The Story of Pakistan's Creation | History Documentary

Pakistan has only been a country for some 75 years. In this short but eventful period, its hostile relationship with neighbouring India has become a key feature of its national identity. The roots of this lie in the end of British rule on the subcontinent, a period that was punctuated by religious strife between Muslims and Hindus. It is within the context of those tense years of inter-communal tension that we can track the establishment of Pakistan. Two communities that had lived side by side for hundreds of years were now ripped apart by European imperialism and Nationalism, as the Partition gave birth to a new nation for the Muslims of India. Under the leadership of its emblematic leader, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Pakistan secured independence, with the promise of becoming a beacon of light for Muslims of the subcontinent.

FREE NEWSLETTER:

- Become a Patron for as little as a dollar a month to vote on upcoming and keep the movement going!

Massive thank you to our Patreons:
Elman
TheBactrianGambler
Preston P
Adam
Mohammad
Areeb
Awais
Omar
Farid
Ibrahim
Ari
Joshua
Haseeb
Nahid
Amir
Mahmoud
Joel
CoreBard

- Join our social media community:
Twitter:

Instagram:

Facebook:

Facebook group:

#pakistan #PakistanHistory #pakistanpolitics

Images Used:

Music Used:

Doug Maxwell - Arabian Nightfall (Sting):

If any of the images or songs are yours, please let me know I will amend them. Please don't report me straight away!

[HikmaHistory]

Could India have remained one united country in the aftermath of Britain's withdrawal? How?

[batosato]

Jinnah did not want to divide the subcontinents. He wanted a fully autonomous Muslim region with their own parliament, much like the Scotland and Wales. Jinnah proposed 14 points to ensure that Muslims get more representation, but Nehru rejected it. It was Nehru who forced Muslims to demand for a separate country. Many Indian nationalists never talks about Jinnah's 14 points and Nehru's refusals.

[CineRanter]

“If two fish are fighting in a river, an Englishman has just passed by.”

[ASMapping]

The comments on this video are pretty appalling (usually the case whenever the topic is Pakistan).
Anyways, as a Pakistani person who also produces history related content, I say here that we have a right to exist as a nation just like anybody else. Calling our country a ‘colonial project’ is not only historically inaccurate, it also denies us our own unique identity, aspirations, nationhood, and existence.
Every nation that asserted its independence was ‘young’ at one point, that doesn’t make it any less of a nation than those that trace their existence as a unified political entity much earlier in the past.
Historical evidence (such as Mountbatten’s letter to Jinnah for example) shows that the British were more interested in the subcontinent being one country and opposed Pakistan being created. Moreover, Indian nationalism (the idea of India as a single political entity) emerged during the British period, and had many influences from western ideas. Thus, Indian nationalism is actually a colonial project, unlike Pakistan.
Finally, the existence of Bangladesh also proves the Two Nation theory. If the theory did not hold merit, Bangladesh would have joined India in 1971, but that did not happen as a matter of fact. Is it perhaps that Muslims of different ethnicities in South Asia did, after all, have a different national identity from everyone else?
To conclude, the historical record does not care about any nationalist agenda, and in many cases paints a very different picture from such ideas. Moreover, nations do not necessarily take inspiration from history alone. If a group of people come together, and decide that they want to be their own distinct people, unique from everyone else as their own nation, then imposing any identity on them ultimately proves futile, and they will ultimately diverge and develop their own distinct nation. The historical record is filled with such examples (look at the relationship between the Irish and the British for example).

I like your channel by the way.

[tuanmfaris]

I hope you can do a video on the history of political Islam in Turkey after Ataturk and the history of Islam in Southeast asia.

[HistoryOfRevolutions]

3:40 He was an exception. Most Muslims proudly revolted against the british, and the main leaders of the 1857 rebellion were mostly muslims.

5:39 I disagree because all types of muslim leaders had united against the British in the 1857 revolt. For example, Mawlana Ahmadullah Shah Madrasi (Barelvi), Muhammad Qasim Nainotvi (Deobandi) and Maulvi Muhammad Baqir (Shia) all participated in the united rebellion in 1857

9:15 Yes. In fact, Iqbal was also offered to be the first leader of Pakistan before it's creation. But Iqbal refused and stated that Jinnah was the man for the job.

16:55 Yes, and it wasn't only kashmir where the fighting continued. It also continued in the state of Hyderabad in Deccan, where the Indian Army launched an operation against the Muslim population in 1948. My great grandfather, who was an islamic scholar and teacher in hyderabad at the time was an eye witness of this as his students were shot by the indian army infront of his eyes.

[symoumsyfullahpriyo]

The Two Nation Theory was the worst possible way to split out the continent. It made the lives of both Muslims in India and Hindus in Pakistan a hell. It's ridiculous, the continent was split by religion. Yet, there had been more Muslims in India than in whole Pakistan during the partition. It even led Bangladesh to be independant out of disgust with the west wing of Pakistan after a few years.

[DavidGS]

U said Muslims lived peaceably with Hindus for 100s of years; however, that's with Muslims generally living under Muslim kings or under the more neutral British.

[FiveRivers.]

First, historically the term "India" was not used to refer to a political country rather it was used to refer to a region just like the region of Europe or Africa. Historical region of "India" is now "South Asia", and it currently has seven independent political entities (Now six; RIP Sikkim). Pakistan, Bangladesh and Republic of India are three large entities. Historically, during the last 5, 000 years of History this region of South Asia has never been under a single political rule (again more like Europe and Africa) except three short eras, when it came almost under a single political entity; Mauryan empire under Ashoka, Mughul empire under Aurengzeb, and British empire in 19th century. Muslims in South Asian region always had a single religious identity (though not always a single political or linguistic identity), however, multiple Vedic inspired religions did not even have a single religious, linguistic, or cultural identity but they were clumped together under the title of Hinduism, promoted by the colonists. In your video at some points using the term "both sides" or "riots erupted" does not help understand the situation when majoritarianism brutally supressed the minorities, thus leading the minorities to the realization that they need their own independent political structures to safeguard themselves and their identities. My advice is that if you are making a video about a nation or a country then present their struggle from their own point of view, that is a more honest and useful approach.

[exploreandlearn]

Proud to be a Pakistani and thanks Jinnah for its creation 🇵🇰🇵🇰🇵🇰❤❤

[lipingrahman]

Jinnah was right that historically there has been a checkered relationship between Hindus and Muslims. But he was wrong that there were two “nations.” In truth there are many more, indeed the partition didn’t go far enough.

[chironpl]

A sad story. Even today religious intolerance and violence crops up periodically

[MarkAntony-ls]

As an Indian Hindu I think this video was kind of semi-biased I guess but I had expected much worse honestly and it was actually much more neutral than I thought. But the thing is that neutrality is itself a bias when one side wanted partition based on religion and was willing to do whatever it takes to achieve it including violence while the other side did not want to partition the motherland. (The sides in question aren't Muslims vs Hindus but specifically Muslim League vs Congress and also pretty much every other faction in India including also the Azad Muslim Conference which was a pro-India pro-Congress anti-partition Muslim faction.)

[abuzie]

There’s an old saying: “If you see two fish fighting, just know a Briton had just been there not long ago.”

[lerneanlion]

Would it helped the situation if the Muslims in the Indian subcontinent learned about the fact that the Bosniak Muslims who resided in in Austria-Hungary after 1878 have been treated relatively well by the governments from Vienna and Budapest? I said this because I can see that the deep root cause of this appeared to be that the Muslims of India appeared to be afraid to live under the rule of what they believed will be the Hindu-dominated government. And the Hindus and the peoples of other faiths in India appeared to be operating on that same fear as well.

Am I correct about this?

[muazzamshaikh]

On 19 April 1940, the Azad Muslim Conference celebrated "Hindustan Day", in contrast to the pro-separatist Muslim League's "Pakistan Day". The attendance in this conference was 5 times more than that of the Lahore resolution...and yet the British chose the Muslim League as the representative of Muslims of India for obvious reasons of course.

[kabdul]

7:57 Qazi Muhammad Isa, a member of the Muslim League whose family escaped Afghanistan during Abdul Rahman’s attack on Hazarajat, is mentioned in relation to the previous video—showing how history is deeply connected.

[talhaafzalkohistani]

Pakistan Zindabad. After witnessing the appalling state of fellow muslims in today's Hindu extremist India, I can't thank Mr Jinnah, Sir Syed and Allama Iqbal for foreseeing this more than a century ago and saving us from the saffron terrorism. Thank you Jinnah and Alhamdulillah ♥️❤️

[CARL_]

The idea of a separate Muslim state, later named Pakistan, gained traction in the 1930s and 1940s, fueled by the "Two-Nation Theory" which argued that Muslims and Hindus constituted two distinct nations
The partition led to a massive displacement of people, with millions of Muslims moving to Pakistan and Hindus and Sikhs moving to India. This migration was accompanied by widespread violence and communal riots, particularly in the Punjab and Bengal regions

[vel-lw]

long live china and pakistan friendship