A look back at the partition

[RayC]

Politics! JLN.

Jalianwalla was a damned disgrace and a shame for any army action!

But then the arrogance of the British ruled supreme and one could do damn all apparently!

[RayC]

To judge events, one has to understand those times and not go by contemporary morality.

Imagine our next generations judging us - mass corruption, bad governance and total chaos, selling ourselves to the Chinese and the Pakistanis and wondering how the pureness of Vedic and Indic sensibilities and the 'fierceness' of our ancestor to take on the enemy were abandoned by us and yet, how we talked so big and not take the govt on and toppled it!

Were we as big wimps as our ancestors?

Let us examine that before we condemn!

[samuel]

Here are a few points that I jot down:

• It was possible for India to remain united if the leadership was aggressive. Such aggression could include both non-violent and revolutionary methods. All tools needed to be used.
• I have vacillated in my views of Gandhi. But, the more I read of him, the less I am willing to judge him. He was, in my view, a truly amazing Hindu. And, for example, if he asked his own people to sacrifice more, it must be read in the context that out of such sacrifice emerges the moral authority to stand up, and more. There will of course be various interpretations of this and, in the light of history, I really do not think his method succeeded, but it is not clear to me whether this is as a result of what flowed from him or, as Acharya Kripalani says, what did not flow back to him. The jury is very much out in my mind.
• the big difference between India and countried like the US is, ours seems to be a country glad to become a "dominion" and be "granted" independence. Who the F gets a grant of independence...thank you, mybap, what? Independence is about our will prevailing. It is about our ways prevailing and usually it requires one to usurp what was prevailing! Obviously, if we were "granted" independence, a whole lot of things weren't under our control.
• The Muslim elite knew their goose was cooked after 1857. The surfaced again in 1906 and I cannot find out why they became dear then to the British. Was a lot of revolution brewing. It seems like a golden period for British (except and perhaps due to widespread famines) that time.
• The link between these muslim elite and islamism of the common muslim started then and came into being by partition. There of course have been examples throughout history of the same effect. However, even on the eve of partition, there were ample opportunities for Pakistan to a) not form and b) if formed be really moth eaten!
• INC did not have it together after 46 and things went really down hill.
• Nehru was desperate to get on with the business of managing India (so was Jinnah with Pakistan). This ambition is not found in Gandhi. He was ready to go back to scratch and fight for a united India.
• The british were dropping the ball and fast. They held the princely states/federal as threat and used it to get partition with little fuss. This is where we must pause and think, what kind of independence is this, where it is being granted to us in this fashion?
• Once INC folded, it was a piece of cake and they needed to move fast before minds change. Please remember the yes and no to various plans.
• We should've been fundamentally be ready to fly high and fly low to make our objective. That means direct action must have been met with the threat of total action, british threat of princely states with widespread revolt in the Army and other services by a DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.

JMT
S

[RayC]

When I find time, I will quote Jaswant Singh from his book.

It is unique.

The more I read, the more I wonder!

[sanjaychoudhry]

Read Gandhi: A Sublime Failure by S.S. Gill.
http://www.amazon.com/Gandhi-Sublime-Fa ... 8129100932

Very well researched. It opened my eyes.

[brihaspati]

Samuelji,
regarding 1906, will it be possible to explore William Shakespeare, born in Bombay, a Sandhurst graduate, in the 17th Bengal Cavalry. He joined the Indian Political Department, and in 1904 the British Foreign Office and became the youngest vice-consul in British India. He was posted to Kuwait. From 1909 on he was the British Political Agent in Kuwait, subordinated to the respective agent in Bahrain. Shakespear was fluent in Urdu, Pushtu, Persian and Arabic. He became close to Ibn Saud in the first phase of Saud's rise to power. With his death in 1915, the British briefly went to Saud's rivals, then changed again. This was all connected to British moves against the Ottomans.

If he was being transferred to ME as early as 1909, there must have been thoughts going on within the mandarins of British India. The other background could be the rise of Japan in the east through the Russo-Japanese war of 1905. The same year I think Mckinder published his "geographical thesis".

It was then they could be thinking of using the "Muslims" as a bigger rallying force for their chess-games.

[samuel]

Funny you mention him! I have just started reading about this character and found him curious!
S

[ramana]

Samuelji,
regarding 1906, will it be possible to explore William Shakespeare, born in Bombay, a Sandhurst graduate, in the 17th Bengal Cavalry. He joined the Indian Political Department, and in 1904 the British Foreign Office and became the youngest vice-consul in British India. He was posted to Kuwait. From 1909 on he was the British Political Agent in Kuwait, subordinated to the respective agent in Bahrain. Shakespear was fluent in Urdu, Pushtu, Persian and Arabic. He became close to Ibn Saud in the first phase of Saud's rise to power. With his death in 1915, the British briefly went to Saud's rivals, then changed again. This was all connected to British moves against the Ottomans.

If he was being transferred to ME as early as 1909, there must have been thoughts going on within the mandarins of British India. The other background could be the rise of Japan in the east through the Russo-Japanese war of 1905. The same year I think Mckinder published his "geographical thesis".

It was then they could be thinking of using the "Muslims" as a bigger rallying force for their chess-games.

While at it read Wilfrid Scawen Blunt's book "Future of Islam" written in late 1880s that lays out a blueprint for British takeover of Islam's political center from the sublime Port (aka Ottomon Turkey). Its on the net.

Download from here

Future of Islam Wilfrid Scawen Blunt

Before google mama, this book was arare edition and used to cost >$200!

[Sanku]

While at it read Wilfrid Scawen Blunt's book "Future of Islam" written in late 1880s that lays out a blueprint for British takeover of Islam's political center from the sublime Port (aka Ottomon Turkey). Its on the net.

Clearly the British preferred to do a lot of thinking before their actions, what?

[Paul]

The beauty of JS's book is that it is ostensibly abouty Jinnah but is raising questions about JLN.

[Paul]

The surfaced again in 1906 and I cannot find out why they became dear then to the British.

Samuel, The non western world view thread was to discuss this very question. For some reason there is not much interest in seeking the answer on this forum. Then there are the macaulayites/Jholawalas who will derail any attempt to seek out the truth.

Please read about the Ottoman monetory support for the protestants in the 16th century. It is possible that the protestant movement was a Trojan horse to tear Christendom apart.

[Sanku]

The surfaced again in 1906 and I cannot find out why they became dear then to the British.

Samuel, The non western world view thread was to discuss this very question. For some reason there is not much interest in seeking the answer on this forum..

I am interested, we can continue here, probably the title of the thread will allow for greater tolerance.

[svinayak]

While at it read Wilfrid Scawen Blunt's book "Future of Islam" written in late 1880s that lays out a blueprint for British takeover of Islam's political center from the sublime Port (aka Ottomon Turkey). Its on the net.

Clearly the British preferred to do a lot of thinking before their actions, what?

Usually British study and discuss any country for atleast 50 years before they make the move.

Then plan on war or regional situation.

They have been studying India for now 50 years.

[samuel]

There are, as many probably see, a few missing links, and as some probably know, sources to find them.

Something went on between 1857 and 1906{9}. I am reading up the references that Ramana/Brihaspati provided. We were going to bracket partition in may be 5 year chunks and start at 1850, though some thought earlier, but this is very tedious work pulling out news articles for each and every day (made easy by google but not all is online)! But after a while you start to see a pattern and realize that the guy who is giving the news is himself part of the story!!

-- the muslim elite started rising. Of them there were the "liberal" kind like Jinnah.
-- there was the "backend" people like Liaqat Ali and others who were connected to the ummah more.
-- Behind these guys were the mullahs licking their wounds after the loss of all that patronage.
-- Behind them was the goonda and the politician.
-- Then the common muslim connected to the land.

So
Aspect A) This entire "chain" went "stiff" except for the lowest rung and probably one above, which showed signs of "mati ka puttr." But it wasn't Jinnah stiffening it. Jinnah was just the front guy.
Aspect b) If nobody gave ghaas to the Muslims who were totaled by 1857, then why were they being given ghas in 1906. Who initiated it. Note, around that time, we just came out of a whole bunch of famines and the so-called "babus" were ticked off, and there was a swadeshi movement starting. Japan punched Russia and people were thrilled about that, that gora log can get a whack too. SN Banerjee was on a roll and Lala Lajpat Rai was starting to talk. So there were rumblings.
Aspect c) Was there a reckoning about the growth of islam world wide and the need for them as strategic allies and that Turkey was NOT the center but was more in Saud and why, there were these very fine Indian Mullahs to trojan into that world?

Ok so any way, this happens between 57 and 06 and that's it. They mullah and elite got a foot in the door through separate representation. Because of the prevailing lack of nationalism by them, nobody made a big deal of it. But this set precedent and was the one thing they hung on to and cultivated.

Aspect d) Then, the question is what exactly was the propagation model. I mean the Barelvis are pretty sufi sant kind, though the deobandis are not. But it was really a lot of Barelvi in Punjab but there were a few deobandi catalysts or were there? This is even evident today.

Aspect e) The only way the INC type of leadership would not be clued into all this dynamic is if they were aloof of muslims in India, like most people even today are. If that were true, then this was a long time coming and they got no one else to blame.

---
S

[ramana]

There was British guy called W.W. Hunter who wrote book "The Indian Mussalmans" around 1860s that removed the blame for the 1857 uprising from the Muslims. Prior to that the Brits were thinking that they were the big cause and had been tough on the Mughal family massacring them to prevent any comeback.

[surinder]

Usually British study and discuss any country for atleast 50 years before they make the move.

Then plan on war or regional situation.

They have been studying India for now 50 years.

Spot on. They seem to study the region, population, religion, sociology, history & psychology of the people thoroughly before they attempt to subdue them. Most of the time the Brutish themselves do the research; sometimes they outsource it to Europeans or locals, if they don't have full expertise or need additional viewpoints. (E.g. They got hold of the German Max Muller for the Veda translation project). Sometimes it is a regular university of scholar, sometimes that person is a soldier or an adventurer.

Once a thorough understanding of the enemy is reached, they made their moves given the probablity of success is high. And yes, a figure of 50 years seems about right in India's case.

This modus operndi reminds me of how CIA & State Dept utilizes "top-notch" researchers. Within the CIA & SD, the polemelical debates fine tune the conclusions. These result of this research carves US foreign policy (or at the very least is the biggest impetus behind it).

Moreover, what is unique & different is how the information & research generated is digested & internalized & utilized by the all levels of Brutish establishment. (E.g. Alexander Burnes, one the first Brutish adventurer to go into Bukhara & A'stan was received by the King/Queen for debriefing, who asked a lot of questions about the place etc.)

Samuel, this aspect a practival utility for your approach: You can simply track what research the Brutish were undertaking at what time. Just cataloging the volume of research, the effort put into it, its direction, the conclusions from it can give a load of insight into their thinking. (It might be relatively less difficult to do.) The amount of research can be indicative of the level of interest & the direction of their thinking. The conclusions from the research is a clue to their actions (E.g. I have been able to correlate the Brutish action with Sikhs to the research they had undertaken on Sikh psyche decades earlier.)

[svinayak]

There was British guy called W.W. Hunter who wrote book "The Indian Mussalmans" around 1860s that removed the blame for the 1857 uprising from the Muslims. Prior to that the Brits were thinking that they were the big cause and had been tough on the Mughal family massacring them to prevent any comeback.

Hunter observed in 1880s that Punjabi Musalman is the richest musalman and he is a significant homogenous population and is a good cause for creating a political block. They did not see any other muslim group in the arabian peninsula or even Turkey to take up the next mantle.

[svinayak]

I have been able to correlate the Brutish action with Sikhs to the research they had undertaken on Sikh psyche decades earlier.)

Can you create a summary and some notes

[svenkat]

Even taking into account the instinctive need for protection and preservation,the ravages faced by Punjab over the centuries,the TFTAs seem to a unique low life species.

Some in nukkad expressed admiration for Wasim Akhram etc.If you look at Pakistani openers,they have a certain dash and flair(Saeed Anwar) and they have always produced very good fast bowlers.

Conversion to Islam was the psychogical protection against invading hordes.It gave them support to continue their lives.But they had no larger vision.They could not understand the immense possibilities that Sikh faith had for the people of Punjab.

In a way,the Pakjabis are like many,if not most Hindu castes who do not look beyond their nose.The British gave them a mirage,like the game of cricket,a game of elaborate rules,where indviduals can shine with pretense of fair play etc.

JLN and MKG who were 'trying' to 'uplift' the masses were absolutely naive.Yet only this naivete,innocence,idealism,conceit could have worked to 'unite' India.

If one looks at the writings of reformers in West Bengal,they wanted to learn from the organised West.They bemoaned the social evils,the sterile philosophies.Swami Vivekananda wanted ORGANISATION.SVP,JLN and MKG came from landswhich had been enslaved for a long time.The militancy in Bengal took its time in coming.

The Marathas were long past their best.Sir JN Sarkar says Jijabai taught Shivaji to follow the Bhagavatha Dharma-respect for the cow and the Brahmana.The British played by a different set of rules.
In the case of Sikhs,their energies had been misspent and misdirected.

In such a situation,JLN and MKG decided to strengthen Hindu society by removing the most iniquitous disaabilities suffered by the lowest.One can accuse them of cowardice of the mediocre.But at the same time,they could be praised for building capabilities for the future.

It would be too much to expect them to understand the maneouvaring of the British or to understand the most irrational behaviour of the Pakjabi.

[Prem]

Krsihnapremi,
JN said he is Hindu by chance and MG was always worried about his Non Indic Children. He was willing to share all with them but no contribution from them. Its no secret that majority of freedom fighters were Indics but Mahatama used the tactic of "khann peen nu bandri ( clever jinnites etc) te dande khaan nu rissh(indics). Indics beared the punishment while Islamist got to share of prize wacthing, sitting at home.
Starting from Education system ,JN would not have unleashed PS forces on Indians if he wanted to impart strength to the indic core.

[Pranav]

Clearly the British preferred to do a lot of thinking before their actions, what?

Usually British study and discuss any country for atleast 50 years before they make the move.

Then plan on war or regional situation.

They have been studying India for now 50 years.

One possibility to consider is that the take over of India is already complete - via EVM fraud. Don't want to open a discussion on that here but those who are interested should see relevant thread on Technology & Economic Forum.

[Sanku]

Guys, how to download and save Google books to read offline later?

[Abhi_G]

There was British guy called W.W. Hunter who wrote book "The Indian Mussalmans" around 1860s that removed the blame for the 1857 uprising from the Muslims. Prior to that the Brits were thinking that they were the big cause and had been tough on the Mughal family massacring them to prevent any comeback.

Ramana, it seems that Syed Ahmed Khan (founder of Aligarh Muslim Univ) had also been instrumental in this change of perception according to wiki, even though there is no citation in the article w.r.t this issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syed_Ahmed_Khan

One of the most influential Muslim politicians of his time, Sir Syed was suspicious of the Indian independence movement and called upon Muslims to loyally serve the British Raj. He denounced nationalist organisations such as the Indian National Congress, instead forming organisations to promote Muslim unity and pro-British attitudes and activities. Sir Syed promoted the adoption of Urdu as the lingua franca of all Indian Muslims, and mentored a rising generation of Muslim politicians and intellectuals. Although hailed as a great Muslim leader and social reformer, Sir Syed remains the subject of controversy for his views on Hindu-Muslim issues.

In 1858, he was appointed to a high-ranking post at the court in Muradabad, where he began working on his most famous literary work. Publishing the booklet Asbab-e-Bhaghawath-e-Hind in 1859, Sir Syed studied the causes of the revolt[citation needed]. In this, his most famous work, he rejected the common notion that the conspiracy was planned by Muslim élites, who were insecure at the diminishing influence of Muslim monarchs.[citation needed] Sir Syed blamed the British East India Company for its aggressive expansion as well as the ignorance of British politicians regarding Indian culture. However, he gained respect for British power, which he felt would dominate India for a long period of time. Seeking to rehabilitate Muslim political influence, Sir Syed advised the British to appoint Muslims to assist in administration.

See the differences in attitude to the brits and attitude towards fellow Indians. It goes without saying that the attitude of Mughals and their assorted elite were of "rulers" from "outside" who had the sole "proprietorship" of lording over the Hindus. No two doubts about it and nothing new. I think SSridhar has already posted the following already.

However, Sir Syed's political views were shaped by a strong aversion to the emerging nationalist movement, which was composed largely of Hindus. Sir Syed opposed the Indian National Congress (created in 1885) on the grounds that it was a Hindu-majority organisation, calling on Muslims to stay away from it.[17] While fearful of the loss of Muslim political power owing to the community's backwardness, Sir Syed was also averse to the prospect of democratic self-government, which would give control of government to the Hindu-majority population:[18][19]

"At this time our nation is in a bad state in regards education and wealth, but God has given us the light of religion and the Koran is present for our guidance, which has ordained them and us to be friends. Now God has made them rulers over us. Therefore we should cultivate friendship with them, and should adopt that method by which their rule may remain permanent and firm in India, and may not pass into the hands of the Bengalis… If we join the political movement of the Bengalis our nation will reap a loss, for we do not want to become subjects of the Hindus instead of the subjects of the "people of the Book…"[19]

[RayC]

Excerpts from JS' book:

How did Islam with ease first become Indian, then struggled to become a geographical supernumerary to it, to this great spread of what was their own ‘home’. From being the faith of kings, emperors and rulers of India, for a period of time, it them became the faith of the ‘separator’, of those that divided the land, expelling itself (notionally) from India and moving voluntarily to the eastern and western peripheries of it; relegating such of the faith that remained within India to a perpetual self-questioning and doubt about their true identity…….

The League had claimed that it was the true upholdee of Islam's ideological authenticity; also of representing a substantive Muslim consensus, therefore it demanded, rather presupposed, just a single Muslim medium - and asserting its identity as a different conceptual 'nation', claimed a separate land for itself which is why this agonising question continues to grate against our sensibilities: "Separate" from what? And what of those who do not separate 'geographically'? How do you divide a geographic (also geopolitical) unity? Simply by drawing lines on the map?

[RayC]

JS also has some interesting comments on Jinnah and Nehru. He writes

It is ironical that amongst the great constitutionalists of those times, and there were several, Jinnah and Nehru became the principal promoters of 'special status for Muslims'; Jinnah directly, Nehru indirectly.......

Jinnah by directly demanding a 'special' status for Muslim and Nehru through contesting Jinnah's right as their 'sole spokesman', became advocates of establishing different categories amongst Indian citizens.

[ramana]

Were both of them sub-consciously trying to implement the Ottomon Turkey formula of "millat"? Only in a reverse way?

[svenkat]

JLN was widely popular in non-hindi speaking states like TN,Karnataka,Kerala,Orissa and Assam .He was seen as cosmpolitan and non-parochial.Intellectuals and masses alike in AP and Maharahtra liked him.He was seen as liberal,fair and progressive.He had a substantial following in the Gangetic plains as well.

Martial castes like Sikhs,Rajputs and Marathas might have mixed feelings.But soldiers too come from civil society.There were substantial and progressive elements in each of these communities who liked JLN.A lot of inputs for India's progress came from him.Many saw him as one sensitive to both India's past and also her future .

[svinayak]

JLN was widely popular in non-hindi speaking states like TN,Karnataka,Kerala,Orissa and Assam .He was seen as cosmpolitan and non-parochial.Intellectuals and masses alike in AP and Maharahtra liked him.He was seen as liberal,fair and progressive.He had a substantial following in the Gangetic plains as well.

Not really. In Karnataka he was popular in some parts but was unpopular in other areas. JLN passed the land reform act which forced landowners farmers to lose land and income. Some were small farmers and they did not vote for JLN but voted for other parties.

[brihaspati]

Before Indpendence, are you sure about the entire Gangetic Plain? Definitely not "widely" in south Bihar and Bengal. I would also not be very sure about TN - given substantial popularity of Periyar and his self-respect movement?

[svenkat]

I was answering prem's question about JLN.It is difficult to deny that between 1947-1964 he was the tallest leader by some margin.All I am trying is to say that there were well meaning people throughout India for whom he was the preferred choice.For the reasons I have cited.Nothing more.Nothing less.

[Abhi_G]

^^^^
Basically through propaganda, the Nehru clan has lived until today. To be fair to the sentiments of all the people who considered Nehru to be the tallest leader, it is not fault of these people to be victim of propaganda...maybe they were really ignorant, maybe they chose to be ignorant or maybe they looked the other way. But at least now? Those who know about the debacles after debacles regarding India's national security and territorial integrity, well, a lakshman rekha has to be drawn, isn't it? Or we just stay cool and say "goodbye Assam" cause it is far far away?

[Prem]

AbhiG,
Agree. The many short sighted or deliberate decision by Nehru are still costing India a lot and slowly eating the Indic core like maggots. Nehru might be the popular politician but as a leader he failed . Now we find out he even lied to Gandhi and kept him in dark about Freedom Deal . Lady Mounting became more important than informing Gandhi or preventing bloodhsed. Nehru failed not only in National Security and Territorial integrity but also in laying down the foundation for National cohesivenss buy sowing the seeds of PSism.

[surinder]

Lady Mounting became more important than ...

This is too funny!!! This is a riot!!!

[ShauryaT]

[*] The Muslim elite knew their goose was cooked after 1857. The surfaced again in 1906 and I cannot find out why they became dear then to the British.

I have name for you to pursue, which may help explain it. Syed Ahmed Khan.

[Abhi_G]

^^^
We need to look at everyone of them. These were the top leaders.
1. Syed Ahmed Khan {circa 1857-late 1800s}
2. Aga Khan {co-founder ML}
3. Nawab of Dhaka {co-founder ML}
4. Liaquat Ali
5. Chaudhry Rahmat Ali
6. Muhammad Iqbal
7. Suhrawardy
8. Nawab of Bhopal

[svinayak]

AbhiG, Now we find out he even lied to Gandhi and kept him in dark about Freedom Deal . Lady Mounting became more important than informing Gandhi or preventing bloodhsed.

Now this episode should be seen this way.
The deadline given by British to complete the transfer of power was set and they were urging the completion of the agreement. This decision by JLN was with the advice of Mountbatton to speed the process by keeping Gandhi in dark will be questioned for long. The British by creating a situation of less time for transfer of power forced the issue and created cleavage. The earlier date for the transfer was in Aug 1948. Hindsite that was a diversion and they were looking for events which would help then move out and also achaive their geo-strategic goals.

The Truman Act in 1947 March was the first pointer which I posted earlier. The rapid Soviet expansion after the war in 1946 was putting pressure on British forces and they appealed to American President to help them. The congress passed budget to support US policy to contain USSR by supporting regimes which can contain USSR and communism. We see that the campaign by ML increased after Mar 1947 resulting in the new state in Aug 1947. Jinnah in his interview clearly says in 1948 that US needs Pakistan to contain USSR and will support Pakistan. This was what they were counting on in 1947.

[svenkat]

Dear friends,

Cannot deny there is considerable truth in what you say.But he was a romantic idealist.More romance than idealism.Little reality too perhaps.But reality can be harsh.Perhaps that is why he appealed to dreamers and also to conmen.
OT.May be in some other thread.Some other time.But I am still interested in knowing who could have taken his place in the indian polity or how the polity would have evolved.

[Abhi_G]

Lady Mounting became more important than ...

[/quote]

Prem-ji
You are an equal to John Snow guru.

[shaardula]

krishnapremi thanks for those posts.

we have an overestimation problem. people dont realize diabetes can set in.

sam noted your points.

[Prem]

Acharya Sir
Chacha ji was supposed to be Indian leader taking care of Indian interests just like Mount Batton was British. Jinnah died within few months and delaying tactics by Gandhi could have not only bought time for Kaffirs stuck in Islamist majority regions of Pre 47 India but also could have resulted in different outcome for Baki Bowl movement by Islamists of that time. As Surinder guessed, Baki Boundaries could have been shrunked considerably if H and S were organised like ML with full knowledge of pending partition.