I am going to apologise for replying to your statement in quotations because it's a personal pet peeve of mine, something i hate but you have presented such a wishy washy version of history, which amounts to bare faced lies that we have grown up with all our lives, I have to break it into it's core absurdity.
Some of what you say is true but that's how the best lies work, they mix the truth with half truths mixed with lies, just beautiful.
Just to be clear, I am not accusing you as a person of lying deliberately. It's the understanding of issues which have over time come to be accepted as fact.
India was not a successor state. The entire process was about post British withdrawal, and the creation of india and independence of Pakistan was a result of those negotiations.
India was created by the British, it did not exist before the British arrived.
Nothing was decided until it was decided, the decision was after the fact, not before the fact, the fact of British withdrawal came after joint negotiations and unfair powerplay (unfair towards the Muslim League/Pakistan).
The British withdrawal was part of a negotiated process consisting of a troika.
The Hindu dominated Congress party, around 95% Hindu, almost all upper caste Hindus, the Muslim League and the British.
The successor state issue is a legal process, not a historical right. It only exists in a modern nation-state framework.
Furthermore, the successor state claim was contested by the Muslim League/Pakistan, not something given to india automatically as a right, it was a compromise.
The referendums by the people, or in assemblies were also the result of a compromise. It does not matter why they happened, but the fact they did and the people whether in assemblies or by vote, did choose.
It's absurd to ignore the side which had no choice, who did not get to choose their country and throw accusations at the side that did decide democratically and willingly.
I have more to say but to keep it condensed i will keep it at that.
When i say no-one in India, that is a fact, no one in india choose, they were not given a choice. They were thrown into the new country of india.
Bengal and Punjab voted as part of the negotiated compromise to create difficulties for Muslim League/Pakistan.
Their vote was a default action as a result of the Muslim league accepting that process, not an inherent right given to them, they did not choose india, they, the Hindus and Sikhs rejected Pakistan, there is a difference.
If their position is we can all live together in this new country of India, and my position is i do not trust the future setup and i desire a fair settlement, a fair power sharing formula, it is on you to live up to your words.
Or did they mean that we can live together as long as We are the majority, but we refuse to live together if You are the majority. The burden was on them to live together, which they rejected.
That option given to them was a byproduct of what the Muslim League/Pakistan accepted as a compromise, not a standalone right given to them.
So no part of india got a choice to be part of india, they did not choose, they were thrown into that newly created country of india. That is a fact.
There is nothing interesting about it, unless you wish to create fantasies.
A fair process is an essential part of a fair vote. NWFP was the only part where the people had a different demand from the party in power, it was painfully clear, things do not happen in a vacuum.
The result of the referendum prove that the people had a different desire from the ruling party. Despite a call for a boycott, the people turned up in the same numbers as the previous election, and unanimously voted for the independence of Pakistan. A 99% yes vote, it's an incredible result.
Even if you account for the people who did not vote, count all the registered voters whether they turned up to vote or not, it was still a majority Yes vote. The Yes vote was so strong.
If you want to look for excuses, that's on you, then that's not history, it's fantasies, always looking for excuses rather then facts on hand.
I am sorry but i have to say this is nothing but childish fantasies, i have heard this many times, it is so ridiculous i am shocked it keeps getting a mention. In fact I find it insulting because it is intellectually dishonest.
Britain tried their damn best to stop the independence of Pakistan. Mountbatten even presented his wife, how can you be a neutral broker if your wife is having an affair with one of the party involved.
Mountbatten constantly gave secrets to the Congress party, including allowing Nehru to see the new boundaries before the handover and changing the border according to his wishes. The official release was on the 17th August. I am shocked that the likes of you constantly, forget such facts.
Reducing the handover timeframe from over a year to about 10 weeks was clearly designed to ensure Pakistan failed as an independent state.
Britain did not want to quit India, that's painfully obvious. What do you think decades of negotiations and the struggles was for?
It was forced to leave because both the Muslim League and the Congress party wanted their own country.
It was forced to leave because it was a much weakened state after two world wars. It was forced to leave as part of a negotiated settlement.
Strategic depth, buffer, bases these are so ridiculous that i do not even know where to start so i will leave it at that, and delve on such matters if you decide to push it.
You really need to get away from this pedestrian history, it is the main cause of constant instability in this region, because people are constantly being fed ridiculous lies.
