Women's Role in India's Partition

pink puma

Elite
Hi guys, kiddan thusiiiiiiii :ghug

okay, pichle saal mein ek course liya see it was all about india and i learned soooo much. It was a really good course. and at the end of the term assi ek paper likhna see and i wrote mine about women's role in India and Pakistan's division. :nerd And mere prof neh ehna like keeta vi oh kenda mein publish karna, but i didnt really let him for fear of public backlash LOL. >haha so anyways mein tohanu saab nu puchna chaundi aa vi if partition was organized and led by indian women do you think it would have made a difference?

For example, if we compare women to men, women are usually found to be more homely, reinforce traditional values and culture, they are more emotional because they bare children and thus take care of the family. So taking all of women's values into consideration, if partition was controlled and organized by women instead of men do you think there would have been less violence, less bloodshed, and fewer rapings? Do you think women would have been more merciful of the different religions and do you think they would have resorted to violence like men did? Would revenge have been a ultimate concern for women?

In my paper i argued that yes partition would have been far more organized and there would be less bloodshed if women were in control. But this can be contested especially if we take a look at the actions of previous female leaders such as Indira Gandhi, Margaret Thatcher, and Benazir Bhutto.

So aap ji apna opinion jaroor pesh karyo, whether or not female led movements such as partition would have resulted in less violence and more peace.
 

pps309

Prime VIP
if partition was controlled and organized by women instead of men do you think there would have been less violence, less bloodshed, and fewer rapings? Do you think women would have been more merciful of the different religions and do you think they would have resorted to violence like men did? Would revenge have been a ultimate concern for women?
First of all, I don't think Partition was organiszed.
Just looking at what happened (discussing facts and not intentions of leaders which I do not know), it seemes partition organization plan was a completely absurd.
None of the sides took responsibility of taking out their guys from other's land. They were looted and thrown out.
Second, There was a wrong move by Indian authorities. They put all their forces in Bengal and left north-west province.

Now talking about if women would have done it, it would not have been better. Its myth. Why we think that women only think of kids and not men. In India Men work hard to earn for their women and kids. Men do overtime even takes bribe to get more luxury to his kids...;)

Yes we can think that women would not have done much killing or bloodshed for that reason is different. The sole reason behind that women are physically not as strong as men (exceptions are always there).

Women might have been more merciful to other religion and might be they would not have done violence but still they could not have avoided the violence. No matter what women also could not have avoided bloodshed. Partition is not a story of single women, it is story of a nation. Women would have also failed badly in handling the riots at such a big scale.

These type of riots (47, 84, Godhra) cannot be controlled, these incidents should not be allowed to happen at first place instead of controlling it later.
I bet no one can control riots, its just when mob cools down it stops. As we all now anger is not permanent.

No matter men or women it was a failure of organizing the partition. It was not properly planned, and most important they were not bothered about North-west provinces.
 

Angel_Eyes

Done Deal !
Pinks i understand u wrote a paper on this and i am sure you did an amazing job.
But to my understanding if it was down to women, they never would have wanted the partition to begin with. Partition was more of a political game that lead to public separation. It was an era of blood-shed massacre, but it was more wanted by MOhammad Ali Jinaah and even less by indian politicains. They wanted a separate Muslim state, Pakistan, India never wanted separate india, coz it was india to begin with.
And hypothetically speaking, evenif partition was lead by women, no matter how soft hearted they are, men would have still played their role as much as they could have, and it wudnt have been nothing better. Plus what was the gurantee that women controlling it wouldnt have been women like Indira gandhi, for some fundamentalist nationalistics who would put religion and regional differences before all else. And i still think men would have gone out of their ways to kill, rape, supress these women evenif these women were the best women controlling things there.
 

SHauKeeN GaBRu

Chardi Kala
In my paper i argued that yes partition would have been far more organized and there would be less bloodshed if women were in control. But this can be contested especially if we take a look at the actions of previous female leaders such as Indira Gandhi, Margaret Thatcher, and Benazir Bhutto.

u consider wht Indira Gandhi did to be less bloody????
 

SHauKeeN GaBRu

Chardi Kala
first of all, I beleive tht Partition should have taken place, these politicians, so called freedom fighters ne apni politics khedi...Jinnah and Nehru both wanted power...or should I say thy were power hungry...

coming to ur question, WOMEN couldnt have done much, bcoz thy dint have many rights...India chhaddo, women dint even enjoy all the rights in the US, thy only began getting recognition after the WW2

I guess if Women had got the partition done successfully, the ones who were invloved in the the freedom struggle wouldnt have liked it, bcoz most were males and they wouldnt have liked the women taking the credit...

dont get offended...pls
 
Top