এরপর থেকে বইঠেকের এপিসোড আসবে এই চ্যানেল এ, সাবস্ক্রাইব করতে ভুলবেন না! BoiThek Channel Link. Subscribe! www.youtube.com/@SoulConnectionBoiThek

রাত্রি প্রায় সওয়া একটা। Podcast টা পুরোটা শুনলাম। মনে হয় partition নিয়ে কোনো সিনেমা এতটা প্রভাব ফেলেনি। প্রেমাশিস আপনি ভীষণ গুণী একজন মানুষ। বিদেশী লেখকের বই পড়ে তার নির্যাস বের করে তাকে এমন ভাবে উপস্থাপনা করা মোটেই সহজ কাজ নয়। সমস্যা হলো মানুষের ধৈর্য এত কম, এত সুন্দর podcast কতজন আগ্রহ সহকারে পুরোটা শুনবেন আমার সন্দেহ আছে। বই নিয়ে আলোচনা চলতে থাকুক। আপনাদের প্রচেষ্টা কে সাধুবাদ।

খুব স্বাস্থ্যকর আলোচনা ধন্যবাদ🙏💕

অনেক ধন্যবাদ। অসাধারণ আলোচনা হলো। এই করুণ ইতিহাস এই প্রজম্মের সকলেরই জানা দরকার।

অসাধারণ, অনেক মানুষ এই ভিডিওটি দেখার জানার প্রয়োজন।

প্রেমাশিসদা, " পার্টিশন" এই পডকাস্টটা শোনার পরই পড়া শুরু করেছি বই টা। পড়তে পড়তে , আরও একটা বই পেলাম যেখানে এই ইন্সিডেন্ট গুলো ডিটেইলসে আছে ," ইতিহাসের দিকে ফিরে ছেচল্লিশের দাঙ্গা " সন্দীপ বন্দোপাধ্যায়ের লেখা। ১৯৯২ এ প্রথম প্রকাশ।

আড্ডাটা চমৎকার লাগলো। নতুন অনেক কিছু জানতে পারলাম। কুশীলবদের পরিচয় করিয়ে দেয়ার সময় সুভাষ বোসের নাম না আসা খুব অবাক করলো!! Mr. নেহেরুর নাম আসলো কিন্ত স্বাধীনতা পূর্ব ভারতীয় আন্দোলন সংগ্রামে সুভাষ বোস অনেক বড় ফ্যাক্টর ছিলেন...

Partition showed the dark side of blind patriotism among people who come out in the most vicious ways..Saadat Hasan Manto's collection of short stories and Khushwant Singh's cult novel Train to Pakistan are some of greatest and most poignant literary works on the life altering historical event called the partition of India...There is another brilliant book called Unsafe Asylum, true stories of partition and madness written by veteran psychiatrist Dr. Anirudh Kala.. Absolutely loved listening to this podcast...A timely reminder that those who forget the blatant mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them..Would love to hear more!

অনেক অনেক ধন্যবাদ এত সুন্দর একটা আলোচনার জন্য। এই বই ঠেক আরো চাই!!!!

Would suggest you to consider going through books written by Prof Ishtiaq Ahmed, who lives in Stockholm, Sweden.

আপনাদের কাজ অসাধারণ।

ধন্যবাদ সন্দেশ! ধন্যবাদ প্রেমাশিস ভাই!

এখানে ৩২:৫১ মিনিটে বলা হচ্ছে যে, মুসলিম লীগ 1909 সালে তৈরি হয়েছিল কিন্তু তা সঠিক তথ্য নয়, মুসলিম লীগ 1906 সালে 30 শে ডিসেম্বর ঢাকার নবাব সলিমুল্লাহ এর উদ্যোগে তৈরি হয়েছিল।

So far I have watched 3 podcasts 1. Dethroned - Amazing 2. Naga Sanyashi - excellent 3. Partition - Just average The problem is - the topic *Partition* is vast and reasonably complex. The topic consist of 1. British Raj 2. Independence movement 3. World War 4. Resurgence of Hindu ideology 5. Hardline islamic ideology generated from Uttar Pradesh (Dewbandi, Baralvi) 6. Why congress didn't accept of Pakisthan within India. 7. Background of Direct action day. 8. Direct Action day and its consequences in Bengal 9. Partition of North west And the human story of Partition. Last but not least - people who fought for partition (muslim from UP, Kerala, Hydrabad) didn't go to Pakisthan, whereas the Hindus from West and East Pakisthan (Now Bangladesh) are forced out from there. This podcast seems little convoluted.

Train to India by Malay Krishna Dhar একটি খুব কম পঠিত বই। বাংলার বিভাজন নিয়ে ব্যক্তিগত অভিজ্ঞতার নিরিখে এমন বই সত্যিই কম আছে। যদিও দেশভাগ সংক্রান্ত বিভিন্ন বইয়ের কথা উঠলেই Train to Pakistan নিজ গুনে বেশ চর্চার বিষয় হয়। পাঠকদের অনুরোধ করব Train to India: Memories of Another Bengal বইটিও পড়তে। মলয়বাবু পরবর্তীকালে IB র Joint Director হয়েছিলেন।

গায়ে কাঁটা দিয়ে উঠলো অনেক কিছু জানলাম অনেক ধন্যবাদ

Uff Just asadharon ❤ thank you plz aro Aro emn boithek hok❤ Thank You So Much Premasis da also ❤

এই নতুন সমাজ যদি সত্যি একদিন গড়ে উঠতো ,আমরা হয়তো থাকবোনা তবু সে দিন যেন সত্যি আসে।❤

Very pertinent discussion... You have reminded us meticulously & courageously of a bitter chapter of our history....No appreciation is adequate..... Awaiting more such discussions..

Osadharon ❤ Boi tar bepar a shunechilam kintu aaj janar por sotti gaye kata diye uthlo

Alochona khub pochondo hoyeche.,... Dhonnobad dui jon kei

darun intelligent discussion..

Another powerful book Read it a while ago Was good revisiting it on your podcast

Darun darun, Ami ak akta podcast 2-3 bar o suni. Keep it up please......

অসাধারণ প্রয়াস!

Its a good discussion/ It may be re-examined bcz this is not the last statement of Partition. I propose for few books on this issues as like / 1. Jinnah: India, Partition, Independence by Jaswant Singh (Author) Please discuss this Book in here. It helps the Viewers for making decision on this fact. 2. Doctor and The Saint by Arundhati Roy 3. Reminiscences Of The Nehru Age by M.O. Mathai 4. Our History, Their History, Whose History by Romila Thapar 5. History and Beyond by Romila Thapar I think, the Honorable Discussant is very much influenced by the book Partition/ Previously, I read it repeatedly and many other books on Partition and there are many different thought on Partition even I request for discussion on OVAL, the immediate viceroy than Mountbatten. I think, It a good discussion but it should be needed to practice objectivity by the DISCUSSANT than showing any emotional practice. Fine, if Premashis Babu exclude his own attachment from discussion bcz this is primary condition for any good discussion. History does not make perspectives/ This is very general comment/ please try to avoid this or edit this because History is stood on fact not the imagination or story. And for writing history; Historians also follow the methodology that is fully, based on Historiography. Try to understand ROMILA THAPAR When some one write, that is not history, it may be the source of history, Book, PARTITION may be as like. Thanks Arunavo Babu for your Channel/ I a regular Listener of Soul Connection. You may practice also other BOOK REVIEWERs in few cases than one Reviewer. Bcz this one REVIEWER dependency makes biasedness that may hamper your Channels OBJECTIVITY. I request you again for this book reviewing or discussion 1. Jinnah: India, Partition, Independence by Jaswant Singh (Author) Beyond this, its a good Initiative and thanks to you and Premashis Babu Aminur Rahman, PhD. Researcher and Social Analyst Dhaka, Bangladesh Communication +8801919 67988 dr.aminur65@gmail.com

এরকম আর podcast আসুক। খুব সমৃদ্ধ হলাম।

i was literally on tears after hearing the story at 55:06

ভীষণ প্রোফাউন্ড…ভীষণ।❤

Ei boi niye discussion er series gulo khuub important and impactful.

ধর্মই যত অধর্মের মূল। পৃথিবী জুড়ে প্রায় সব রকম বিভেদ আর হিংসার সূতিকাগারই এই ধর্ম। সিন্দবাদের বুড়োর মতন ঘাড়ে চেপে বসে থাকা এই ধর্মটাকে কোনভাবে একবার যদি ঝেড়ে ফেলে দেয়া যায় তাহলেই কিন্তু মিলে যায় প্রকৃত মুক্তি। Everything becomes easy afterwards; just make your own consciences as your god - morality, honesty, humanity as your religion. Thanks to both of you for discussing about this book what reminds us about our past painful behaviors. This may help us not to repeat the same mistakes again.

দেশ ভাগে Churchill ভুমিকা নিয়ে একটি episode করলে আরো সমৃদ্ধ হতাম।

দারুন informative podcast 👍👍

Besh sundor alochona.....

Sunchi mon diye sunchi, bare bare amar desher itihas janchi

আলোচনা ভালই হয়েছে তবে অনেক ক্ষেত্রেই আসল কারন কে জেনে শুনে আড়াল করার চেষ্টা এখানেও করতে দেখলাম। যে কারনে আমরা যে ইতিহাস পড়ে বড় হয়েছি , পরে অনেক বই পড়ে বুঝলাম কিছু historian ( আমরা এদের distortionist বলতে পারি) আমাদেরকে অনেক কিছু আড়াল করে ভুল ইতিহাস পড়িয়েছে কোন এক উদ্দেশ্য নিয়ে। ভারতকে স্বাধীনতা ইংরাজ রা দিয়েছে বললে ভুল হবে। এটাকে Transfer of power বলা হয়েছে। Ref: 1) INDIA (TRANSFER OF POWER) HC Deb 03 June 1947 vol 438 cc35-4635 2) Netaji : India's Independance and British Archives by Kalyan Kumar De, Page 24

😢 ভাবতেও খারাপ লাগে এইরকম ঘটনা ঘটেছিল আমাদের দেশে। এবার একটা বাংলা বই নিয়ে কথা হোক❗

জিন্না যদি সত্যিই দেশভাগের সময়ের হিংসা, রক্তপাত না চাইতেন, তাহলে ডিরেক্ট অ্যাকশন ডে টা কী ছিল?

Bhaai 🙏aapnaar podcast er set ti besh ruchipurno 👌🏾👍🙏🇮🇳

Arunabho, Premashish er last summarization er 3rd point ta niye akta comprehensive alochona shuru kora khub joruri. Apnara ebong apnader porichito capable manushera plan korun kibhabe kon platform theke eta shuru kora jai.

আমাকে যদি কোন শক্তিমান কেউ এসে বলে, এই একজীবনে তোমার কোন ইচ্ছার কথা বলো - যেটা তুমি চাও? আমি এক মুহুর্ত না ভেবে বলে দিতাম - দুই বাংলা আবার এক করে দাও!

অসাধারণ

"India, Bharat and Pakistan" by J Sai Deepak - recommendation.

Very interesting discussion , We are enriched more The main person behind partition , cyril Radcliff is omitted ? Thanks .

oh!

Good podcast but i don't think that its feasible or even ,possible to undo Partition now , let's move on from that painful past .

Khub sundor independence r upor ro podcast chai

Congress was formed by the British with "local Indian" to act as a conduit with mass Indian. Congress as purely Indian association and a political entity came much later. Muslim league was created by Nawab of Dhaka in Dacca but eventually leadership went to the hands of Indians of the West. Both Calcutta and Dacca lost the prominence in the history of pre partition but the future of Kolkata is certainly dim and that of Dhaka is devoid of uncertainty.

Busting the myth that the British wanted a buffer state(Pakistan) between USSR and India: 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. 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.

Shundor alochona

👌🏾👍🙏🇮🇳

Nxt request on from plassey to partition by shekhar bandopadhaya

'নেতাজীর অন্তর্ধানের' ওপরে নানান ভাষায় বই আছে । সম্ভব হলে এক বা একাধিক এপিসোডে সেই বইগুলোর ওপরে ডিসকাস করার ব্যবস্থা করুন ।

The erstwhile Bengal Native Infantry regiment of Pre 1857 revolt mainly consisted of Purbiya soldiers i.e. Brahmin & Rajput soldiers of eastern Gangetic plain from Bihar & Eastern UP. There weren't many ethnic Bengali soldiers in the Bengal Army of East India Company.

এরপর যদি আলোচনা করা যায়, " the hungry tide" 😢

Podcast gulo ke spotify te deoar kotha bhaba hochhe kina janar ichha chilo.

International politics r topic niye alochona korle aro bhalo hoye. 🙂

Amar ai video ta dekhte dudin laglo karon ekdine dekhe ba sune ses kore uthte ami pari ni eto ta disturbing chilo...... airom unbiased history r video aro pele bhalo lagbe

একটা সমান্তরাল আলোচনা শুনলাম।

In general instincts of Indian people are very basic.We can be brutally violent and dastardly coward all at the same time.Collectively speaking we rarely can rise to causes greater than ourselves.That said can any of the viewers or panelists tell me anything about the role of Master Tara Singh of Lahore on the eve of mass massacre that took pace in Punjab?

P= Panjab, A= Afganistan, K= Kasmir, S= Sindth, Tan= Beluchistan

Actually Congress was wisely created by a white man as a safety valve and that safety valve served them well atleast for next 50-60 years as no mutiny happened after that.

Jinnah partition chaiten na, chape pore mene niyeche, ei theory ba hypothesis ta Prof. Ishtiq Ahmed tathyo diye bhul pramanito kareche.

How many Hindus and Shik have been migrating from Bangladesh and Pakistan, Are such many Muslims migrating from India??? Absolutely not !!! The people who were born in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Cheronobil know what the effect of nuclear poison. In the same way, the Hindus who were born in Bangladesh and Pakistan, comprehend better what are the effects of Communal poison. The discussion should be more appropriate of a real perspective from 1947 to now.

STUDY NETAJI SPEECH AS PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS IN 1937- 38 AT HARIPURA WHERE HE PREDICTED ABOUT INDIAN PARTISAN BY NEGOTIATION AND ITS VERY BAD IMPACT ON INDIA

😢 r theke to British Raj onek valo

Why did you ignore Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. Gandhi and nehru are the two biggest villains of India

Netaji subhas chandra bose is ultimate. It's very shameful to see your all discussions without say anything about Netaji.

জিন্নাহ বাঙালির উপর উর্দু ভাষা চাপিয়ে দিতে চেয়ছিল, ফলে ১৯৫২ ভাষা আন্দোলন।

You should first say what is new in this book written by a British as there are other books written by the British like that by Penderal Moon and a pro-British NS Sharila. You are saying things which are well known available in any text book. These are not British-perspectives as such.

The book is very biased. It speaks of Gopal Pantha as if he started it. Direct action day's beginning and the then Bengal Govt's actions prior and during it was altogether been eliminated. Read it once again

ব্রিটিশরা এর পেছনে ছিল।

Busting the myth that the British wanted a buffer state(Pakistan) between USSR and India: 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 Violence and massacres would have likely become more common the longer the British remained in the Indian Subcontinent. Look at the French in Algeria during the last days of the colonial era. Now imagine a thousand times worse. The Indian Subcontinent didn’t just contain a few million people. It contained hundreds of millions. There would have been violence, death and destruction at an unprecedented level. 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 favor 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

Durdanto episode! Ami UK theke shuni .. Aro egiye cholun

@32:29 1909 is incorrect. 30th December, 1906 is the date of formation of AIML

The facilitators did not discuss about Sher E Baanglaa. Nor did they discuss about RSS, Hindoo Mahasabhaa. The roles of Savarkaar, S. P. Mookherjee during 1930 - 1945 needs to be thoroughly explained and discusaed.

Jodi khomota thake tahole creating a new Medina o jinnah biography Jaa ek pakistani Ishtiaq Ahmed likhechen taa alochona korun!

অনেক অনেক ধন্যবাদ এত সুন্দর একটা আলোচনার জন্য। এই বই ঠেক আরো চাই!!!!