วีดีโอ

Busting the myth that the British created Pakistan to serve as a buffer state between India and USSR: Part 2 We are giving the British government too much credit, to the point of attributing powers of clairvoyance, in making the assumption of an omniscient British Empire that created Pakistan to serve as a buffer state between the Soviet Union and India. What I mean by that is that the British government had no way of predicting or knowing the series of events that would take place in the coming decades in which Pakistan would finally play a role against the Soviet Union. We are after all talking about the same British government (as is the case with most governments) that failed to even predict events that would take place in a matter of years in multiple occasions; let alone decades. No one is capable of future predicting events with such accuracy. For example, how could the British possibly have known the eventual direction of the politics in either India or Pakistan? It was very much possible that a socialist government would take control of Pakistan as well. Remember that socialists held considerable influence during the early years of Pakistan. What about the Indo-Pak War of 1948, which would set the stage for the rivalry between the two states? How could the British predict the series of events that would take place in Afghanistan and Iran over a period of decades (1940s-1970s), which would elevate Pakistan at the forefront against the communist bloc? Why not just use Afghanistan as this buffer (as it had previously served as this buffer) between the Soviet Union and India, in exchange for the regions of the Frontier Province and Balochistan. If the British just wanted a buffer between India and the Soviet Union, why go through the trouble of creating East Pakistan? Add to these, a hundred more questions and events that the British Empire had no way of guessing before hand. The crystal ball that allows world leaders to look into the future had not yet been discovered Conclusion People have a tendency to search for conspiracy theories to provide simple answers to extremely complex situations. The use of a villain (British Empire in this case), an evil mastermind that controls all events from the shadows, as a scapegoat to blame all problems or negatives upon provides this easy explanations. A false, but nonetheless simplistic answer. What we had was one of the most complex situations in the world at the time. The eventual outcome, that being the Partition of the Indian Subcontinent into the Dominion of India and Dominion of Pakistan, is known to us. Instead of looking at the multiple factors at play, some of which were circumstantial or random; or looking at the many different parties or interests present; we look at the eventual outcome and try to connect all factors to this. The problem with this being that our perception of history ends up being distorted. The end result is that we often tend to view the British Empire, an entity capable of being able to accurately predict every outcome, as an evil mastermind playing 5-D chess from behind the scenes. This is an unrealistic way to look at historical events. There are far too many independent and random factors (not associated with the British) at play for anyone to drive towards an outcome from the beginning. One can agree or disagree with the Partition of the Indian Subcontinent. Some might see it as the better alternative and others may see it as the worst alternative. We have no way of knowing whether a unified Indian Subcontinent, had it come to exist, would be a better outcome than the situation that exists today. Remember that the division into seperate states also alleviated many of the problems (ethnic blocs, religious tensions, lack of common law, opposing ideals, weaker central government, etc) that would have existed in a unified state. India might today be suffering from far greater problems if Pakistan and Bangladesh were still a part of it. However, it makes little sense to turn to conspiracy theories to explain and take the blame for all sets of events that one disagrees with. The British Empire did not create Pakistan to serve as a buffer between the Soviet Union and India. Pakistan came to exist as a consequence of multiple factors and events that took place over a period of decades in the later 19th and first half of the 20th century. The impact of the two World Wars on Europe, rise of Pan-Islamism in politics in the world, Aligarh and Urdu Movement, formation of the All-India Muslim League, rise of religious involvement into politics, break-down of Hindu-Muslim unity, popularisation of Two-Nation Theory among Muslim elites, perception of alienation by Congress by Muslim elite, inability of the Congress and Muslim League to come to terms, etc. That is not to say that the British did not have its role to play in this eventual outcome. The British Empire had since the early days of colonization used religious and ethnic divides as a tool of control. Playing the different sides against one another (“martial” vs “non-martial” races, Muslim vs Hindu, etc); religious differences being one of these tools of division (Hindi-Urdu divide for example). The end result over a century of colonial rule was the divergence of the two religious groups (at least in terms of elites), who often did not see eye-to-eye with one another. However, the British Empire did not create Pakistan. That is an attempt to seek a simplistic explanation of a complex situation. Stephen Mark Kotkin, an American historian, once said something that has always stuck with me. During a talk about the idea of a mastermind conspiracies that stage the major events in history, he said that, “History is full of contingency and surprise. After something happens, we all think it is inevitable; had to happen that way; everything was leading up to it”. What I (or he) mean by that is that many important events that take place in history, including the history of this region, are quite happenstance and circumstantial. We know of the colonization of the Indian Subcontinent, and its eventual partition into the dominions of India and Pakistan, so we have a tendency to view it as an inevitable outcome. The problem with this being that our perception of history is distorted by this, as we twist all factors and events to suit this outcome. The end result is that we often tend to view the British Empire (and East India Company) as an evil mastermind playing 5-D chess, being able to accurately predict every outcome decades or even a century later. An Aizen Sosuke of the colonial era if you will. The truth is often quite the opposite. There are usually many independent factors (not associated with the British) at play. Randomness and luck too have their own roles to play in the final outcome. “History is full of contingency and surprise. After something happens, we all think it is inevitable; had to happen that way; everything was leading up to it… Hitler seizes power in Germany in 1933, and the Nazi regime gets institutionalized by several of his moves after being named chancellor, and so all German history becomes a story of the Nazi rise to power; Hitler’s rise to power. Every trend/tendency is bent into that outcome. Things which don’t seem related to that outcome, all of a sudden, get bent in that direction; and other trends that are going on are no longer examined, because they didn’t lead to that outcome.” -Stephen Mark Kotkin, an American historian, on the idea of mastermind conspiracies that stage the major events in history. The rise of Hitler and Nazi Germany were used as an example to make this point.

Busting the myth that the British created Pakistan to serve as a buffer state between India and USSR: Part 1 The British Empire should not be viewed as the ultimate factor that determined everything in terms of history of the region. It makes more sense to simply view it as one of many different factors at play. Let’s talk about some of the many factors that were at play which resulted in the creation of Pakistan. One of the most important (or I suppose two) were the World Wars. The destruction caused by the First (1914 - 1918) and Second World Wars (1939 - 1945) throughout Europe changed the political situation in the world. This was especially true of the aftermath of the Second World War. The British Empire, like many other colonial European powers, found that it was no longer in a situation to hold onto many of its colonies. I should mention that there was also a growing change in attitude within Europe towards the colonies as well. Case in point, the Labour Party which won a landslide victory in the May 1945 UK General Election, declared in its manifesto to pursue self-determination for India. Add to this, the fact that the independence movement in the colonies were at an all-time high. Let’s not forget that two new superpowers (United States and Soviet Union) had arisen in the aftermath of the Second World War. Neither of which were in favor of the continuation of European colonization (Suez Crisis for example), as it was generally against their interests. This decision of the British government to withdraw from their colonies, including the Indian Subcontinent, was made easy as a result of these factors. The British wanted to leave the Indian Subcontinent as soon as possible. However, the number of the political entities (one or multiple) that would come to exist following their withdrawal was not the top priority. The main focus seems to have been to find a way to transition towards local governance as soon as possible, while trying to minimize the destruction or loss of life; things that were often seen in post-colonial states. It was up to the local political blocs within the Indian Subcontinent to decide, and come to an agreement, on the shape of the post-colonial Subcontinent. Evidence does suggest that the British government’s preference was to leave behind a unified India, which would ensure a rapid exit and minimize the chaos. These were the instructions given to Mountbatten, the new governor general of India, who arrived to deal with the situation in March 1947. However, upon arrival to India, Mountbatten soon realized that these were not realistic objectives at all. There were many different parties at play in the political landscape of the Indian Subcontinent. The two major ones being the Congress and Muslim League; both of which often had conflicting, if not directly opposing, ideals and objectives. Any attempt at leaving behind a unified Indian Subcontinent was contingent on these two sides coming to terms. An outcome that, in my opinion, had gone out the window with the rejection of the Cabinet Mission Plan by Congress in March 1946. This would have left behind a unified India that would be more of a confederation of states (including those that became a part of Pakistan) loosely bound together, with the central government holding a monopoly over the most crucial elements of the state (military, foreign policy, currency, etc). That isn’t to say that Nehru did not have genuine concerns with this negotiated solution, as it would have left a very weak central government in a newly-established state. The truth is that the Congress and Muslim League elites, both of which held considerable power, just wanted very different things. Mountbatten did initially attempt to follow through on the guidelines that he had been sent with by the British government. Jinnah, and the Muslim elites of the Muslim League, were unwilling by this point to settle for anything less than a separate nation for the Muslims. Mountbatten did try to convince Jinnah in favor of a united India for sometime. But Jinnah, nor the rest of the Muslim League elites, would not budge. We should not make the mistake of believing that Jinnah was solely dictating the objectives of the Muslim League. No more than Nehru or Gandhi were dictating the objectives of the Congress party. The leaders of political parties are subject to the influence of the party elites. The aspirations of the Muslim League would have remained the same regardless of Jinnah’s presence. He was simply the man who spearheaded the movement. The British Government had initially granted Mountbatten a one-year deadline for this transfer of power to the Indians. The original plan seems to have been to create a timeline where independence was gradually handed over to the Indians. However, Mountbatten found out that this was simply not possible. The situation was far too fragile. The strength of the British within India was waning with every passing day, as it had been for many years. The independence (anti-colonial) sentiment was growing stronger. There were even fears that the British Indian Army, an entity numbering over two million strong, could rebel against British authority. The rebellion of the Royal Indian Navy in 1946 was only a taste of what might come, if the British did not immediately transfer power. The British simply did not have the time or power required anymore (a year at the least) to settle matters in the Indian Subcontinent. British India was like a powder keg that could explode at any time. "Provided they (Indian Army) do their duty, armed insurrection in India would not be an insoluble problem. If however the Indian Army went the other way the picture would be very different." -General Hastings Lionel Ismay. This was the crux of the problem. You had two different political parties, both of whom held significant influence throughout British India, who wanted a completely different outcome. Neither of which was willing to concede to the other in favour of unity. The British, who were serving as the mediators, no longer had the power to dictate terms to either side. A better alternative solution may have been possible, which may result in a unified Indian state, but would have required a longer time frame (a few years at least) under British mediation. Time that was no longer available, as every day of British presence pushed the Indian Subcontinent towards complete chaos; and placed further burden (financial, political, etc) on the United Kingdom, which had not yet recovered from the Second World War. This is why I have a problem with people trying to provide simplistic hypothetical solutions in retrospect to one of the most complex problems of the time. The refusal of the Muslim elites of the Muslim League to budge from the idea of a separate nation for the Muslims, despite multiple attempts at convincing by Mountbatten and Congress members, eventually forced the British government and Congress to agree to the partition of British India. Mountbatten (British representative), Nehru (leader of Congress) and Jinnah (leader of Muslim League) all finally agreed to the partition of the Indian Subcontinent. Gandhi, on the other hand, insisted on the idea of a united India. An outcome that was no longer possible. The partition was seen as a better alternative to the chaos (and civil wars) that would result, if an agreement was not reached. "the truth is that we were tired men and we were getting on in years... The plan for partition offered a way out and we took it." -Nehru on agreeing to the partition

Jinnah was british slave. He was serving british interest and he led to direct action day and killings of millins for western benefits

Good discussion 🎉

Gandhi, Nehru and the Congress Party really ruined any prospect of a prosperous, United India.

No mainstream media invites him bz he speaks truth not propaganda

Finding your book in the exclusive section of an army-run library was a great surprise. Perhaps the duffers did not know how bravely and methodically you expose them in your book. Keep on doing God’s good work, Dr. Ayesha!

Buffer state is one of the powerful state and nation today after 80 years 😂

Excellent objective and informative analysis.

❤

This is fascinating. I can only see 1 video, whereas 2 are listed. How can we see the other video?

These fools say USA helped India to get Nuclear Technology 😂😂Who cares for Pakistan 😂😂😂, Remain Islamic fundamentalists, Keep Madarasa education, Impose shariya and think of defeating India 😂😂😂😂

Very interesting.

Very informative.

Early women freedom fighters. A brief flaring up of the best and the brightest. But they had no chance. Lawless men never possessed the fortitude and patience in laying down the institutions. Parliament. Careers open to talent based on merit. Adopting democracy in a lawless land and with men who are alien to a play of mind? Capitalism? In a lawless land? Women pay the price by their blood.

To this day Muslim women are repressed by their religion and male dominance.

Different perspective 🎉❤

I like his videos and exploring real truth from history.

Please note Britishers had already ideated about Pakistan in 1919 and the archives are open documents available now. Idea is same to have a buffer state to fight the communists. Wonder how people of such country would feel about its use as a front fighter in others wars

Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmed is a true public intellectual. Rational, intelligent and articulate. It’s always a pleasure listening to him. May God bless him with a long and healthy life.

Poverty of mind translated into the poverty of land. Malnourished mothers raise stunted children. A defeated army in all wars runs a predatory state-a failed and bankrupt state.

Afghanistan was a buffer state between Britain and Russia, not Pakistan. There was no Afghanistan, it was only Kandahar, Herat, and Kabul principalities along with other small monarchies in the North with Tajikistan and in the Gilgit agency (which is now legally part of Pakistan). India is a fake country created by the British, otherwise, we would have many small States here in the subcontinent as proposed by the dickie bird plan.

This is quite good.shame it does not have more views

Haa Istiaq zi come to Pakistan ??

Excellent analysis.

... This oldie is sophisticated jihadi...

Paidaish mein bhi saaaazish?🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Pak punjabi toh brkfast,lunch dinner mein bhi saaaazish lete hai

M. A Jinnah belonged to a Shia Khoja family, Allama Iqbal was from a Qadiani background, founding father of Muslim League was Sir Agha Khan III who was the roaming ambassador of British Empire and the Living Imam of Ismaili Shia community. Jinnah's love marriage was with a parsi girl Ratti who never converted. His daughter Dina remained Parsi and married a non-Muslim. Jinnah's right hand man and most trusted lieutenant was Sir ZafarUllah Khan an Ahmedi who was later appointed as the first foreign minister of Pakistan. The first Law minster which Jinnah appointed was also non Muslim named Jogendra Nath Mandal. No matter how hard somebody tries they cannot change these immutable facts which on their own speak volumes about the nature of Muslim League, it's leadership and their political agenda which had nothing to do with whatever has happened in the beleaguered State of Pakistan in the last 77 odd years. Even if symbolic importance to Islamic principles were to be given there was going to be no role for traditionalist Ulema in policy making or politics. It was meant to be a modern State with the aim to introduce modernistic reforms in religious thought and practice also, besides Statecraft in order to usher an Islamic / Muslim Renaissance in the region of central & West Asia as inspired by the Golden Age of Islam in Baghdad. There was meant to be a complete separation of State from all religious factions, sects, etc since it wasn't the business of the state to determine and judge the personal faith of its citizens. Muslims and non Muslims have lived together on this soil for centuries as had so many diverse religions which co existed peacefully for millennias in the land of Indus Valley Pak. This project of statehood was meant as a stepping stone to take the nation in to the the 20th century and beyond but we slipped and fell further back in to history and are still finding our way out.

7:35 ok ngl Jinnha is raising my standards here! 😭😭😭

Lannat pak foj

the british wanted the muslims out of india maybe ?

A convert to the "Age of Enlightenment", Mr. Jinnah had the special responsibility in spreading the message in a profoundly illiterate and uneducated Muslim community. It was not enough to show up with western outfit and with a taste for fine wines. He had the luck and a unique opportunity to introduce to Muslims the ideas of Enlightenment. The idea of representative government. The idea of government with a consent. The idea of checks and balance. The idea of the sanctity of Parliament. The idea of free press. The idea of the individual. He tragically failed both personally and publicly. Now, his failures are all around. A nuclear-armed bankrupt military state is a poverty=stricken Jihadi state. Malnourished women raise stunted children. A defeated army in all wars is a self-appointed guardians of a Land of Vultures.

The good professor is confuddled by looking at the wrong end of the stick, the real issue was the realpolitic in London that could take no strategic decisions without Washington‘s blessings since 1942. The only culprit in the partition of British India was the stubborn attitude of Hindu nationalists in Congress not willing to recognise the pluralism of these vast lands thus providing sucker to the great powers of the time to further their geopolitical interests.

Nore: The 1971 war was basically a conspiracy.....

The Rangeela Rasool case is often ignored.It shows Allama Iqbal was a religious nut

Another misinformation spread by this half cooked 'intellectuals' is BHAGAT SING IS A LEFTIST - KINDLY READ THE BOOK written by bhagat singh Why I am Atheist!! he has written a whole book on describing Why He is not a Communist and will never be!!

Very conveniently this people choose and pick what suits them and spread Misinfo 1.1962 WAR India took aid from America to fight chin 2. Us helped India to acquire nuclear power - 😂😂 infact US was hell bound with pak to not let India acquire nuclear

I hope the Pakistanis see this. How the Muslims were duped by the zamindaars and the conservative imperialists in the west, into tearing a land and a people asunder, with millions of innocent killed.

Prof Ishtiaq Ahmed & Prof Pervez Hoodbhoy Echo Scholar Nasim Yousaf's Views in 2007 on Jinnah etc. th-cam.com/video/iNzEjtz7e0k/w-d-xo.html

Allama Mashriqi’s Order: 300,000 Khaksar Soldiers Reach Delhi and the Sudden Collapse of British Rule" by scholar Nasim Yousaf th-cam.com/video/F5kE4AlRsi4/w-d-xo.html

Thanks a lot Jinnah Saheb tahe dil se thanks thanks thanks thanks thanks thanks 😅😅😅😅😅

Basically Jihadi republic of Pak was a fcuked up society since 77yrs, continues to this day and would continue in future. thx Jinnah for protecting India from the fcuked up Pak Punjabis ie Pak society. thx Allah making sure Pak remains fcuked up. Pak Zindabad. Inshaallah🤣🤣🤣

Aging Ishtiaq Akhand Bharati , Pakistan and Jinnah hating. Secularist. A Swedish coconut continues to undermine Pakistan

happy to c Ali W

History isjust judged by facts verifying in different way and not by fancy and imaginery or power eye

Two Gujaratis' ( Gandhi and Jinnah ) made Sindh suffer for centuries .

please make detailed podcast of Raza Rumi and Dr waseem

Sir, Prof Jalal has a consistent narrative. No dispute on that, as a historian this is what she finds. And yet the roots are subsequent to extinguished Mughal Sultanate in 1857.

How a man---to use the word lightly--- from the Indian subcontinent would behave if the word "conspiracy" is deleted from the English language? Would it make enormous demand to his idle brain? If the word "conspiracy" is not around, this childlike man would be compelled to to consider few facts. His own impoverished history. Absence of ideas. Barbarism that refuses to stay in the background. History ought not to be a subject left to the historians in the Indian subcontinent.