Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[Libran]

London: Lord Mountbatten's daughter Pamela Mountbatten says there was deep love between her mother Edwina and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. Speaking exclusively to CNN-IBN, Lady Pamela also said that speculation that there was any kind of physical aspect to the relationship was misplaced.


Karan Thapar: In your introduction you write - "towards the end of the 15 months we spent in India, the immediate attraction between my mother and Panditji blossomed into love." What do you mean by love?


Pamela Mountbatten: I mean a very deep love, the kind of love that the knights of old...esoteric love really, nowadays everybody assumes that it has to be a carnal love, but you can just have as deep and emotional love with two like souls in a way, people who really grow to understand each other, and be able to listen to each other and to complement each other and find solace in each other.


Karan Thapar: In you book you write with incredible candour - " my mother had already had lovers, my father was inured to it." But then you add - " the relationship with Nehru remained platonic. Can you be really sure of that?


Pamela Mountbatten: I would say yes, because anyway, Nehru was a very honourable man, who liked my father - there was great affection between the two. And it was nearly always in my father's houses - either in England or in India that they were together and I think he would have never dishonoured his freind's...

My mother was so happy with Jawaharlal, she knew that she was helping him at a time when it's lonely at the pinnacle of power, it really is, and if she could help, and my father knew that it helped her, because a woman can after a long marriage feel frustrated and perhaps neglected if somebody's working terribly hard. And so if a new affection comes into her life, a new admiration, she blossoms and she is happy.


Karan Thapar: So both of them in a sense fulfilled a need. Jawaharlal and Edwina needed each other.


Pamela Mountbatten: I think they did, and my father understood that need, and of course it made my mother - who could be quite difficult at times, as many extraordinary women can be - happy. And yet this time when she was so happy with everybody you know, it was lovely to be with her, when there were no prickles.


Karan Thapar: You say that the Edwina-Nehru relationship was also of use to your father as viceroy, that he often appealed to Panditji through the influence your mother had, and that this was particularly useful in handling tricky situations like Kashmir.


Pamela Mountbatten: That is true and he did use her like that, but he certainly wasn't going to throw her. He didn't say to her 'go and become the Prime Minister's lover because I need you to intercede.' It was a by-product of this deep relationship...


Karan Thapar: Absolutely, he realised that there was an emotional relationship he could use for the betterment of everyone.


Pamela Mountbatten: Absolutely.


Karan Thapar: Many people in India believe that, in fact, the decision that Jawaharlal took to refer Kashmir to the United Nations, was taken under your father's advise. Could that have been an area where your mother's influence could have been particularly useful?


Pamela Mountbatten: I think it could have been, because Panditji being a Kashmiri of course - you know inevitably the emotional side comes in from one's own country, doesn't it? And my father just in dry conversation mightn't have been able to to get his viewpoint over. But with my mother translating it for Panditji, and you know appealing to his heart more than his mind, that he should really behave like this - I think probably that did happen.


Karan Thapar: Panditji was a widower, he needed female affection, he must have wanted it. Your mother was alluring and beautiful, they were so close to each other, it would be natural for the emotional to become sexual.


Pamela Mountbatten: It could be, and maybe everybody will think I'm being very naive, but the fact that she had had lovers in the past, somehow this was so different, it really was.


Watch a special and exclusive two-part interview with Lady Pamela Mountbatten in Devil's Advocate on Sunday at 8:30 pm on CNN-IBN.

http://www.ibnlive.com/news/nothing-physical-between-my-mother-pt-nehru/45065-3.html

[Cover Point]

a complete aside, if the partition (as is popular belief ) came down to a choice between Jinnah wanting to be PM vs Nehru, why could they not come to an agreement of co prime ministers or some such until general elections?

Was it worth partitioning the country?

[Libran]

a complete aside, if the partition (as is popular belief ) came down to a choice between Jinnah wanting to be PM vs Nehru, why could they not come to an agreement of co prime ministers or some such until general elections?

Was it worth partitioning the country?

They deserve what they got and we got what we deserve....Partition process may have left a lot of scars,but partition in itself was the best solution. As it is , there is so much of appeasement happening....we would be nowhere if there was no partition.

[Cover Point]

a complete aside, if the partition (as is popular belief ) came down to a choice between Jinnah wanting to be PM vs Nehru, why could they not come to an agreement of co prime ministers or some such until general elections?

Was it worth partitioning the country?

They deserve what they got and we got what we deserve....Partition process may have left a lot of scars,but partition in itself was the best solution. As it is , there is so much of appeasement happening....we would be nowhere if there was no partition.

This is a common theme heard from people not directly affected by the partitions. Actually Punjabis and Bengalis would see this differently I guess. most families in Punjab were directly affected by it. We all have atleast someone in our family who was killed during those riots. Most of us were affected in other ways (Both sides of my grand parents lost most of their money/savings during partition). The amount of killings and pillage that we saw was amazing.

My maternal grand mothers sister was shot dead in her own house near Lahore.

The overall numbers itself are staggering. What was it close to half a million dead.

So never say the partition was for the better. Appeasement if any is no less today then it would have been in common India.

[sudzz]

a complete aside, if the partition (as is popular belief ) came down to a choice between Jinnah wanting to be PM vs Nehru, why could they not come to an agreement of co prime ministers or some such until general elections?

Was it worth partitioning the country?

They deserve what they got and we got what we deserve....Partition process may have left a lot of scars,but partition in itself was the best solution. As it is , there is so much of appeasement happening....we would be nowhere if there was no partition.

This is a common theme heard from people not directly affected by the partitions. Actually Punjabis and Bengalis would see this differently I guess. most families in Punjab were directly affected by it. We all have atleast someone in our family who was killed during those riots. Most of us were affected in other ways (Both sides of my grand parents lost most of their money/savings during partition). The amount of killings and pillage that we saw was amazing.

My maternal grand mothers sister was shot dead in her own house near Lahore.

The overall numbers itself are staggering. What was it close to half a million dead.

So never say the partition was for the better. Appeasement if any is no less today then it would have been in common India.

CP the point is yes were not affected directly or otherwise but simply put with the overall infrastructure and the religious divide in the sub-continent a divided India is much better than a unified, unwieldy and totally chaotic extended India or Akhand Bharat

[Cover Point]

a complete aside, if the partition (as is popular belief ) came down to a choice between Jinnah wanting to be PM vs Nehru, why could they not come to an agreement of co prime ministers or some such until general elections?

Was it worth partitioning the country?

They deserve what they got and we got what we deserve....Partition process may have left a lot of scars,but partition in itself was the best solution. As it is , there is so much of appeasement happening....we would be nowhere if there was no partition.

This is a common theme heard from people not directly affected by the partitions. Actually Punjabis and Bengalis would see this differently I guess. most families in Punjab were directly affected by it. We all have atleast someone in our family who was killed during those riots. Most of us were affected in other ways (Both sides of my grand parents lost most of their money/savings during partition). The amount of killings and pillage that we saw was amazing.

My maternal grand mothers sister was shot dead in her own house near Lahore.

The overall numbers itself are staggering. What was it close to half a million dead.

So never say the partition was for the better. Appeasement if any is no less today then it would have been in common India.

CP the point is yes were not affected directly or otherwise but simply put with the overall infrastructure and the religious divide in the sub-continent a divided India is much better than a unified, unwieldy and totally chaotic extended India or Akhand Bharat

Would you extend the same to say then that we really should give up Kashmir?

And what about those other cities with significant Muslim population? Hyderabad, Lucknow etc? Should they be divided away too? Lets have anopther blood bath as we get further move people based on religion?

And then what aout those rebels in the east? They should be divided too? And what about the Naxals in Andhra? I know there was a call from some Tamilians for another divide. Why not them?

OK, forget even the above questions. Muslims were about 15% of Indian population at the time of partition. Now Muslims are again around 13-14% of Indian population (they have had a bigger growth than others I guess). So how are we different than if we were a single country then?

My point was, the kind of carnage seen at the time of partition was so brutal that just hearing some of the stories from our parents and grand parents makes your blood boil. In the bigger scheme of things, a divided India for 50 years has been mired in a proxy war with Pak. We were held down in development by the over spending on Military. Yes we are now doing better but we still spend so much more on efforts to fight Pak than on any other development work.

The Hindu Muslim divide still exists in India. We have seen Riots all over, Bomb blasts appeasement/taking advantage of minorities .... everything still happens.

So how are we better off? So many people lost their lives and their entire life savings. Was it worth it?

[kban1]

Would you extend the same to say then that we really should give up Kashmir?

And what about those other cities with significant Muslim population? Hyderabad, Lucknow etc? Should they be divided away too? Lets have anopther blood bath as we get further move people based on religion?

And then what aout those rebels in the east? They should be divided too? And what about the Naxals in Andhra? I know there was a call from some Tamilians for another divide. Why not them?

OK, forget even the above questions. Muslims were about 15% of Indian population at the time of partition. Now Muslims are again around 13-14% of Indian population (they have had a bigger growth than others I guess). So how are we different than if we were a single country then?

My point was, the kind of carnage seen at the time of partition was so brutal that just hearing some of the stories from our parents and grand parents makes your blood boil. In the bigger scheme of things, a divided India for 50 years has been mired in a proxy war with Pak. We were held down in development by the over spending on Military. Yes we are now doing better but we still spend so much more on efforts to fight Pak than on any other development work.

The Hindu Muslim divide still exists in India. We have seen Riots all over, Bomb blasts appeasement/taking advantage of minorities .... everything still happens.

So how are we better off? So many people lost their lives and their entire life savings. Was it worth it?

  

[Libran]

a complete aside, if the partition (as is popular belief ) came down to a choice between Jinnah wanting to be PM vs Nehru, why could they not come to an agreement of co prime ministers or some such until general elections?

Was it worth partitioning the country?

They deserve what they got and we got what we deserve....Partition process may have left a lot of scars,but partition in itself was the best solution. As it is , there is so much of appeasement happening....we would be nowhere if there was no partition.

This is a common theme heard from people not directly affected by the partitions. Actually Punjabis and Bengalis would see this differently I guess. most families in Punjab were directly affected by it. We all have atleast someone in our family who was killed during those riots. Most of us were affected in other ways (Both sides of my grand parents lost most of their money/savings during partition). The amount of killings and pillage that we saw was amazing.

My maternal grand mothers sister was shot dead in her own house near Lahore.

The overall numbers itself are staggering. What was it close to half a million dead.

So never say the partition was for the better. Appeasement if any is no less today then it would have been in common India.

CP the point is yes were not affected directly or otherwise but simply put with the overall infrastructure and the religious divide in the sub-continent a divided India is much better than a unified, unwieldy and totally chaotic extended India or Akhand Bharat

Would you extend the same to say then that we really should give up Kashmir?

And what about those other cities with significant Muslim population? Hyderabad, Lucknow etc? Should they be divided away too? Lets have anopther blood bath as we get further move people based on religion?

And then what aout those rebels in the east? They should be divided too? And what about the Naxals in Andhra? I know there was a call from some Tamilians for another divide. Why not them?

OK, forget even the above questions. Muslims were about 15% of Indian population at the time of partition. Now Muslims are again around 13-14% of Indian population (they have had a bigger growth than others I guess). So how are we different than if we were a single country then?

My point was, the kind of carnage seen at the time of partition was so brutal that just hearing some of the stories from our parents and grand parents makes your blood boil. In the bigger scheme of things, a divided India for 50 years has been mired in a proxy war with Pak. We were held down in development by the over spending on Military. Yes we are now doing better but we still spend so much more on efforts to fight Pak than on any other development work.

The Hindu Muslim divide still exists in India. We have seen Riots all over, Bomb blasts appeasement/taking advantage of minorities .... everything still happens.

So how are we better off? So many people lost their lives and their entire life savings. Was it worth it?

have u thought of a situation which cold be worse....

1 billion Indians + a 750 million Pakistanis...and then they decide to ask for a separate state...Can uimagine the anarchy that can occur...I understand the pains that people have gone thru' and since no one in my family as not been thru' this, cannot assess the real impact...but, frankly...bygones are bygones...I am happy with what I have..Mumbai train blasts, Stock exchange bombs and IISc shootout not withstanding

[WicketView]

I could not care less what they did between themselves. What I always thought was bothering about this particular relationship was that it might have been possible for Mountbatten to influence Nehru to do something through this relationship. That something may have been good or bad from the Indian perspective. It seems that this woman actually says that such use was made of the relationship, even though she claims it was for the good of everyone.

[prfsr]

The first thread where I completely agree with CP! Yay!

It is not an easy argument to make either way. Maybe we would have been better off in that we would not have a hostile nuclear neighbour that is creating trouble for not just us but the whole world. Appeasement or not Indian muslims seem to be less malicious till date (touch wood). Who knows if we could keep our ex-countrymates
similarly happy or not?

Also CP makes an excellent point -- is it desirable to streamline India further by throwing out the less prosperous portions?

As CP said,  it is easier for people who were far far away to forget the absolute ethnic cleansing that happened in Bengal and Punjab.
-P

[LosingNow]

a complete aside, if the partition (as is popular belief ) came down to a choice between Jinnah wanting to be PM vs Nehru, why could they not come to an agreement of co prime ministers or some such until general elections?

Was it worth partitioning the country?

They deserve what they got and we got what we deserve....Partition process may have left a lot of scars,but partition in itself was the best solution. As it is , there is so much of appeasement happening....we would be nowhere if there was no partition.

This is a common theme heard from people not directly affected by the partitions. Actually Punjabis and Bengalis would see this differently I guess. most families in Punjab were directly affected by it. We all have atleast someone in our family who was killed during those riots. Most of us were affected in other ways (Both sides of my grand parents lost most of their money/savings during partition). The amount of killings and pillage that we saw was amazing.

My maternal grand mothers sister was shot dead in her own house near Lahore.

The overall numbers itself are staggering. What was it close to half a million dead.

So never say the partition was for the better. Appeasement if any is no less today then it would have been in common India.

CP the point is yes were not affected directly or otherwise but simply put with the overall infrastructure and the religious divide in the sub-continent a divided India is much better than a unified, unwieldy and totally chaotic extended India or Akhand Bharat

Would you extend the same to say then that we really should give up Kashmir?

And what about those other cities with significant Muslim population? Hyderabad, Lucknow etc? Should they be divided away too? Lets have anopther blood bath as we get further move people based on religion?

And then what aout those rebels in the east? They should be divided too? And what about the Naxals in Andhra? I know there was a call from some Tamilians for another divide. Why not them?

OK, forget even the above questions. Muslims were about 15% of Indian population at the time of partition. Now Muslims are again around 13-14% of Indian population (they have had a bigger growth than others I guess). So how are we different than if we were a single country then?

My point was, the kind of carnage seen at the time of partition was so brutal that just hearing some of the stories from our parents and grand parents makes your blood boil. In the bigger scheme of things, a divided India for 50 years has been mired in a proxy war with Pak. We were held down in development by the over spending on Military. Yes we are now doing better but we still spend so much more on efforts to fight Pak than on any other development work.

The Hindu Muslim divide still exists in India. We have seen Riots all over, Bomb blasts appeasement/taking advantage of minorities .... everything still happens.

So how are we better off? So many people lost their lives and their entire life savings. Was it worth it?

have u thought of a situation which cold be worse....

1 billion Indians + a 750 million Pakistanis...

If the partition did not happen... would they still be called Indians and Pakistanis?

--
Hindsight is always 20-20.. and end can never justify the means!

Based on my limited and peripheral understanding of history, partition was a totally avoidable (if only a "few" could put their egos aside) and unfortunate blot on our history. No "good" can justify such large uprooting and killing of people. Ever. Period.

I am fairly positive that if we were not partitioned, we would have had as thriving (or non-thriving, based on your perspective) a federal system of government as we have today! We cannot base our joint trajectory (post independence) on our individual trajectories as nations.

Also, IMO, dismissing partition as "water under the bridge" is at best, disingenuous ..and calling it as better for our country, incredibly callous.

[LosingNow]

I could not care less what they did between themselves. What I always thought was bothering about this particular relationship was that it might have been possible for Mountbatten to influence Nehru to do something through this relationship. That something may have been good or bad from the Indian perspective. It seems that this woman actually says that such use was made of the relationship, even though she claims it was for the good of everyone.

Yea, she knew what was good for everyone! How eff'ing pompous?
--
Even though I grew up in a Congress household, the more and more I read about the Nehru family (all the way from Jawahar to Sonia).. the more and more I am getting disgusted by this "so-called" royal family of India.

Their "self-serving" actions have single-handedly stymied the development of a billion people .. could there be a more "criminal" family in the world! Hope the "devotees" see the light.

[ruchir]

CP -- 

LN -- Welcome back from India.

[LosingNow]

CP -- 

LN -- Welcome back from India.

Thanks Ruchir.. good to be back.

[WicketView]

I could not care less what they did between themselves. What I always thought was bothering about this particular relationship was that it might have been possible for Mountbatten to influence Nehru to do something through this relationship. That something may have been good or bad from the Indian perspective. It seems that this woman actually says that such use was made of the relationship, even though she claims it was for the good of everyone.

Yea, she knew what was good for everyone! How eff'ing pompous?
--
Even though I grew up in a Congress household, the more and more I read about the Nehru family (all the way from Jawahar to Sonia).. the more and more I am getting disgusted by this "so-called" royal family of India.

Their "self-serving" actions have single-handedly stymied the development of a billion people .. could there be a more "criminal" family in the world! Hope the "devotees" see the light.

quite the point. Looks like Karan Thappar has mellowed down. I can't believe that he did not give her the chase on both her stupid points.

[Cover Point]

I am very very confused today. First Kban uses icon. I (being the resident Devil) took it to mean some thing to the effect that I am not worthy of posting here. Then I see Professor AGREE with me. Now I started questioning my own English comprehension (which is weak at best). Then Ruchir too personally abuses me (by using this   FOUR times). And I thought Ruchir was my friend!

but back to the topic.

If the partition did not happen... would they still be called Indians and Pakistanis?

--
Hindsight is always 20-20.. and end can never justify the means!

Based on my limited and peripheral understanding of history, partition was a totally avoidable (if only a "few" could put their egos aside) and unfortunate blot on our history. No "good" can justify such large uprooting and killing of people. Ever. Period.

I am fairly positive that if we were not partitioned, we would have had as thriving (or non-thriving, based on your perspective) a federal system of government as we have today! We cannot base our joint trajectory (post independence) on our individual trajectories as nations.

Also, IMO, dismissing partition as "water under the bridge" is at best, disingenuous ..and calling it as better for our country, incredibly callous.

It definitely is not right to call it water under the bridge. You have to see the impact it has had on the people (I am sure on both sides of the border). The brutality that you hear about would make anyone shudder. I sometimes wonder what kind of a society do we live in which allows the cold blooded murders of not just innocent people but doesnt even spare women and children. You have to hear stories from people about how they went from being the land lords to refugees with nothing except for clothes on their back overnight! You had to see the longing in the eyes of my grand parents when ever the talk of Lahore would come up (My Grandfather loved the serial Hum Log (was it?) just because it started off in Lahore (apparently in the same road that he was born in)).

And the bad thing that the partition did was set a precedant of splitting on religious lines.

[ruchir]

I could not care less what they did between themselves. What I always thought was bothering about this particular relationship was that it might have been possible for Mountbatten to influence Nehru to do something through this relationship. That something may have been good or bad from the Indian perspective. It seems that this woman actually says that such use was made of the relationship, even though she claims it was for the good of everyone.

Yea, she knew what was good for everyone! How eff'ing pompous?
--
Even though I grew up in a Congress household, the more and more I read about the Nehru family (all the way from Jawahar to Sonia).. the more and more I am getting disgusted by this "so-called" royal family of India.

Their "self-serving" actions have single-handedly stymied the development of a billion people .. could there be a more "criminal" family in the world! Hope the "devotees" see the light.

Bold - red..... you just said what I wanted to say. My parents were Cong supporters too. There was a time when, as a kid, I jumped with joy when Cong (I) handed the Cong president post to Sonia Maino after Rajiv *hi died. That she refused was immaterial. But slowly, as I grew old, I started reading more about THE family, there were dinner table conversations while watching Pratima Puri (or whoever) read hindi news..... slowly I/we realized that THE family was not as pure as we thought. Since then, we stopped being Cong supporters.

[ruchir]

CP -- I looooove abusing people.

[sudzz]

Partition as an alternative IMHO was eminently avoidable given that other than a few very senior politicians and their ego's no one really wanted it.

But in hindsight it does look like that in spite of human and economic losses the whole concept has worked in India's benefit. It has served as India's own holocaust and therefore the survivors have forged a different identity for themselves in their quest to recapture their lost glories.

More importantly look east or west on both sides of the border the states are more or less floundering and have never been able to grow beyond the propa*a of hate and help people with real growth.

Given that India has the population that it has, the overall government machinery would have been stretched to unimaginable extent to provide succor and support to the teeming mass of humanity,remember that the British could not really govern large swathes of NWFP, Upper reaches of the Northeast etc.

So while yes the catharsis felt by over 100's of thousands during the actual act of partition but in retrospect it has worked in India's benefit because we as a nation have been able to rise above the misery and forge a new identity for ourselves.

[keep-it-cool]

More importantly look east or west on both sides of the border the states are more or less floundering and have never been able to grow beyond the propa*a of hate and help people with real growth.

Take any of the existing states in India out and make them a different country ... you will find that they start floundering economically as well. That is no argument.

[Cover Point]

More importantly look east or west on both sides of the border the states are more or less floundering and have never been able to grow beyond the propa*a of hate and help people with real growth.

Take any of the existing states in India out and make them a different country ... you will find that they start floundering economically as well. That is no argument.

Exactly, as LN said there is no real reason to believe that an undivided India would have been anny different. Pakistan is a failed state NOT due to the muslims but because the premise of the state is hatred. The people there have been fed 60 years of nothing but hatred towards India. Its how they justified the partition.

[sudzz]

More importantly look east or west on both sides of the border the states are more or less floundering and have never been able to grow beyond the propa*a of hate and help people with real growth.

Take any of the existing states in India out and make them a different country ... you will find that they start floundering economically as well. That is no argument.

I beg to differ, when a state is physically smaller and has great contiguity in terms of religion and language etc then it should be relatively easier to manage aspirations of the people.

In a country like Pakistan or Bangladesh, they should have been able to develop big urban centres of very high levels of growth like say a Sing/HK etc at the bare minimum and the rest of the country could have benefited from these places.

Unfortunately as all of you have said they have focussed on fomenting the doctrine of hate all along and India bashing has for ever been a election plank in these nations due to which there has been no real growth.

Whereas in case of India it has been lack of resources coupled with a huge imbalance between the needy and the available quantum of resources. Inspite of all of the impediments India has grown relatively better than these states (this though is no yardstick for growth as such and we remain a fairly backward nation when it comes to human development indices).

Partition of the country helped us to a certain extent because it managed to make the most productive parts of the nation redouble its efforts (Punjab and Kashmir), but we screwed up big time in the East by not really making the kind of progress we should have.

[keep-it-cool]

More importantly look east or west on both sides of the border the states are more or less floundering and have never been able to grow beyond the propa*a of hate and help people with real growth.

Take any of the existing states in India out and make them a different country ... you will find that they start floundering economically as well. That is no argument.

I beg to differ, when a state is physically smaller and has great contiguity in terms of religion and language etc then it should be relatively easier to manage aspirations of the people.

In a country like Pakistan or Bangladesh, they should have been able to develop big urban centres of very high levels of growth like say a Sing/HK etc at the bare minimum and the rest of the country could have benefited from these places.

Unfortunately as all of you have said they have focussed on fomenting the doctrine of hate all along and India bashing has for ever been a election plank in these nations due to which there has been no real growth.

Whereas in case of India it has been lack of resources coupled with a huge imbalance between the needy and the available quantum of resources. Inspite of all of the impediments India has grown relatively better than these states (this though is no yardstick for growth as such and we remain a fairly backward nation when it comes to human development indices).

Partition of the country helped us to a certain extent because it managed to make the most productive parts of the nation redouble its efforts (Punjab and Kashmir), but we screwed up big time in the East by not really making the kind of progress we should have.

But, if you take a Maharashtra out and make it a different country, with the need to have a separate military, governance and other overheads as well as no free influx of businesses and businessmen from all other parts of the country, it would flounder big time as well. And, the dispute over water sharing between states, which is now being resolved (or at least attempts are being made) through dialogue would lead to insurgencies and / or wars.

The flexibility in movement of people and capital especially is very relevant, because it opens up more options for people - Pune, for instance, benefits a lot because of IT parks being set up there by companies who did not originate in the state. If you go to Baddi in Himachal Pradesh, you will find the entire landscape dotted with pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities - of companies from different parts of the country. Some of this could have gone to Pak, if it had remained a part of India - the impact on the economy in those states would be remarkable. This flexibility is not available when you are a separate country.

It is a hypothetical analysis - but the question that really needs to be asked is had what is Pakistan now remained an integral part of India, would that hatred still be there .. or would it have died a natural death as we have seen in many parts of India post independence. After all, clashes or hatred on religious grounds have continued within India after independence as well - the only difference is that they flared and then died down.