition but Muslim League (Ally of Congress in Kerala and TN), Jamat e Islami and all Islamic organizations which lead the blood bath against Hindus  were rewarded. Most of Muslim League leaders who stayed in India they soon joined mainstream political parties, mostly Congress. After independence, people were identified, and those who went to jail for anything were given freedom fighter pension. Why those politicians who led partition movement and stayed here were not identified? Bangladesh identified those who supported Pakistan army in 1971, and punished them. After WWII those who helped NAZI party were identified and punished, court cases were slapped on them. 

I am making feeble attempt to do some justice to India, to Hindus.
                       

BACKGROUND


 A falsehood is being cited ad nauseum after independence: "India was divided by British conspiracy and Muslims loved India that's why they stayed in India". If it was so, then why didn't Pakistan or Pakistanis asked to get reunited after independence? Could we unite in 70 years after Jinnah died? Forget that, we have not been able to change Kashmiri Muslims in 70 years. Muslims have not integrated in India society in last 1300 years, and they don't want. It is not their job. Did British instigate Aurangzeb or Babur? Maharana had to eat grass to fight against British? Did RSS provoke Mohammed Ghori? 

A Blog on our penchant for blaming British for anything and everything, because that is easiest thing to do. 
https://danasurdanu.blogspot.com/2020/05/insanity-in-indian-history-books-about.html

Another fatal mistake in attempting to understand partition is to parrot the belief that partition was the fallout of ambitions of Jinnah; a relatively more liberal and, consequently much more ill-informed stance is that it was because of Nehru's and Jinnah's greed. That is not true. The truth is, if anybody bothers to look-up history, that partition was and still is a manifestation of the incompatibility of Islamic beliefs with non-Islamic cultures. When I say still is, then I am obviously also referring to post-independence issues like Kashmir and Hyderabad.

Name Pakistan was first used by Allama Iqbal in 1930. He said there is need to form a separate country from Punjab, Sindh, NWFP, Balochistan. And the form of state had to be Islamic. "Juda Ho Deen Siasat Se To Reh Jati Hai Changaizi". Allama Iqbal called for global Islamic Khilafat in his writings in English in 1932 (Reconstruction of in religious thought in Islam). Iqbal made fun of democracy. He said in democracy people are counted (sort of like animals), according to him some people and ideas are superior, and hence deserve superior place. Did Muslims suffer all over the world at the hands of Hindus? 

If Indian Muslims were secular, why did they ask for separate electorate (Marle Minto Reform 1909, accepted by Congress in 1916, India had separate electorate with a major portion of seats reserved for Muslims)? Why did they ask for separate only Muslim can vote constituencies?  If they felt insecure, how come they started most of riots even in India's Hindu majority areas? If they felt insecure how come they started direct action day killing ten thousand Hindus in Hindu majority Kolkata? Till the time they are ruler, it is all fine, when it comes to being equal citizens, Muslims demand separate state.

Shimla Deputation: Muslims and British friends in need (Marle Minto Act 1909)


The narrative of pseudo seculars in 21st century is that: Muslims are victim, don't trust mainstream, your interests are different from mainstream, they will do injustice to you, destroy your culture, will keep you poor and uneducated. This is the same narrative which was in British India. Then also Muslim politicians talked about discrimination against Urdu, discrimination against Muslims, Hindus will dominate. 

The Muslim League had been founded in 1906. The Simla Deputation was a gathering of 35 prominent Indian Muslim leaders (from all Indian provinces except the Northwest Frontier) led by the Muslim League leader Aga Khan III to meet at the Viceregal Lodge in Simla in October 1906. The deputation aimed to convince Lord Minto, then-Viceroy of British India, to grant Muslims greater representation in politics, on the basis of  willingness of the Indian Muslims to cooperate with the British. Greater  representation was to be determined by the numerical position of Muslims, their political significance and the Muslim contribution in defending the British Empire.




Deputation argued: 

Muslims are a distinct community with additional interests which are not shared by other communities and these have not been adequately represented. ..........any electoral representation in India would be doomed to mischievous failure which aimed at granting a personal enfranchisement regardless of the beliefs and traditions of the communities composing the population of this continent.

We see throughout independence that majority Muslims did not participate in Independence movement, they sided with British. Leftists have exagerated exceptions. Most revolutionaries came from Bengal and Punjab, both Muslim majority provinces. But have you heard name of a single Bengali or Punjabi Muslim who participated in movement like Subhash Chandra Bose, Khudi Ram, Bhagat Singh, Hardayal, Lala Lajpat Rai. 

Minto agreed to it and brought Indian Councils Act 1909. Muslims were granted separate electorates, with seats reserved for Muslims in which only Muslims would be polled. 

Lucknow Pact: Congress agreeing to Communalism (1916)


The Lucknow Pact was an agreement reached between the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League (AIMLM) at a joint session of both the parties held in Lucknow in December 1916. Through the pact, the two parties agreed to give separate reservation to Muslims in the provincial legislatures.  Ambica Charan Mazumdar led the Congress while framing the deal, and A.K. Fazlul Haq (who was part of both Congress and the Muslim League in 1916) and Mahatma Gandhi also participated in this event. By the way Jinnah was also a Congress member for long time. 

Congress also agreed to the idea of one-third seats for the Muslims in the Councils despite the fact that the Muslim population was only 20-21% . Apart from that, the Congress agreed that no act affecting a community should be passed unless three-quarters of that community's members on the council supported it.

That was genesis of Pakistan. They made separate constituencies for Muslims which were to be elected by only Muslim voters. 24% Muslims were given 33% seats as reserved, and in the general seats also they could fight elections. Democracy was distorted by liberal anti-Hindu Hindus, British and Muslims, to the favor of Muslims.

Separate electorate was a constitutional partition of India on the religious lines. 

Stepping stone for partition of India was laid in Marle Minto act, was visible in partition of Bengal, and Congress would accept partition later, that was also visible in Congress submission during Lucknow pact in 1916. Do we see even a rat fart worth of protest from Muslims against Marle Minto act? 

For the matter there are so many Hindus writing and protesting against imaginary Hindu state which was never formed. Have you heard any Muslim Indian or Pakistani protesting against charachter of Pakistan as a Islamic state? Is any of them ever asking to make Pakistan secular? Muslims did not just want another state, they were fighting a Jihad against Hindus, to form Riyasat e Madina, a theological state; and all Muslims rallied behind that call of Jihad. There was nothing new, Aurangjeb etc gave call for Jihad, multiple calls for Jihad against Sikhs were made before and after rein of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, by various Muslim theological groups. 

And at this point it is important to discuss who among the so called great authors said anything or expected anything like partition even after so much happening? They were Tagore, Premchand, who wrote anything about that? Most important event for India and they were as clueless as one can be. Did Subhash Chandra Bose know what is going to be fate of Bengal? He did not learn from 1906 partition. Wasting his energy in a futile battle, British would leave India anyway after WWII. Only Ambedkar and Savarkar did some thinking, and predicted it coming. Others did not think, they were like typical Hindu, doing chamchagiri, being nice. Coward, slave of habit, wanting to please people, wanting to be seen good, instead of thinking. Hindu bravery only comes in false show of ego during personal fights and wedding etc, which every dumb person lacking any vision and even animals show. What thse authors and leaders said or wrote was usually not genius. Most of them did not show element of strong independent thinking. They did not make some big flight of imagination. They mostly learned, what one can learn by reading books, and seeing west. 

The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 

The British Raj passed Shariat Act in 1937 is followed in India in matters related to marriage, divorce and succession among Muslims. Congress party was in majority at the center. 

1945-46 Elections


I want to attract readers special attention to 1945 - 1946 elections. After independence no research has been done on voting pattern of 1945-1946 provincial elections and central assembly elections.

Separate Pakistan resolution was passed by All India Muslim League on 23 March 1940, 1945-46 elections were held in this background. 

Pakistan was created by a semi-referendum which gave Muslim League rights to negotiate for Pakistan on behalf of Indian Muslims. We Hindus of India and Congress leaders agreed to demand of Pakistan by Indian Muslims. 

I consider best test of Muslim intention is their voting pattern. Which we have always consciously chosen not to look at. 

In 1945 British PM declared elections will be held and constituent assembly will be formed to set new constitution for India. These elections were a referendum for united India or partition (India and Pakistan). And Muslims choose Pakistan. Creation of Pakistan was done in democratic way, British were just a facilitator like election commission of India in 21st century. All the provinces were given the right to chose whether they want to remain with India or join Pakistan. But not even a single Muslim majority provinces decided to stay with India.

Central Assembly election 1945 


Like Loksabha, there used to be a central Assembly in pre-partition India.  The Muslim League won every single Muslim reserved seat in 1945 elections (30 out of 30, Out of 102 seats, 30 were reserved for Muslims), the “Nationalist Muslims forfeiting their deposits in most instances”. The Muslim League won 86.6 percent of the total Muslims. Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah congratulated the Muslims of India for the tremendous victory and termed it as the biggest achievement in the way of Pakistan.



Some friend countered me by telling about 1934 General elections, that Muslim League did not do well in them. But 1934 elections were not fought on the issue of partition. And Congress the holy whore of all pseudo-secularist itself had won only 42 out of 147 seats in 1934.

Provincial Elections 1946 


This was closest to time of independence and partition and you can see the true intention of Indian Muslims in this election.



Muslim league was elected in 429 of 492 reserved seats, with  89.5 % votes, only 4.4% of Indian Muslims voted to Congress in 1946 election. In most of the rest of Muslim reserved seats they voted local fanatic Muslim parties, like Unionist Muslim League Party in Punjab.  In total Muslim League got 4555 thousand Muslim votes compared to 276 thousand Muslim votes which congress got (17:1). In Bengal congress got 11 thousand Muslim vote and Muslim League got 2032 thousand Muslim votes. Thus Jinnah became sole spokesperson of Indian Muslims. Remember Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was Congress President at the time of these elections, still no Muslim voted for Congress. 

Percentage usually do not include fact that some Muslims like that of  NWFP under Badshah Khan voted for Congress in 1946 election but in India more than 95% of them voted for Pakistan. Election got cancelled in J&K. Congress got maximum support from NWFP. But later NWFP Muslims voted for Pakistan in a referendum. Overall it is safe to say that at the max 2% of Indian Muslims supported the idea of unified India and forget secularism (Congress concept of unified India was not a secular state but state with special privileges to Muslims like 33% reservation in jobs, Muslim only constituencies. Congress had agreed to separate electorate and reservation in name of religion for Muslims long ago in 1916). Muslims also supported Jinnah's ("India divided or India destroyed") Direct Action Day plan and rioted against Hindus everywhere they could afford to.

Despite request of Gandhi for United India, and Maulana Aazad being Congress president, Muslim candidates of Congress lost deposit in Muslim seats. Hence forth Muslim League was considered sole democratic representative of Indian Muslims. Muslim League on behalf of  Indian Muslims, got  negotiating power for boundaries of Pakistan. Can we ask Election commission to disown Assauddin Owaisi? No, he is elected democratically. Similarly Muslim league was empowered democratically. Pseudo seculars elevate Abul Kalam Azad to leader of Muslims, and secular, if he was so why he didn't ask Muslims to not demand separate constituencies? Why he couldn't get a single seat for Congress? Whom you will consider representative of India after 2014 elections? Modi getting 283 MPs (Even though it is only 53%, while ML won 100% seats) or Nitish Kumar getting 2 MPs? Obviously Modi. Azad worked for Muslim interest inside Congress, he was not leader of Muslims, Jinnah was.

Congress and Gandhi agreed to partition of India.

 
What Congress and leftists have done is to take the credit for Independence of India for themselves and transfer the accountability of Partition from Muslim League and Congress to a third party like RSS and Savarkar who were not part of any decision anywhere. 


Even at its peak in Independent India, in 1984 Congress received only 49% vote with 404 seats in Loksabha. It is unimaginable what kind of support Muslims had given for Pakistan that Muslim league secured almost 90% votes.

Do you think that a Muslim  living in Muslim majority area are different from those living in non-Muslim majority area? Have you ever heard Muslim living in non Muslim majority countries, demanding Pakistan, Iran or Saudi Arabia to become secular?

Do you think Muslim People have changed? Do Bangladeshi Muslims infiltrators love India that is why they cross illegally to India? Do you think Babur hated Farghana and loved India that is why he came to conquer India? 

Muslims stayed in India because India is safe for them, Hindus pose no threat to them. Hindu and Sikh vacated Pakistan, Bangladesh, Kashmir, Afghanistan, Malabar, because it was not safe to live there. Indian Muslims hate Hindus and India because they can afford to, because it doesn't cause any reaction from Hindus, not because Hindus did something wrong to them. Muslims in every corner of the world hate USA, and yet they all want to immigrate to USA, because USA is a safe place for them. Pakistani origin Muslims in USA run anti-US narrative, most fanatical and ant-American person are elected as heads of various Pakistani and Indian origin Muslim groups in US.  

Sylhet (Assam)


In early 1947 plebiscite was again held in Muslim majority Sylhet district of Assam, because Muslim League did not have majority in Assam. In Sylhet 57% of population voted in favor of Pakistan (60% Population of Sylhet Muslim). Even if 15% Muslims had voted for Sylhet to be part of India, it would have been part of India. 

North West Frontier Province


Only opposition to partition from Muslim people was in NWFP. In January 1946, provincial elections out of 50 seats, Muslim League won 17 seats, while Congress won 30 seats. It was decided to redo a referendum on Joining India or Pakistan in NWFP. Bacha Khan opposed it citing that plebiscite has no options for independence of NWFP or its merger with Afghanistan. Pashtuns in NWFP those under influence of Bacha Khan preferred British India type situation in which NWFP had good amount of autonomy with State deciding only foreign policy etc. Under Gandhi and Nehru they would have that autonomy, and good relations with Afghanistan. While they knew for sure that Jinnah and Liaqat wont give them that freedom. Supporters of Bacha Khan abstained from Voting (they did not vote for India), but Muslim League had edge and they won the Plebiscite. 



Since Congress agreed to partition, Congress was hated by both types of Muslims of NWFP, by one who did not want to join Pakistan and second by those other who wanted to join Pakistan. During his October 1946 visit to Peshawar, Nehru was greeted with a large unfriendly crowd at Peshawar airport after which he had to be whisked away. Bacha Khan had to personally intervene to save him. 


According to London Time 22nd October 1946: NEHRU IS WOUNDED IN MOSLEM ATTACK; Suffers Minor Injury as His Car Is Stoned Near Frontier-- Three Others Also Hurt.

His convoy was shot at Khyber, he was pelted at Malakand and an Pashtun elder attempted  to slap him at Waziristan.

"Down with the unholy alliance between the Hindus and the British. Nehru go back."
A slogan chanted at the demonstration against Nehru at Peshawar in October, 1946.

We don't have information about such opposition to partition by Muslim population anywhere else in India. In NWFP too only 5 lakhs 72 thousand voters were eligible, out of 4 million plus. But we do see a large portion (49%) did not voted, meaning around 25- 30% might be opposed to Pakistan. Everywhere else Muslims in India celebrated partition plan as victory. Only Hindus opposed partition in rest of India. 

Jinnah said in a NWFP rally: "You are Muslims first, Indian second".  Bacha Khan and Abdus Samad Khan Achackzai were only prominent leaders who opposed Pakistan and who did not have ill will towards Hindus in their heart (but likes of Sheikh Abdulla and Ali Brothers who have been eulogized in India were Islamists). Son of Abdus Samad Khan, Mahmud Khan Achakzai (Pakistan) is still a leader worth listening, speaks from heart and has knowledge. Afghanistan was only country to oppose Pakistan induction into UN in 1947. 


Hysteric popular Support for Pakistan among Indian Muslims


V S Naipaul narrates " In Lahore in 1979 I met a man who tried to tell me what the creation of Pakistan had meant to him as a child over the border in India. 'He had to feel for the words. At last he said': “To me it was like God"....To many, or most, of the Muslims of the subcontinent the state that had been won out of India came as a kind of religious ecstasy....” 

89.5% Muslims who favored Pakistan went to Pakistan after partition?..NO. They stayed here, did their ideology changed on sound of gong on 11:59 PM? No they just adapted their outer skin, their heart is same. They just adapted themselves into new situation. Some examples are below:

Nawab Mohammad Ismail Khan, One of the tallest leaders of Muslim league, campaigned extensively for Pakistan and contributed financially, politically and physically. After partition, he stayed back in India saying "How can I leave my brethren here behind me?". Became VC of Aligarh Muslim University. 

Muhammad Ismail, Madras president of Jinnah's Muslim League. Campaigned for Pakistan and won all Muslim 30 seats of Madras. He stayed back after partition, founded Indian Union Muslim League. IUML was formed on the advice of Jinnah just before he left. Jinnah said, "There must be a Muslim league in Hindustan." When asked why he voted for Pakistan and broke United India when he himself was an Indian Muslim living in post partition India, IUML founder Mohammad Ismail said, "The creation of Pakistan is beneficial not only to Muslims of Pakistan, it is also beneficial to Muslims of India......The Muslims of India are proud of having achieved Pakistan. A Muslim is always a Muslim. A Muslim first and a Muslim last." (Ref: "The Political Evolution of Muslims in Tamilnadu and Madras, 1930-1947")

Jinnah was a Congress leader from 1904 to 1920s. If RSS can be blamed because Nathuram was with RSS in some past, then why not blame Congress also for being party of Jinnah. 

Moahmmed Ali Jinnah kept vising Mumbai and had a house in Malabar hills which still exists, Jinnah wanted to spend his last days here. Butcher of Bengal, Surhavardy had his house in Kolkata and vacated it only after more than a year after partition. Most Muslim League and Muslim politicians stayed in their same houses in India. So who was afraid of Hindus? Pakistan was called to be new Medina from where they can Islamize rest of India.



Pakistan movement was lead from mosques, madarasa, Aligarh Muslim University, Jamia Millia Islamia. One can find countless references in books by Pakistani authors, Indians have been very smart in talking very little about it, not mentioning it in History books, lest it asks them to accept some hard inconvenient truth about how they were forced to accept partition.  

Aga Khan III 48th Imam of the Shia Imami Ismaili Muslims, was one of the founders and fundraiser of AMU. Islamuddin wrote in Aga Khan III (Islamabad, 1978, p. 27), “it would not be an exaggeration to say that without Aga Khan, there would have been no Aligarh University, and without Aligarh, Pakistan would have been a near impossibility.” The Aga Khan himself wrote in his Memoirs (London, 1954, p. 36) : “We may claim with pride that Aligarh was the product of our own efforts and of no outside benevolence and surely it may also be claimed that the independent sovereign nation of Pakistan was born in the Muslim University of Aligarh.”

Jinnah and Allama Iqbal were just faces of Muslim political history, if it was not Jinnah it would have been some other Khan or Syed or some Ahmed. Riots didn't start after Jinnah become leader of Muslims, riots took place every day since Mohammed Bin Kasim invaded Sindh in 8th century. Mopla Muslim riots against Hindus 1921 were not orchestrated by Jinnah or Allama Iqbal. It is just a strategy by  pseudo secular parties to put the blame on a unreal Jinnah who was born somewhere in west Punjab and was evil who spoiled mind of  good Muslims, and hence they can justify their appeasement policy. Before Jinnah all the invaders like Mohammed Bin Kasim, Taimur, Mahmud and all the rulers Like Allauddin, Aurangjeb were all Jinnah, and Owaisi is present day Jinnah. We meet the same enemy with different faces throughout history.

Mohammed Ali Jinnah, always spoke in the name of 100 million Muslims, not for Muslims of Punjab, Sindh and Bengal. Many speech videos and audio's are recorded available on you-tube. I will put one link here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAx3cxLVAI0&list=PL4Zh3BabiU5V1PYdUogAaM-Dl6Nrj3MB5

These mass meetings of Mohammed Ali Jinnah for Pakistan movement and direct action did not take place in Peshawar or Quetta as most of Hindus would like to believe. These mass gathering too place in Mumbai, Indore, Hyderabad, Lucknow, Patna, Kolkata, Bhopal; each of them attended by lakhs of people. The kind of faith Jinnah enjoyed among Indian Muslims, even Gandhi did not enjoy among non-muslims. To give the account of extent of support for Pakistan among Indian Muslims watch this video documentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-tWIe9aYgE

Jinnah, Liakat Ali Khan themselves were born in India, a fact you may not like to think of or talk about, your wishful thinking would be that they were born in areas which are now Pakistan. Jinnah was elected from Byculla seat in Mumbai.

Today all so called secular parties have termed AIMIM secular, but after partition of India and creation of Pakistan was confirmed in 1947, Owaisi's party MIM praised Jinnah & invited him to their annual conference in 1947.  The Nizam of Hyderabad wrote these words to Jinnah:



Even Nizam of Hyderabad praised him to skies & publicly declared that Jinnah was the greatest Muslim politician.

Pakistan Govt celebrates MIM founder BAHADUR YAR JUNG as Pak movement leader.
This tweet by Pak official radio and Pak armed forces on MIM leader.




Don't think that Owaisi brothers have changed now. Muslims of India still protect Jinnah portrait at AMU. The slogans they shouted during anti-CAA protests: "Hum Lekr Rhenge Aazadi, Jinnah Waali Aazadi". Leftists are no communists, they are Islamist in the skin of communist.

 Akhilesh Yadav during election campaign on 31st October 2021:  "Sardar Patel, Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and (Muhammad Ali) Jinnah studied in the same institute. They became barristers and fought for India's freedom... It was Iron Man Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel who imposed a ban on an ideology (RSS)" Why did he say this? Why not Maulana Azad? Because he knows Muslims consider Jinnah their hero inside homes. Barring BJP, no political party opposed it. 
Akhilesh and his party did not call this statement a mistake, but instead went on justifying it. 

When Dawood Ibrahim was in India, he was called by media a great patriot. Bollywood celebs used to perform national anthem in his events, Sridevi and Madhuri danced in his birthday parties. Yet he blasted Mumbai at the time of Namaz, so that only Hindus get killed. It didn't take a second for Dawood to discard both National Anthem and Indian flag and flee to Pakistan.

Watch Tarek Fatah 6:00 onwards

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DtIvbxE050

Direct action for creation of Pakistan (killing 5000 Hindus) was started from Kolkata, how come Muslims of Kolkata changed overnight at midnight of 15 August 1947?
Sardar Patel's Kolkata speech (3rd January 1948) is available on Youtube. He asks how come Muslims of India who fought to create Pakistan had a sudden change of heart overnight on 14th august 1947? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3HFNqforiM



Every Muslim knew Pakistan is not being created in UP, Bihar, CP, Birar, Kerala, Bombay, still they fought for it, and when they got it, they started speaking different, except in Kashmir, where they can afford to say "Ham Pakistani hain, Pakistan Hamara hai". We have paid price for our own ignorance with four million lives and we are paying everyday. 

In the video below watch 25:00 onward

"Pakistan ki tahrik me sabse badh chadh ke jo hissa liya, wo UP ke musalmano ne liya, unhone nara diya bat ke rahega hindustan, ban ke rahega pakistan, jabki unhe malum tha wo pakistan UP me nahi ban raha."

On one hand  Mohajirs  tell in Pakistan, with fond memories of how they taught Hindus a good lesson and created Pakistan. The glory Muslims feel in having torn India forcefully, it is everywhere, read the documents of MQM and Pakistani history.  Some of the slogans of Indian Muslims in UP and Bihar. 

"Ladke lenege pakistan, mar ke lenge Pakistan"
"Pakistan ka Matlab Kya La-Ilahi Il Allah"
"Darté nahin duniya me Musalman kisi sé—Ja puchh Ali-sé."
"Bat ke rahéga Hindustan, Ban ke rahéga Pakistan."
 “Pakistan ka Matlab kia? La Illaha Illallah. Dastoor riasat kia ho ga? Muhammadur Rasool Allah”.

Why partition should occur in those areas where Muslims reached 50% of the total population or more? Wherever Muslim populations cross 50% mark, the localized area becomes a non-secular Islamic territory. This holds true not just for large states or cities but also for smaller localities and townships. Once while travelling from the Howrah Station to Parnasree in Kolkata, a Taxi driver said to me that he never takes passengers for the Khidderpore no matter what they are willing to pay. Such an atmosphere of mistrust does exist without some deep reason and those who feel that politics is responsible for it are actually less-informed. Politics is only an expression of social dynamics for the sake of power and governance.

Direct Action Day

The 17th day of Ramzan i.e. 16 August 1946, was chosen for launching Direct Action Day. “It was on that day that Prophet Muhammad waged the bloody Battle of Badr which resulted in his first decisive victory over the heathens and the subsequent conquest of Mecca.” “Direct Action means any action against the law. We cannot eliminate any method.”


Read the Muslim League pamphlets during direct action day in Kolkata.

“By early afternoon, Muslims armed with iron rods, sticks, swords and weapons started streaming out of the mosques in areas like Park Circus, Metiabruz,  and congregating at the Ochterlony monument (Maidan now) for the Muslim League rally. The gathering, estimated variously between 60,000 and 200,000, was by far the largest assembly of Muslims in Bengal.” Jinnah gave clarion call "India divided or India destroyed". 


Two Nation Theory: Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, AMU


Sir Syed is known as founder of Aligarh Muslim University. In a speech at Meerut in 1866 he presented on overall scenario of post colonial phase in which he described Muslims and Hindus as two nations. 60 years before founding of RSS, leftists have put entire blame on RSS out of thin air. He's regarded as the father of Two-Nation Theory and the pioneer of Muslim nationalism which led to the partition of India. He called British "book of people", our TV serial Yug had shown opposite, British telling Muslim that they are people of the book, we don't have balls to speak the facts. 

"At this time our nation is in a bad state in regards education and wealth, but God has given us the light of religion and the Quran is present for our guidance, which has ordained them (British) and us (Muslims) to be friends. Now God has made them rulers over us. Therefore we should cultivate friendship with them, and should adopt that method by which their rule may remain permanent and firm in India, and may not pass into the hands of the Bengalis (most revolutionaries fighting British being Hindu Bengalis)........ If we join the political movement of the Bengalis our nation will reap a loss, for we do not want to become subjects of the Hindus instead of the subjects of the "people of the Book...(Muslims and Christians)"

"Suppose that the English community and the army were to leave India, taking with them all their cannons and their splendid weapons and all else, who then would be the rulers of India?.....Is it possible that under these circumstances two nations—the Mohammedans and the Hindus—could sit on the same throne and remain equal in power? Most certainly not. It is necessary that one of them should conquer the other. To hope that both could remain equal is to desire the impossible and the inconceivable. But until one nation has conquered the other and made it obedient, peace cannot reign in the land." 

This was his condescending disregard for Hindus which made him friend of British.  

Congress made this friend of British and founder of two nation theory a secular hero, instead maligned a real hero Savarakar. 

Sir Syed fanaticism can be seen from the fact that he had written a 22 page thesis in Urdu on why Muslims should not eat mango, as there was no mango in Arabia. Ahmad Khan founded the All India Muhammadan Educational Conference in 1886. Which helped to stimulate a separatism among Muslim elites that went on to form the AIML which led Muslims of India towards formation of Pakistan.

The onset of the Hindi-Urdu controversy of 1867 saw the emergence of Sir Syed as a champion for cause of the Urdu language. He became a leading Muslim voice opposing the adoption of Hindi as a second official language of the United Provinces (now Uttar Pradesh). Sir Syed perceived Urdu as the lingua franca of the United Provinces (Uttar Pradesh). 

And he thought some 150-175 years ago that main reason of weakness of Muslims is that time has changed, and old methods of sword will not help us. He asked all Muslims to focus all the energy on gaining skills from British, make friendship with British. He saw British rule as benevolent for Muslims and asked Muslims to ensure and strengthen British rule in India. He said end of British rule will be disastrous for Muslims. He has repeated these things over and over. Has anyone ever called him a traitor? Pseudo-seculars instead call him a roshan-khayal (enlightened) person.  

Syed Ahmed enjoys veneration in Pakistan like grand patriarch, among the founders of idea of Pakistan. 

Muslim Hatred for Gandhi 


Gandhi  had made a vow to die to keep India united, he gave pledge to Muslims for every possible privilege he could imagine to make Muslims support cause of united India. Muslims didn't show any respect to Gandhi. Pakistan movement didn't budge even slightly for Gandhi, had no respect for life and death of Gandhi. Gandhi knew it, so whenever he kept fast unto death, he imposed his conditions only on Hindus. Gandhi used to read Koran in temples to stop partition, while Muslims never allowed him to recited the Gita in mosques. Ironically when Mahatmaji died, Pakistan newspapers said, "the Hindu leader died". Gandhi couldn't get a single seat out of 30, he was not considered representative of all Indians, only representative of non-Muslim Indians.  Indian Muslims elected Mohammed Ali Jinnah their representative not Mr. Gandhi.  

I know personally, how most Indian Muslims abuse and make fun of Gandhi behind but say something else in front of camera. Gandhi was murdered, the day India was partitioned and real culprits are those who divided India against his direst wishes. You will never ever find photo of Gandhi in any Muslim home. These are meant for TV studios only. I have heard many Muslims telling me that Gandhi was a sexual predator, walked and lived with women.

Muslim prominent leaders and clerics called Gandhi a proponent of Hindu state. Gandhi often talked about Ramrajya, one in which everyone has food to eat, cloth and roof, talked about Geeta and Cow. Gandhi held same image among Muslims as Modi has now. Soft Hindutva proponent. More Muslims abused Gandhi, more harder Gandhi worked to win their hearts. 

Muslims opposed Gandhis Noakhali visit, roads were blocked and feces and animal flesh was thrown on his way. When Gandhi returned from Noakhali, more attack on Hindus ensued to teach Gandhi a lesson. Gandhi requested all Hindus to vacate in such conditions. 

For Muslims, Gandhi or Nehru were another Kafir, like Kashmiri Pandits who were in National Conference pre 1989.  Pakistan textbooks are full of hatred for Gandhi. These same texts were written in Urdu news papers in Lucknow, Hyderabad, Mumbai etc., before partition. 

A fundamental problem of Islam and Muslims is that, a person no matter if he is rapist, he has murdered many non Muslims, he has robbed etc, if he believes in Quran and Rasul, then he is their brother, and another person who is very kind, helps them as individual, honest, peaceful, belongs to same race, country, still he is an outsider and enemy. With this view Aurangzeb, Babar, Gori, Jinnah all are their heroes. 

So Maulana Mohammed Ali Jauhar said: “However pure Gandhiji's character may be, he must appear to me from the point of view of religion inferior to any Mussalman, even though he be without character. Yes, according to my religion and creed, I do hold an adulterous and a fallen Mussalman to be better than Mahatma Gandhi”. All this he said in 1921. It has to be borne in mind that Mahatma Gandhi was the President of the Khilafat Movement at that time. We have a road in Mumbai, Mohammed Ali Road in his honor. 

Maulana Mohammed Ali Jauhar, the Muslim follower of the Mahatma Gandhi who had thus politically stabbed Mahatma Gandhi with Islamic fervour in the back even in the days of the Khillafat Movement was given the supreme honor of presiding over the Kakinada Session of the Congress in 1923.  Vishnu Digambar Puluskar came on the dais to sing 'Vande Matram', he was stopped by the President Maulana Mohammed Ali, who exclaimed that singing of music was taboo in Islam and as such he would not permit the singing of VANDE MATARAM song. All this was done while Gandhi Malviaya were on the dais. In 1978 Govt of India issued commemorative Postage Stamp in his honor. 

Mohammed Ali, Shaukat Ali were from Rampur Uttar Pradesh; are in the list of founding members of Pakistan, whose contribution to creation of Pakistan is widely acknowledged. For the matter Jinnah himself was from Gujarat, India. 

Junagarh, Hyderabad


Father of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was diwan of Junagarh state, he had married a Hindu lady Lakhibai and converted her to Islam, as Khurshid Begum. Zulfikar being born to a Hindu lady still heaped so much hatred, his daughter Benazir started terrorism in Kashmir. Nabab Muhammad Mahabat Khan of Junagarh had acceded to Pakistan.  

Hyderabad state had 90% Hindu population but Hyderabad state and its Muslim population and Nizam wanted to be part of Pakistan, they committed atrocities on Hindu population. Muslim population had also formed private militia called Razakar, which killed Hindus and fought against Indian state during operation polo. Now leftists say they are secular, have nothing to do with Pakistan. 


Daughter of KCR, K Kavitha said in parliament and outside that Kashmir and Hyderabad had been forcefully annexed by India. That is contrary to what they say that Muslims are loyal to India. 

Alibi of Pseudo Seculars (Limited Suffrage) 


Many Muslims (in India only) come up with alibi that voting rights were limited to a certain percentage of Muslim population who fulfilled minimum criteria of education or certain land holdings.  In 2014 election Modi got only 17 crore votes, out of 125 crores souls (13.6%). In no election total number of votes polled exceeds half of the total population (suppose 60% people are above 18, in that also only 55% vote, so only 33% of population casts votes, out of which winner gets around one third, so 10-15%) . Anyway those days 50 % populations would be below 18, so that 14-15% was around 30% adult franchise. In sum even the voting franchise wasn't a small group, as excerpt below from a book suggests.




There is not a single proof to substantiate that poor and landless Muslims thought differently from their brethren. Nobody protested that they oppose Pakistan and they should be allowed to vote against Pakistan. No Muslim objected to the voting system then. They did not say, "not in my name", like they did during law on triple Talaq.  If objection is that only 15% Muslims had franchise then obvious question is did Nehru and Gandhi raise this issue? (They would have asked for universal franchise, if they were confident that it would stop partition, but they knew no such thing is there). How did they accept it? Why did Muslim Razakar's fought against Indian flag in Hyderabad? Why did Muslims sided with invading Pakistan army in Kashmir? 

And Non Muslims too had the same voter criterion, non-Muslims also had limited suffrage, so do we say Congress didn't win unreserved seats in 1945, 1946? Can we say Nehru becoming PM of interim govt was illegal? Can we say that we would have joined Pakistan if there was universal franchise? Why did Congress participate in elections if it did not have any meaning? How come there was significant opposition to Pakistan by Muslims in NWFP, while not in rest of India?  If Modi can be held responsible for a stage-managed incident of someone throwing stone on Church window, because he is PM of India, can we ask anything from Nehru, how come did he did not raise the issue of limited voter franchise? Nobody raised it during partition. Only pressitutes raise it now to protect their master's interests. Can we take Nehru to the court posthumously for treason and for being responsible for accepting partition on flimsy grounds and causing 2 million deaths? Can we pass bill in parliament that Pakistan is illegal, because there was limited franchise, so we take it back? Who was in govt? Who decided voting rights? It was Congress and Muslim League. Do we hear about any discussion or disagreement on franchise criteria by prominent Congress or Muslim League politicians pre 1947? 

It is as good as telling that all the blood reports are wrong because those reports were taken by testing only 5 ml blood from 5000 ml blood in my body. Did you get trillions of DNA in your body tested and each matched with your fathers DNA to prove that you are his son/daughter? Or in worst can we say all the laws and rules passed by parliament are null and void because we 130 core Indians did not vote for it (only 543 loksabha MPs did)? If there was 100% Franchise they would say that since literacy was only 10% and 90% Muslims were uneducated (as were 90% Hindu) so they were not fully informed about what Pakistan would mean, they just voted in fear and emotion or that they were influenced by fear of RSS. 

Onus of proving falls on pressitutes not on us. Those who give silly reasons of limited franchise are the same people who hire somebody, clad him in saffron Kurta and make him throw stone at some church and record the video, and say HINDU ARE TERRORIST. But according to them more than 46 lakh votes (from expected 5 crore adults) in favor of Pakistan is not a representation, but their their 2.7 lakh votes are representation. Even of it was 100% franchise in which even one day old was given the voting rights, still these  वैचारिक आतंकवादी   wouldn't accept it and attribute it to something else. Why did they accept Abdullah and Muftis as CM? Voting was always around 10% in Kashmir, less than 1946 elections. When was last time any so called secular or Muslim accepted at least one terrorist attack to be motivated by Islam from millions of terrorist incidents worldwide which were motivated by Islam? They will never accept what doesn't suit their interests. 

If we recall Khalif movement, it would be important to note that people of Turkey call it war of Independence and Mustafa Kemal Pasha is called AtaTurk (Father of the Turks) for his role in throwing out Khalif system from turkey and building democracy. Khalif movement was against the democracy. But Muslims of India unanimously supported Khalif and burned Hindu lives and property all over India. The community which has so much awareness about an event 5000 km away, where they have never been, about which they know nothing, is it impossible that 70% of  those adults without voting rights thought differently and didn't speak up. Partition was the event which would affect them most for there entire future. It is like telling my hand was chopped but I didn't notice it, I was watching T-20 match. Muslims rioted when America attacks Saddam Hussein, they have opinion about Iraq, Iran, Myanmar, America. Impossible that they don't have any sides between India and Pakistan on the issue of Kashmir as well.

Criteria for voting was minimum education or certain land holdings. A common sense would say that illiterate and landless Muslims would have wanted Pakistan even more. Pseudo seculars themselves defend all acts of terrorism by citing less education, poverty. They say that lack of jobs created terrorism in Kashmir (far from truth). Then British Indian government did better else Congress would have got 1% instead of 5% votes it got. Educated and landowning are more conscious of what they are doing, what is idea of Pakistan. 

PASSING THE BUCK
One of my western friends said "You dont understand difference between Muslim and Islamists", such statement has two passive implications: (1) That those who commit the crimes are separate lot Islamist and not part of mainstream Muslim and Islamic theology. Its like you keep watering a plant and when it bears fruits, you say holy crap how come a mango here? 
(2) That those who commit crimes in the name of Islam are from a different planet, aberration, and shouldn't be taken seriously. Should be forgiven.

Both these tricks were used to cover those who inflicted the partition of India. First by telling a lie that they all stayed here for the love of nation and then telling that tiny minority who supported Pakistan was a cranky mentally ill people you see in mental hospitals, shouldn't be taken seriously. It is like once in Bihar Sharif, one Muslim hoisted big Pakistani flag on house roof.  Muslims and media said that person is mentally ill, to save him. Those who floated the story of mental illness and the guy both were sane and in intentional collusion.

How many Muslims opposed Marle Minto Act? They rioted and blocked roads to Delhi, in opposition to CAA in 2020, which had nothing to do with Indian Muslims. Do they say that we are only 15% so nothing can happen? No they use their mouth even if they have only 15% vote. Where were those mouths and hands in 1906, 1909, 1946? 

Pakistan movement wasn't a urban elite  phenomenon either plenty of rural Muslims voted for Jinnah.




Minority Burka


Liberals argue that Muslims being minority can not be aggressor and Hindu being majority can not be victim is false. British were minority in India by ratio of 1:10000, they were aggressor. White people were minority in South Africa, Zimbabwe. Brahmins have always been less than 5% but they are accused of being aggressor.  Mughals were minority, Afghan rulers were minority 


This minority thing is used for endangered tribes, linguistic group etc. or in states where constitution is not equal for all. So for example in an Islamic country, rights of non-Muslims may be less, they may be termed under minority. In India every citizen is equal, then why is there separate minority status and quota? 


India was not partitioned for minorities. Sikh, Jain, Buddhist, Christian are much smaller minority. India was partitioned for Muslims. 

Minority ministries in India, institutions work only and only for Muslims and Christians. This "minority" term is just a façade to cover open bias for Muslims. It is not for Jain, Jews, Parsee, Buddhist and Sikh.  Muslims were majority in pre partition India in 20% areas, in those areas non-Muslims were not given any privilege. 

Muslims are second most populous religion. Christians are biggest religion. These are well organized mega organizations, to call them minority is ridiculous. India has second highest population of Muslims in the world. Seven states in India has more than 20% Christian population, three being Christian majority. 

Problem is not with numbers, but nature of Islam and Muslim psyche. That makes co-existance difficult. It remains same whether they are majority or not majority. 

Muslim British Collusion 


Think  about it, In cricket, Indian Muslims celebrate Pakistan's victory over India only. Not Pakistan's victory over colonial master England nor apartheid South Africa. There is no place in History books of Pakistan for Bhagat Singh, Lala Lajpat Rai, Madan Lal Dhingra. There is no monument at the birth place of Bhagat Singh in Pakistan. Books of Pakistan doesnot show British as enemy, they show Hindu as Shaitan. Monuments have been built in Pakistan in the name of those who slaughtered Hindus, in the name of Arab, Turkic, Mughals. Their parliament respects those who fought for partition, those who fought against Hindus, not those like Bacha Khan or Abdus Samad Khan Achakzai who fought British. Instead Pakistan imprisoned both of them almost for their entire lives. Their history books talk about Independence from Kufr, Hindu, not British. No place in books of Bangladesh for Bankim Chandra Chattopadhayaya, or Khudi Ram Bose.  Have you heard popular resistance against British from Muslims? Khilafat was not about Independence of India, it was about Khalif of Turkey. From Jinnah, to Syed Ahmed all prominent Muslim politicians were pro-British. Muslims of UP, Bihar print wedding cards in English and Urdu but not in Hindi. 

British and Muslims played game against Hindus very cleverly, is seen starting in Marle Minto Act 1909. Wonder why Gandhi and Nehru were given few years of luxurious imprisonment, Jinnah was never imprisoned at all, but Savarkar was given kalapani in Andman. Reason being Jinnah and British were on one side of table, while on the other side they wanted weak leaders who have no foresight but petty and emotional self fooling attitude. Gandhi and Nehru were a good tool in hands of British and Muslim leadership. Savarkar, Subhas Chandra Bose and Patel were sought to be kept off the table by any means. Ambedkar was allowed only to the extent that he doesn't harm British and Muslim interests a lot. Still Ambedkar did write and talk a good lot, read his book PAKISTAN OR PARTITION OF INDIA, he could see it much before partition. Starting from Syed Ahmed Khan (founder of AMU) and Aga Khan to Allama Iqbal and Jinnah, all Muslim leaders saw Muslim interest in siding with British.

Lahore, Sialkot, western Punjab (Pakistan now), Bengal, Dhaka, Kolkata produced many revolutionaries, how many of them were Muslim? They were busy making deals with British.

You have to know that Muslims were part of ruling elite even during British rule. 90% Jamindar in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar were Muslims. You can still find that almost all the towns and village in UP Bihar, MP have Muslim names.

Urdu Farsi was working language of govt employees and English was only used by class 1 level officers. My grandfather did his bachelor in Farsi literature and taught Farsi in high school in Patna (1943-1945). Because there was no option. Soje Watan, which Premchand wrote was in urdu.

We think Tipu Sultan was fighting British, but Dutch, Portugese and French in India also fought British. They fought for their power to rule over different parts of India. Not for you and me. Not for India which was formed by meditations of our saints and efforts thousands of years of our evolution. Read Gomantak by Savarkar to know about Portugese occupation of Goa. Once Muslims lost power to British, they worked as Kapo of  British to keep an upper hand over Hindus. Both had common goals.

After Brits left, while India allied with Soviet Union (Russia), Pakistan became ally of Britain, NATO and USA. Pakistan launched 1965 war on the strength of weapons supplied by USA.

Pre 1947, one Mulla murdered two British in a church in Patna out of his hate for Christianity, it was included in Govt textbook in Bihar as mini Tipu act. Fact is it was not motivated by their love for India but their Christian hate because British had removed Khalif. 

There is a fatal mistake, Intention is very important. Else we don't know difference between sex and rape, bullet fired by soldier and one by criminal are not the same. We are not able to make that distinction, so we often take our history after 1025 to be mutual existence. We live walk, have a name and eat but we have lost the capacity to think as independent civilization. We Hindus are tamatar, pyaj and biryani people, always show complete absence of critical thinking, zero strategy. We just indulge in story telling which we hear from other docile brothers. Read INDIA WOUNDED CIVILIZATION by V S Naipaul to get some psychological insight.

Meaning of Freedom for Indian Continent Muslims

It was not that Christian, Parsee, Sikh, Jain were too numerous and that they had extra protection in Hindu majority India so they felt no need for separate state, while tens of time more populous Muslims were insecure.  If Muslims were insecure they would not start back to back riot back in 1881 in Tippera, in 1921 in Malabar, then in Kohat etc.

The Arab conqueror Muhammad bin Qasim conquered Sindh in 711 CE. The Pakistan government's official chronology claims this as the time when the foundation of Pakistan was laid. 

A Pakistani guy once said that Muslims in India and Indian Kashmir are detained. Our so called secular politicians say the same. They call Muslims of India who riot everyday pelting stones on police, burning shops, stabbing random people as detained. But they call Hindus of Tharparkar, Amarkot whose daughters get abducted very often, who leave Pakistan on first opportunity, who have no freedom to learn their script, have to learn Arabic script, as enjoying freedom. 

So question arises what does it means not to be detained, to be free? What does it mean when Muslims apply for passport to west and then they riot there in west for freedom and rights? 

What did it mean for Indian Muslims to have freedom or separate state prior to 1947? For them it meant same thing as it meant for barbarians from central Asia e.g. Ghori, Taimur, Babur, Aurangzeb. For them it meant freedom to implement sharia, chopping hand and gauging eyes, raping, burning etc. their favorite reminisces. For them it means freedom to kill any kafir at will. That way they had ruled India for 800 years, it is in their habit. That freedom was going to cease in a democratic set up with non- Muslim majority, for that they were fighting. 

How to get that freedom? By terrorizing and killing Hindus and Sikh in Kolkata, Noakhali, Punjab. After getting that freedom, one needed money to run the state, they again shown their medieval instinct, they did not try  to start some production unit, factory, business export or focus on agriculture etc. Did Taimur or Mahmud Ghaznavi build factories? They sought to rob all Hindus and Sikh of their wealth and land. Then when Hindus were finished in west Pakistan, they first attacked India in 1965 and lost, then they started by killing leftover Hindus in East Pakistan and to some extent black dark Bengali Muslims. Then that over, they found new method to get money to run the state, by charging USA for jihad in Afghanistan. That over with collapse of Soviet union, they created new playground in Kashmir. There they committed genocide on Hindus. 

Terrorism is out-spring of that medieval instinct, which has nothing constructive to offer for civilization except killing, terrorizing and robbing.  When nothing is there they cut blood among themselves, killing Ahmadi, Shia. No democratic govt in Pakistan has completed its term, either some Army General takes over, or they get mysteriously killed, or army tentacles in judiciary etc snares the democratic leader. They don't believe in democratic set-up, state, globalization team-work, technology. For them state means Islam and associated freedom for all their medieval instincts without any civility, duty or discipline etc. They have an emotional need for blood bath.

Why Muslims stayed in India, after creating Pakistan?


No one shifts unless he is pushed and thrown out or He is to get a lot of Wealth in new place.

The mood in India in the 1940s was one of deep divisions as the Muslim League was the overwhelming recipient of the Muslim vote while the Congress by and large got the Hindu vote. Yet, within a decade, by the 1950s, the Congress had ended up becoming the number one choice of India’s Muslims as majority of leaders of Muslim League overwhelmingly supporting Pakistan, stayed in India and joined Congress as "nationalist Muslim ".

1) Safety and Socio-economic reason: It was not as many assume because they were secular, or at least such a generalization cannot be made for all Muslims that stayed back, for if it were true, independent India would have never again had a communal riot which are almost all started by Muslims. It was the Muslims who were applying pressure for a separate Islamic homeland and not the Hindus. As Hindus weren't really concerned with a explicitly Hindu homeland, they did not force the Muslims to leave.

Socio-economic conditions play important role in decision making. Sometimes, this factor solely affects the decision. Leaving all your property and migrating to an unknown land and starting all over again is not something most can do.  A person's venture is giving him high returns, and his base has strengthened at a particular place from long time. He will not leave his achievements all of a sudden and pack his bag unless he has a back up in other place.  If a person Muslim or not is asked to relocate, without the promise of better or at least equal employment opportunity, that person will not take unnecessary risk. Hindus didn't ask their neighbors to relocate, in most cases they even requested to stay back, my own village in Bihar is example and that happened in most of villages. Majority of Muslims were certain that nothing will happen to them if they stay in India.

1.0 % Hindus of Pakistan who see their sister getting abducted in broad daylight and still live as third class citizens in Pakistan, do not live their because they love Pakistani system and they love their daughters getting abducted in broad day light (There were three Hindu Majority districts in Sindh: Tharparkar, Mirpur Khas and Amarakot, 1% Hindus are mostly in this area). They live because they cant afford,  sometime they cant don't want to leave their house, their bread and nothing good awaits them in India, secular govt of India treats Hindus as enemy, no food, shelter is given in most cases (Only Rohangia and Bangladeshi and families of deceased Kashmiri militants are entitled to that).

Do you think 20 million Bangladeshi Muslims infiltrated because they love India not Bangladesh? or opposite that they can make Assam and West Bengal next Bangladesh?

2) Some other points were raised by Islamic organizations in India. They were not happy with the size of Pakistan, so they claim they have right to stay in India even if they voted for Pakistan.

3) They wanted whole India to become an Islamic State. They do not consider India as alien land but their property. Mughals, Afghans and other Muslim ancestors rules this land.  Once a Muslim guy said to me, "Whatever you do, India is ours, we have ruled India in past and we will rule in future also".

4) Some Muslims were too poor to afford to move to Pakistan, Mahmud Madani, had indicated somewhere that despite of willing to go to Pakistan, many of them could not have managed to reach Pakistan due to geographical and economical reasons!!  In those days travelling was not very comfortable, south Indian Muslims could have to travel long distances, their language was different in many instances. Consider travelling 2500 km from Kerala or Tamilnadu to Pakistan on bull cart.

Some were waiting for violence to stop and some stayed to see which country offers better economics, certainly it was India which had more opportunities. They knew that India would be politically more stable and economically better off than Pakistan, so they decided to stay in India. Observe their hypocrisy, they went on to create Pakistan, but did not want to leave India. Why are Muslims migrating in large numbers to North America and Europe but very few Muslims are migrating to North Africa or Islamic countries. It is again because they wish to take advantage of the better economic system in other countries and at the same time carry out one or two terrorist attacks whenever they have the leisure.

https://tribune.com.pk/story/748745/am-i-pakistani-or-am-i-indian/

5) Many well to do Muslims also didn't move and even when they moved then it was like one brother moved to Pakistan whereas another stayed in India. Indian Muslims after partition, "Tu bhai Pakistan dekh ke aa, mai yahan kheti bari samhalta hun". The idea was to eliminate all the Hindu population  through genocide in Pakistan and then to attack India (Kashmir war immediately started). Indian Muslims are expected to help them and eliminate/enslave all Hindus.

“Muslim migrants from India to Pakistan had expressed” their future hopes in this slogan:

 “लड़कर लिया पाकिस्तान , हंस  के लेंगे हिंदुस्तान"

6) Both Gandhi and Nehru started forcing/begging Muslims not to leave India. Nehru developed Muslims as a vote bank. Nehru said he would resign if Muslims are forced to move to Pakistan.
Nehru refused to implement Uniform Civil Code to convince Muslims to stay here.

7) Nehru signed in 1950 agreement with Liaquat to stop the migration of people from both sides and which nullifies the Two Nation Theory (pressurized by Sheikh Abdullah and Abdul Kalam Azad). One million Muslims returned from east Pakistan to India, hundreds of thousands returned from Pakistan to UP and Bihar, but no Hindu or Sikh could go back to return to Pakistan. Many prominent congress leader opposed it and some had even resigned. This led to coming of Jan Sangh which is now know as BJP. Also note that Pakistan closed border in 1952, migrations to Pakistan were stopped so any Mulsim wanting to migrate to Pakistan after 1951 had to go through a lot of red tape.

Indus Water Treaty gave Pakistan accesses to 25% of water resources for 15% of  subcontinent population on the belief that one day all Indian Muslims will or can move to Pakistan.

Volume 6(2) September October 2003
Punjab’s ‘cleansing’ - The Express Tribune
Oxford University Press, Pakistan

___________________________________________________________________________________

Maulana Azad


Part of his reputation was because he was born in Mecca to Arab mother and a very religious father of Afghan ancestry, so he was a pure Muslim and high. He was congress president between 1940 to 1946 and first HRD minister of India. His main aim was to save Muslim interests in India after partition. His influence as first HRD minister on history books and institutions is still there.  Even after partition, he shamelessly maligned Hindus for partition riots. Maulana Azad made no appeal or effort to save non-Muslims in Muslim areas.  He had actively propagated that Indian Muslims should do Jihad in India to establish Khalifat in Turkey in 1920s. His biography and speeches makes one feel that he wanted to see entire India a Islamic country in some future. Some Muslim organization like Jamat-e-Islami were more clear that they will try to get entire India in future.

People like Azad did not want to loose this vast land, which was once ruled by Muslims. In 1945-46, he did not get a single seat for Congress, he was in Congress only to save Muslim interest in India.  He said "Interest of Muslims of India was in United India, they should have been more stronger in Continent and partition was mistake". Unity and human values appear nowhere, to be in United India or not to be, only for sake of Muslims/Islam. He saw united India as a biggest country of Muslims in the world and source of Muslim political clout. See from you tube comments on his speeches that many Indian Muslims regret the fact that they don't enjoy that power now, which they could have enjoyed if they were 60 crores in one country.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GUkb_HTFW8

After independence he worked very hard so that Muslims don't go to Pakistan, planned for return of those who already left. His address in Jama Masjid 1948 is one of those attempts.
Maulana Azad worked  inside Cabinet to favor Pakistan in all practical matters. He and Nehru were behind Liaqat -Nehru Pact to bring back all Muslims who left India in wake of partition riots. Not a single Hindu returned to Pakistan while one million Muslims returned back to India.

Maulana Azad and Jakir Huessein did a lot of propaganda in September- October 1947 instigating that Muslims are being forced to leave India while there is no place in Pakistan. They worked in tandem with Liaqat ali Khan, first PM of Pakistan. Tradition continued later also when Muslim ministers of Indira Gandhi asked her not to intervene in 1971, even when three million Bengalis (80% Hindu) were slaughtered by Pakistan army.

Maulana Azad being first HRD minister worked with Nehru to destroy all historical evidence about Muslim atrocities on Non Muslims during 1100 years of Muslim rule and Partition. Any leader who opposed Nehru or his pro-Muslim policies were decimated. 

If you don't read the fact that Muslims voted for Pakistan, it is also because Maulana Azad did not want you to read.  Have you heard that Maulana Azad went to Noakhali or Lahore to appeal Muslims not to kill Hindus and Sikhs?

Jamat-E-Islami and Iqbal


Pseudo-seculars in India often say Jamat e Islami opposed partition, so they are patriots. Here is the fundamental difference between the ideas of Iqbal and Maulana Maudoodi (founder of Jamat-e-Islami).
Moudoodi was from Aurangabad, Maharshtra. Iqbal was a from Kashmiri Pandit ancestry. 

Case of Pakistan was laid by Iqbal in following words:  Islam is not like Christianity, Iqbal says. It is not a religion of private conscience and private practice. Islam comes with certain “legal concepts.” These concepts have “civic significance” and create a certain kind of social order. The “religious ideal” cannot be separated from the social order. “Therefore, the construction of a polity on national lines, if it means a displacement of the Islamic principle of solidarity, is simply unthinkable to a Muslim.” What Iqbal is saying in an involved way is that Muslims can live only with other Muslims. It was his poetic abstract way of telling. 

Maudoodi wanted Islam to convert and cover all India, and to cover the world. Iqbal had said that an important reason for the creation of Pakistan was that Islam had worked better in India than in other places as “a people-building force.” Maudoodi didn’t think so. He didn’t think the Muslims of the subcontinent and their political leaders were good enough, as Muslims, for something as precious as an all-Muslim state. They were not pure enough in their belief; they were too tainted by the Hindu past.  He wanted people to turn towards the cause of Islamic revivalism and Islam as an ideology, as opposed to continuing to follow what he called "traditional and hereditary religion". He was alarmed by increasing non-Muslim influence and lack of Pardah among Muslim women in cities like Delhi, Mumbai, weakening of power of Hyderbad state and Muslim Jamindars. 

Once creation of Pakistan was decided, Maududi and his followers shifted their focus to politicizing Islam and generating support for making Pakistan an more deeper Islamic state (something like 100% Arab). They inspired General  Zia-ul-Haq to introduce "Sharization" to Pakistan. They are doing same work in India. They want people to be transparent, pure, to be empty vessels for the faith. They want people to be cleansed of the past, of everything in dress or manners or general culture that might link them to Indian Hindu/Jain/Budhist culture. 

Jamat e Islami Pakistan led the movement after formation of Pakistan to convert Islamic republic into a state run by shariya, read Taliban style state. But Jamaat in India did not break away from them or criticize them. 

We Hindu don't read, so we only know sare jahan se achha, we dont know what Iqbal said later "Chino Arab Hamara, Hindosta hamara, Muslim hai ham watan hai Sara Jahan hamara". He gave the name Pakistan.

Christians


There were three Christian member in Punjab assembly after 1946 elections, they both voted in favor Punjab to be part of Pakistan. The vote itself was 88 for remaining with India and 91 for joining Pakistan. The three votes (actually four) which created the majority were the three votes of Christian members Dewan Bahadur Singha, Mr. Cecil Gibbon and Mr Fazal Elahi, plus Singha’s additional vote as Assembly Speaker.

And thus it was decided that Punjab would be part of Pakistan.

The All India Christian Association was established by speaker of Punjab assembly Dewan Bahadur S.P. Singha in 1942. This association contributed a lot towards the effort and deliberation of the Pakistan movement. On the 18th November 1942 at the annual convention of the All India Muslim League Punjab convened in Lyall Pur, which was attended by Mr. Jinnah and Miss Fatima, All India Christian Association presented a spasnama assuring its unconditional and full co-operation to Mr. Jinnah in connection with his efforts for the freedom of India. At the time of the partition of India the Christians opposed the partition of the Punjab and demanded that whole of Punjab be included in Pakistan.

23rd of June, 1947 to consider whether the Province, still undivided at the time, should be part of Pakistan or of India. The three Christian members of the Assembly had met the night before at Singha’s Davis Road home and had decided to vote for the inclusion of the whole of Punjab in Pakistan. On the morning of the meeting, Master Tara Singh, leader of Akali Dal, stood on the broad flight of steps in front of the Assembly with a bared kirpan, shouted "Pakistan Murdabad". Coming up the steps, Dewan Bahadur Singha confronted the armed Sikh leader, announcing that he will support Pakistan, and challenged him. A scuffle broke out, but violence was prevented by other members.

When the proceedings of the Boundary Commission took place, the Christian leaders, led by Singha, recorded their statement that for the demarcation of the boundaries, the Christian populations should be included with, and in fact termed as, Muslim populations.

Other prominent Christian leaders of Punjab: Pothan Joseph, Joshua Fazluddin, Chaudhry Chandu Lal, Fazal Elahi, Elmer Chaudhry, B.L Ralia Ram. 

Christians, many of them are dirty like leftists, always doing conspiracy against Hindus, Sikh etc. Many of them think like foreign agents, not loyal to this land. For we Hindus India is holy land, like Israel would be for Jews or Mekka for Muslim. Not the same with Christians. They take every step to tarnish our culture, history, civilization, they are like wannabe white.

Muslim Attitude towards India and Hindus


In 1947, we agreed to Muslim demand of separate country, to forget killings and rapes of millions of non-Muslims, agreed to land share equal to their share in population, did any Pakistani say thanks? No. We agreed to forget that Muslims of India were at forefront of creating Pakistan, did Muslims who stayed in India thanked us or at-least have they been loyal to India? No. They are trying to finish the rest of work.

Hundreds of Muslims wrote articles in support of Jinnah photo in the AMU, which still hangs there. Thousands rioted, attacked police to defend it. 



In my childhood I saw all Muslims in school supporting Pakistan in cricket, and celebrating like Diwali Pakistan's victory. Read the words of anti CCA protests hero 



What Muslims think about staying in India, from mouth of their hero





Bangladesh


We helped Bangladesh with money, men and hearts during and after their war of independence. Hindus had 20% share in population and had 80% share in death during 1971 war. Hindu population dropped from 18.5% to 13% after war. Did Bangladeshis say thanks? No. They followed Pakistan in their policy against Hindus.

In an India Pakistan cricket match in Dhaka, Bangladeshi clap for Pakistan with same fervor as Pakistanis would do when Indian batsman is out. After T20 world cup India Bangladesh cricket match, Bangladeshi Muslims killed Dr. Narang in Delhi unprovoked.

82 % of Bangladesh people favor Islamic law. still Indians wish to believe Bangladesh is liberal country, just because they didn't have a poet and they used Rabindranath Tagore's aamar sonar bangla.


Voting Pattern after Partition


Most of Muslim League members did not go to Pakistan. They joined Congress or some other organization. In 1964 these same ex-League members created a consultancy institution called All India Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat. This organization's main aim was to influence the politics to favor Muslim interests. This organization was behind formation of All India Muslim Personal Law Board; “AMU Action Committee” for restoration of its minority character in 1967;  “Babri Masjid Coordination Committee”.

Voting pattern of Muslims is same now as during partition time. Below is seat-wise detail of electoral choice Muslims make in 10 Muslim majority seats out of 543 Loksabha seats in  India.

Old Hyderabad (1 seat) : AIMIM, inheritors of Rajkar army, they have made their fanatic agenda amply clear. Many videos available on YouTube. 

Kashmir (3 seats): PDP and National Conference (previously Muslim Conference) both have supported Jihad which eliminated Hindus from Kashmir. None of them want return of Hindus in Kashmir.

Assam (2 seats): AIDUF is based on Bangladeshi Muslim infiltrators and is actively engaged in all kind of anti-national activity at India Bangladesh border.

Kerala (2 seats): Muslim League, League  has a long history of communal agenda. Muslim League in Kerala celebrated victory of Nawaj Sharif who lead Muslim League Pakistan (N).

Kishanganj (1 seat) : Always voted for RJD or Congress.

Murshidabad (1 seat) : Always Congress, show me one MLA from Murshidabad who can speak against Bangladeshi  infiltration or ISI. Many ISI agents and fake currency comes to India through Murshidabad, Kishanganj borders.

Other Points

1. Muslims count names of martyrs on India gate. Those were martyrs of first world war. And majority of them were Punjabi Muslims, who are now in Pakistan. 

2. Most officers of INA (Azad Hind Fauj) of Netaji, resigned when Turkey joined on the side of England. They had joined to fight British with help of axis powers (Japan Germany Italy) when Turkey was with axis powers. 

3. During Pakistans attack on Kashmir, Raja Hari Singh was confident that his army will defend against Pakistani tribal invasion. His army chief Rajendra Singh had warned that 50% of soldiers are Muslim and they may join the other side, but Hari Singh refused to believe. When Pakistani Pashtun groups attacked, indeed Muslims in the army changed sides, they came as far as Uri when Hari Singh panicked and called for help from Sardar Patel. Rajendra Singh lost his life, defending Uri. After crossing Uri Pashtuns raped thousands of women, prominently Hindu and Christian women were raped, and men were killed. 

On behalf of Patel and India VP Menon and Meherchand Mahajan were negotiating with Raja Hari Singh. Meherchand Mahajan ji conveyed the message to Gokwalkar Guruji (RSS 2nd SarSanghchalak) requesting him to meet Raja Harisingh and with the help of Sardar Patel he was sent by a special flight to Srinagar on 17th Oct to prepare Raja for accession. And after 8 days he signed the Instrument of Accession.

Common Questions and Answers to the people 


(1) Show me a more than a handful of Muslims, who says it was wrong to vote for Pakistan.

(1) (A) Indian Muslims wanted and rioted to establish Khalif in turkey against wishes of Turkish people who wanted democracy (remember that Khalif was responsible for genocide of 1.5 million Armenian people). None of Indian Muslims have family relation with Turkish people. But half of Indian Muslims do have family relation with some Pakistani. Will they write a letter to Pakistani relatives to return India her lost limb, that they do not believe in two nation theory, it was a mistake to vote for Pakistan? Inconvenient? While they conveniently burn India for something happening in Myanmar.

(2) Show me one Muslim who feels Kashmir genocide was wrong (which started before political turmoil of 1990) and who will go to Kashmir to help Kashmiri Pandits resettle, or if it is not allowed then he will issue a fatwa against Kashmiri Muslims, or they will boycott Kashmiri Muslims. They will say about a lot of practical inconvenience. Ask why it is so convenient for them to put whole country on fire on a small issue, but so inconvenient to speak in case of Kashmir.

Muslims in minority always claim to be secular  and try to say that they have nothing to do with genocide committed in Muslim majority areas. Have you heard a Hindu behaves differently in India and differently when he settles in USA? This magic of being another person only happens when Muslims are in minority. What kind of loyalty is this which changes its nature when they become majority? Which makes them fight for separation as soon as they become majority? It means they are loyal to nothing. 

(3) Show me Muslims who feels sorry for 800 years of atrocities committed on Hindus. None of them will accept that their ancestors were Hindu and were forcibly converted. (Elliot: History of India as written by own historians).

(4) Show me who says Babar, Aurangjeb, Muhhamed Bin Kasim, Mahmud Ghanjnavi, Mohammed Gori did wrong by kidnapping women, razing temples, taking child slave, burning all six universities including Nalanda, Vikramshila, Odantpuri.


(5) Show me Muslims who say it is wrong to Cheer Pakistan and celebrate Pakistan victory. I remember from my childhood 90% Muslims celebrated Pakistan victory against India in my hometown Bihar Sharif. If India wins we fired crackers, when Pakistan won, we saw crackers coming from Muslim Mohalla.

(6) Show me a single Muslim who agrees that some of Quran verses are not good for coexistance, should be removed, "Allah give Muslims victory against Kafirs " should be removed from 

(7) Show me Muslims who feel sorry for genocide of 3 million Hindus in 1971 and one million in 1947. It was on their behest that Pakistan was created and all the genocide took place.

(8) Show me a single Pakistani friend (because many of you have Pakistani friends), who condemn two nation theory. Ask your Muslim friends do they condemn Pakistan.

(9) Ask one Muslim friend to use Hindi instead of Arabic in their marriage card, they will use English but Hindi, Marathi, Gurumukhi never.

(10)Some people will give name of personalities,  who were pro India. Just ask them to bring those personalities to rehabilitate Hindus in Kashmir. They are badly needed there. Those personalities should contest election from Srinagar or Hyderabad against Owaisi and come up victorious. Just using sweet talk for double bargain doesn't help.

(11) Some Muslims say they were feeling insecure because of Hindus in India, if they were feeling insecure then how did they stay after partition? If there was insecurity then why did not they ask means for security? Why instead they went on killing Hindus.

If Muslims were Ruled India for 1000 years then they made Pakistan. Hindus did not ask separation even after 1000 years of slavery and torture.

Just see video footage of Yakub Memon funeral, same day APJ Kalam sahab funeral was also there, but there crowd was mostly Hindu. Obviously APJ Kalam is not hero of Muslims but Yakub Menon. APJ Kalam and such personalities are only used for deception and to make Hindus feel guilty.

All invaders, and terrorists (Yakub Menon gathered 30,000 people, each terrorist in Kashmir gathers 20-50,000 for funeral) are heroes of Muslims as they even claim live on TV and everywhere.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=cSH5YbZyi9Y


(11) Some people asked me: What is problem, it is just like division of class you stay in IV A, IV B, while you vote for a concept that class should be divided and a new section should be formed, but then you don't go into new section.  

In your school Class IVB is not created with sole purpose to permanently keep harming career of class IV A kids.  I think these bright minds can help resolving Arab Israel conflict. They should be sent to console the widows of thousand army-men who have sacrificed their life for protecting Kashmir.
It is about breach of trust, not choosing candies or chocolates. They should welcome their wife/husband with open arms when he/she comes after after sleeping with neighbor, and should not ask a single question. After all it is just about choosing candies and chocolates.
You can talk of virtues of such sacrifice, when all you sacrifice is a goat, not a single drop of blood from your own body. Four million who were killed were not your people because your patriotism is show off, your actions are limited to welfare of your son, daughter, brother, sister. The way media pressitutes do...To such hypocrites, I have answered in this question.

(12)  I don't see any Muslim patriot in Kashmir. Why they will risk themselves in rest of India when they are much less in numbers. 

Muslims play double game. On one hand they enjoy how the the invaders shown Hindus their position ("Hukumat ki hai hamne 800 salo tak hindustan par","Aukat dikha di in Hinduon ko, inki jagah pe lake rakh diya"), on other hand they play victim card in front of camera, both together. Wishful thinking of an Indian Muslim is always that he is an Arab.

(13) Some people will ask, " you are asking me to kill Muslims, I would never do that".  This is typical emotional blackmail. I would never ask that. So much afraid they are of facts. I am talking about people who have already been killed,  and who are being killed everyday in Kashmir, not hypothetical should and would be in some imaginary future. 
Just ask these facts to a Muslim, see how instead he will start showing his real face, he will do anything but wont address a single fact.

I am not blaming every individual Muslim, but I am stating fact about majority of Muslims. I respect Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, Arif Mohammed Khan, and APJ Kalam. But I think none of them would object to facts.  Abdul Gaffar Khan refused to be buried in Pakistan, he didn't change his stance, he was pro India before and after partition, till his death.

(14) 27 March 2022


(15) All wakf board assets be siezed because they are enemy property: All those who voted for Muslim league and creation of Pakistan their assets have been wakf board asset.

(16) Zakir Hussain was president of India, his brothers were Pakistan ministers.

Conclusion


My conclusion is, you cannot expect any pluralistic party or leader to win election in a Muslim majority seat.

The fate of Hindus in Kashmir, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Muslim voting pattern everywhere before independence and after independence are very clear in massage. If they come to power, or their numbers surge to even 50% in any area, they will eliminate all Non-Muslims there, democracy will aid in elimination of non-Muslims.

Book By Dr Ambedkar "Pakistan or Partition of India" written in 1945 is worth reading for the facts.

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ambedkar/ambedkar_partition/

See opinion of Kashmiri Muslims in an opinion poll conducted in 1995.

http://www.nancho.net/fdlap/kashmir/outlookf.html

Congress President Sonia Gandhi is vice-president of an organization which promotes the cause of separate Kashmir.

http://www.nancho.net/fdlap/

Twice I wrote on this question in 2014 on Quora, both times there was so much reporting by AAP, Congress IT teams that my profile was permanently banned. 

Ambassador Abdul Basit: UP Muslims were more active in Pakistan movement than Punjabis and Pathans.


Bibliography

Justice Shameem Hussain Kadri: Creation of Pakistan, (Lahore: Wajid ali’s limited, 1982), p.316
Wavell, Lord: Speeches of Lord Wavell 1943-47 (Delhi: 1948), pp. 83-85
Menon, V.P: The Transfer of Power in India (Calcutta: 1957), p.220
India Annual Register, 1945, vol. II, pp.93-94
A.B.Rajput: Muslim League yesterday and Today (Lahore: 1948), p.97
Menon, V.P: op.cit. , p.226
Quraishi, Ishtiaq, H: The Struggle for Pakistan (Karachi: University of Karachi, 1965), p.238
Ayesha Jalal: The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League and the Demand for Pakistan
Mashroof Raja: Wars and No Peace Over Kashmir
Joya Chatterjee: Spoils of Partion

More Links and Keywords

Nazaria-i-Pakistan Trust1946 Elections British India
Indian general election, 1945
Muslim League 100 years old: 1945-1946 Elections - Muslims largest matchmaking and social networking site
General Elections (1945-46) - History Pakistan
Page on storyofpakistan.com
Indian provincial elections, 1946

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liaquat%E2%80%93Nehru_Pact

http://www.dawn.com/news/1105473

http://www.indianetzone.com/42/provincial_elections_during_british_india_1946.htm

http://retributions.nationalinterest.in/weekend-reading-who-voted-for-partition/

https://www.quora.com/Why-did-a-large-number-of-Indian-Muslims-decide-to-stay-in-India-after-partition-of-British-India-post-independence


End

No comments: