Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Personally, I would say good thing since it significantly reduced India's Muslim population and thus ensured that there was going to be significantly less radical Islam in India:
At the same time, though, it also gave national self-determination to a large part of the Muslims in British India (specifically those living in present-day Pakistan and Bangladesh) and thus allowed them to shape their own trajectory and destiny free from the Hindu domination that they so feared and dreaded.
Partition was a bad thing. You now have 2 jihadi states. One is a vassal state to the CCP and PLA, has the bomb, and keeps the taliban supplied.
The indian subcontinent would have been better unified under pagan democratic secular rule with a uniform civil code. It would act as a better counterweight to the red/green alliance.
Partition was a bad thing. You now have 2 jihadi states. One is a vassal state to the CCP and PLA, has the bomb, and keeps the taliban supplied.
The indian subcontinent would have been better unified under pagan democratic secular rule with a uniform civil code. It would act as a better counterweight to the red/green alliance.
Partition was never a good thing, it can never be. The bloodshed and all the troubles faced by the civilians are way beyond our imagination.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.