ClueBot NG Report Interface

// Viewing 1647119

Navigation

ID: 1647119
User: 202.12.83.41
Article: Independence Day (Pakistan)
Diff:
m (2011: fixed CS1 errors: dates & General fixes using AWB (9832))
(Partition)
Line 39: Line 39:
 
{{main|Partition of India}}
 
{{main|Partition of India}}
   
In 1946, the [[Labour Party (UK)#Post-war victory under Attlee|Labour government]] in Britain, getting exhausted by recent events such as [[World War II]] and numerous riots, realised that it had neither the mandate at home, the support internationally, nor the reliability of [[British Indian Army]] for continuing to control an increasingly restless India. Reliability of the [[British Indian Army|native forces]] for continuing their control over an increasingly rebellious India diminished, thus the government decided to end British rule of India.<ref name="metcalf conc">{{cite book|last1=Metcalf|first1=B.|last2=Metcalf|first2=T. R.|author1-link=Barbara Metcalf|author2-link=Thomas R. Metcalf|date=9 October 2006|title=A concise history of modern India|edition=2nd|publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]]|isbn=978-0-521-68225-1}}</ref>{{rp|167, 203}}<ref name=Hyam106>{{cite book|last=Hyam|first=Ronald|title=Britain's declining empire: the road to decolonisation, 1918–1968|year=2006|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-68555-9|page=106|quote=By the end of 1945, he and the Commander-in-chief, [[General Auckinleck]] were advising that there was a real threat in 1946 of large scale anti-British disorder amounting to even a well-organised rising aiming to expel the British by paralysing the administration. <br> ...it was clear to Attlee that everything depended on the spirit and reliability of the Indian Army:"Provided that they do their duty, armed insurrection in India would not be an insoluble problem. If, however, the Indian Army was to go the other way, the picture would be very different. <br> ...Thus, [[Wavell]] concluded, if the army and the police "failed" Britain would be forced to go. In theory, it might be possible to revive and reinvigorate the services, and rule for another fifteen to twenty years, but:It is a fallacy to suppose that the solution lies in trying to maintain the status quo. We have no longer the resources, nor the necessary prestige or confidence in ourselves.}}</ref><ref name="Brown 330">{{cite book|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=Eq7tAAAAMAAJ|last=Brown|first=Judith|last=Margaret|authorlink=Judith M. Brown|title=Modern India: the origins of an Asian democracy|year=1994|publisher=[[Oxford University Press]]|isbn=978-0-19-873112-2|page=330|quote=India had always been a minority interest in British public life; no great body of public opinion now emerged to argue that war-weary and impoverished Britain should send troops and money to hold it against its will in an empire of doubtful value. By late 1946 both Prime Minister and [[Secretary of State for India]] recognised that neither international opinion nor their own voters would stand for any reassertion of the ''raj'', even if there had been the men, money, and administrative machinery with which to do so}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=x1uBQgAACAAJ| last=Sarkar|first=Sumit|authorlink=Sumit Sarkar|title=Modern India, 1885–1947|year=1983|publisher=[[Macmillan Publishers|Macmillan]]|isbn=978-0-333-90425-1|page=418|quote=With a war weary army and people and a ravaged economy, Britain would have had to retreat; the Labour victory only quickened the process somewhat.}}</ref> In 1946, [[Indian National Congress]], being a [[secularism|secular]] party, demanded a single state.<ref name=Hanson>{{cite book|last=Hanson|first=Eric O.|title=Religion and politics in the international system today|url=http://books.google.com/books/about/Religion_and_politics_in_the_internation.html?id=Wz4nCOMd8ucC|publisher=Cambridge University Press,|accessdate=9 December 2011|page=200|isbn=0-521-61781-2}}</ref> The Muslim majorities, having disagreement with the idea of single state, gave stress to the idea of Pakistan, as a response to Congress' demand for a single state.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8211038.stm|title=South Asia &#124; India state bans book on Jinnah |publisher=BBC News|date=20 August 2009|accessdate=31 January 2012}}</ref>{{rp|203}} In 1946, a [[1946 Cabinet Mission to India|Cabinet Mission]] was sent to try and reach a compromise between Congress and the Muslim League, proposing a decentralized state with much power given to local governments, but it was rejected by both the parties. This also resulted in many communal riots in the South Asia.<ref name="Shameful">*Wolpert, Stanley. 2006. ''Shameful Flight: The Last Years of the British Empire in India''. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. 272 pages. ISBN 0-19-515198-4.</ref>
+
In 1946, the [[Labour Party (UK)#Post-war victory under Attlee|Labour government]] in Britain, getting exhausted by recent events such as [[World War II]] andgfhk/ nlhkg;kj jngl;iugukgjbhjvbcmfxfxchgfckhvlkhb.knb.nbjo'kL:mkkn/mklm/nmlknj/knjm /kh/jhuiogjhj nb,h y numerous riots, realised that it had neither the mandate at home, the support internationally, nor the reliability of [[British Indian Army]] for continuing to control an increasingly restless India. Reliability of the [[British Indian Army|native forces]] for continuing their control over an increasingly rebellious India diminished, thus the government decided to end British rule of India.<ref name="metcalf conc">{{cite book|last1=Metcalf|first1=B.|last2=Metcalf|first2=T. R.|author1-link=Barbara Metcalf|author2-link=Thomas R. Metcalf|date=9 October 2006|title=A concise history of modern India|edition=2nd|publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]]|isbn=978-0-521-68225-1}}</ref>{{rp|167, 203}}<ref name=Hyam106>{{cite book|last=Hyam|first=Ronald|title=Britain's declining empire: the road to decolonisation, 1918–1968|year=2006|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-68555-9|page=106|quote=By the end of 1945, he and the Commander-in-chief, [[General Auckinleck]] were advising that there was a real threat in 1946 of large scale anti-British disorder amounting to even a well-organised rising aiming to expel the British by paralysing the administration. <br> ...it was clear to Attlee that everything depended on the spirit and reliability of the Indian Army:"Provided that they do their duty, armed insurrection in India would not be an insoluble problem. If, however, the Indian Army was to go the other way, the picture would be very different. <br> ...Thus, [[Wavell]] concluded, if the army and the police "failed" Britain would be forced to go. In theory, it might be possible to revive and reinvigorate the services, and rule for another fifteen to twenty years, but:It is a fallacy to suppose that the solution lies in trying to maintain the status quo. We have no longer the resources, nor the necessary prestige or confidence in ourselves.}}</ref><ref name="Brown 330">{{cite book|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=Eq7tAAAAMAAJ|last=Brown|first=Judith|last=Margaret|authorlink=Judith M. Brown|title=Modern India: the origins of an Asian democracy|year=1994|publisher=[[Oxford University Press]]|isbn=978-0-19-873112-2|page=330|quote=India had always been a minority interest in British public life; no great body of public opinion now emerged to argue that war-weary and impoverished Britain should send troops and money to hold it against its will in an empire of doubtful value. By late 1946 both Prime Minister and [[Secretary of State for India]] recognised that neither international opinion nor their own voters would stand for any reassertion of the ''raj'', even if there had been the men, money, and administrative machinery with which to do so}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=x1uBQgAACAAJ| last=Sarkar|first=Sumit|authorlink=Sumit Sarkar|title=Modern India, 1885–1947|year=1983|publisher=[[Macmillan Publishers|Macmillan]]|isbn=978-0-333-90425-1|page=418|quote=With a war weary army and people and a ravaged economy, Britain would have had to retreat; the Labour victory only quickened the process somewhat.}}</ref> In 1946, [[Indian National Congress]], being a [[secularism|secular]] party, demanded a single state.<ref name=Hanson>{{cite book|last=Hanson|first=Eric O.|title=Religion and politics in the international system today|url=http://books.google.com/books/about/Religion_and_politics_in_the_internation.html?id=Wz4nCOMd8ucC|publisher=Cambridge University Press,|accessdate=9 December 2011|page=200|isbn=0-521-61781-2}}</ref> The Muslim majorities, having disagreement with the idea of single state, gave stress to the idea of Pakistan, as a response to Congress' demand for a single state.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8211038.stm|title=South Asia &#124; India state bans book on Jinnah |publisher=BBC News|date=20 August 2009|accessdate=31 January 2012}}</ref>{{rp|203}} In 1946, a [[1946 Cabinet Mission to India|Cabinet Mission]] was sent to try and reach a compromise between Congress and the Muslim League, proposing a decentralized state with much power given to local governments, but it was rejected by both the parties. This also resulted in many communal riots in the South Asia.<ref name="Shameful">*Wolpert, Stanley. 2006. ''Shameful Flight: The Last Years of the British Empire in India''. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. 272 pages. ISBN 0-19-515198-4.</ref>
   
 
Eventually, in February 1947, Prime Minister [[Clement Attlee]] announced that the British government would grant full self-governance to British India by June 1948 at the latest.<ref name="Romein1962">{{cite book|last=Romein|first=Jan |authorlink=Jan Romein |title=The Asian Century: a History of Modern Nationalism in Asia |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=OXaIQZMevjcC&pg=PA357 |accessdate=24 July 2012 |year=1962 |publisher=[[University of California Press]] |page=357 |asin=B000PVLKY4}}</ref> On 3 June 1947, the British government announced that the principle of partition of India in two independent states was accepted.<ref name="Romein1962"/> The successor governments would be given dominion status and would have an implicit right to secede from the [[British Commonwealth]]. [[Viceroy]] [[Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma|Mountbatten]] chose the second anniversary of Japan's surrender in the World War II as the date of power transfer.<ref name="ReadFisher1999">{{cite book|last1=Read|first1=Anthony|last2=Fisher|first2=David|title=The Proudest Day: India's Long Road to Independence|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=q9ebuSG64dkC&pg=PA459|accessdate=4 August 2012|date=1 July 1999|publisher=W. W. Norton & Company|isbn=978-0-393-31898-2|page=459}}</ref> He chose 14 August as the date of the ceremony of power transfer to Pakistan because he wanted to attend ceremonies both in India and Pakistan.<ref name="ReadFisher1999"/><ref name=why>{{cite news|title=India and Pakistan celebrate Independence Day|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/8702510/India-and-Pakistan-celebrate-Independence-Day.html|accessdate=13 August 2012|newspaper=[[The Telegraph (UK)]]}}</ref>
 
Eventually, in February 1947, Prime Minister [[Clement Attlee]] announced that the British government would grant full self-governance to British India by June 1948 at the latest.<ref name="Romein1962">{{cite book|last=Romein|first=Jan |authorlink=Jan Romein |title=The Asian Century: a History of Modern Nationalism in Asia |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=OXaIQZMevjcC&pg=PA357 |accessdate=24 July 2012 |year=1962 |publisher=[[University of California Press]] |page=357 |asin=B000PVLKY4}}</ref> On 3 June 1947, the British government announced that the principle of partition of India in two independent states was accepted.<ref name="Romein1962"/> The successor governments would be given dominion status and would have an implicit right to secede from the [[British Commonwealth]]. [[Viceroy]] [[Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma|Mountbatten]] chose the second anniversary of Japan's surrender in the World War II as the date of power transfer.<ref name="ReadFisher1999">{{cite book|last1=Read|first1=Anthony|last2=Fisher|first2=David|title=The Proudest Day: India's Long Road to Independence|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=q9ebuSG64dkC&pg=PA459|accessdate=4 August 2012|date=1 July 1999|publisher=W. W. Norton & Company|isbn=978-0-393-31898-2|page=459}}</ref> He chose 14 August as the date of the ceremony of power transfer to Pakistan because he wanted to attend ceremonies both in India and Pakistan.<ref name="ReadFisher1999"/><ref name=why>{{cite news|title=India and Pakistan celebrate Independence Day|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/8702510/India-and-Pakistan-celebrate-Independence-Day.html|accessdate=13 August 2012|newspaper=[[The Telegraph (UK)]]}}</ref>
Reason: ANN scored at 0.950344
Reporter Information
Reporter: JimmiXzS (anonymous)
Date: Friday, the 14th of October 2016 at 11:14:36 AM
Status: Reported
Sunday, the 4th of January 2015 at 02:03:09 PM #97468
gordon (anonymous)

BErTjX http://www.QS3PE5ZGdxC9IoVKTAPT2DBYpPkMKqfz.com

Friday, the 14th of October 2016 at 11:14:36 AM #106494
JimmiXzS (anonymous)

sIDq74 http://www.FyLitCl7Pf7kjQdDUOLQOuaxTXbj5iNG.com

Username:
Comment: