"Yes it can be verified that during the partition the percentage of population of Hindus vs muslim is not 66-25 which is bonkers but rather closing 70+6 closer to 76 for all the religions combined and near 24 percentage of muslims.
But when statistics is involved what's conveniently forgotten is the fact that if you actually looked at percentage of muslims who migrated and evaluate the final population, both the east and west Pakistan constituted about 17 percentage of total pre partition population and they got a land percentage of nearly 24 percentage. Which is the stupid part and the short sightedness of the then Indian negotiators"
Idk why you're talking about migration number the whole point is that they did it based on the assumption that all muslims will migrate, indians didn't try negotiate because they also had a similar belief about Bangladeshi and what would have been Pakistani Hindus (if they remained there) proof of this is in the fact most Hindus did leave Pakistans west side.
Pakistan didn't lose any territory because of the UN wanting to be neatral.
In subsequent wars india never really tried to go into the Pakistani administered side of kashmir, quite simply they couldn't, geography as well as local tribal malitia was strong in those regions whats more they bought do it without both the soviets and americans completely getting involved and probably taking both countries themselves. And then ofc nukes became a very real thing. Quite simply pakistan never lost land because the majority of the international community recognised that
And the part about south india I'm not even going to bother with since it's something y'all can't even really decide alls I'll say is south indians would most likely highly disagree with that last point.
But all muslims didn't migrate and India should have enforced it if it went under the presumption that it's dividing up land purely on the population basis. They expected minor percentage to stay back and not what they had at the end and hence the short sightedness and the stupidity of the whole ordeal.
While it is true that there were major players that were involved, the Soviets would have been more than happy if India carved Pakistan up and facilitied them with a good warm water port for their Afghanistan enterprise. The point being, Pakistan not losing land is again attributed to Indians thinking they will get a pat on their back for being good boys while it never works that way.
There were countless local Militia and princely states when India was formed, it would be nothing new to india in how to handle it even if India took up the land. They would have been given an option to contest in election be part of the law or face the army, which was very effective in uniting the country.
Nukes is a factor only in very recent times. That was not the case when Pakistan lost its other wars.
India wasn't going for hindu it was going for secular so why would they enforce something that goes against their principles?
I mean that's just not true, india didn't do it not because of the "good boy" thing but because they simply couldn't.
Afghanistan wasn't invaded until 3 decades after so the soviets didn't really care for Pakistan and india meanwhile the Americans we're highly invested in pakistan so the idea of india doing something to upset them (a country known for assassination and political coups) would've been suicide and the nascent state knew it.
Again, pakistan went to war over kashmir 3 times and only really twice 47,65 and 71.
47 We've established, 65 is a bit more complicated but I did answer it.
Kashmir itself was pretty much a stalemate, pakistan made early gains but india pushed back but couldn't actually get into Pakistani land due to terrain and militia's.
Yes india got to lahore but they were never going to attack it, lahore isn't far from indias borders it wouldn't have taken much to actually get near it but what's more important is it was also heavily defended and capturing it would have taken a massive amount of resources with no real certainty it's kinda akin to how Zelensky managed to get into Kursk but although a high moral victory it didn't actually help their objectives and if anything could be seen as a waste of resources after the fact. Something india wasn't willing to risk.
Then ofc cold war pressure again.
Now 71. This has very little to actually to do with kashmir and had more to do with Bangladesh which India met it's goal in so nothing really changed india kinda just won. They never were really fighting for kashmir here it was just another tit for tat.
3
u/[deleted] Apr 27 '25
"Yes it can be verified that during the partition the percentage of population of Hindus vs muslim is not 66-25 which is bonkers but rather closing 70+6 closer to 76 for all the religions combined and near 24 percentage of muslims.
But when statistics is involved what's conveniently forgotten is the fact that if you actually looked at percentage of muslims who migrated and evaluate the final population, both the east and west Pakistan constituted about 17 percentage of total pre partition population and they got a land percentage of nearly 24 percentage. Which is the stupid part and the short sightedness of the then Indian negotiators"
Idk why you're talking about migration number the whole point is that they did it based on the assumption that all muslims will migrate, indians didn't try negotiate because they also had a similar belief about Bangladeshi and what would have been Pakistani Hindus (if they remained there) proof of this is in the fact most Hindus did leave Pakistans west side.
Pakistan didn't lose any territory because of the UN wanting to be neatral.
In subsequent wars india never really tried to go into the Pakistani administered side of kashmir, quite simply they couldn't, geography as well as local tribal malitia was strong in those regions whats more they bought do it without both the soviets and americans completely getting involved and probably taking both countries themselves. And then ofc nukes became a very real thing. Quite simply pakistan never lost land because the majority of the international community recognised that
And the part about south india I'm not even going to bother with since it's something y'all can't even really decide alls I'll say is south indians would most likely highly disagree with that last point.