Bharat Rakshak

EXAMPLE<P><BR>TO:<P>The Hon. Tony Blair<BR>Prime Minister of The UK<BR>C/o AskBlair@yahoogroups.com<P>Honorable Prime Minister:<P>Greetings.<P>This is in response to your position on Kashmir. When Pakistan was created <BR>by His Majesty's Government in 1947, his government was wise in letting the <BR>princely states decide for themselves as to which country each sovereign <BR>would choose to merge with. It will be helpful for your understanding to <BR>know that each one of the 500 and odd princely states of the undivided India <BR>was a sovereign government. Most of the princely states opted for India; a <BR>few in the Sind region did opt for Pakistan.<P>The former Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir (J & K) was not one of the <BR>princely states that opted for Pakistan. It opted for India. Under the terms <BR>of the partition of India signed by all parties to the partition that was a <BR>legitimate and legal acceding. His Majesty's government was a party to that <BR>agreement.<P>His Majesty's government never stops to preach and take pride in the force <BR>and power of the law. The democratic values fostered by successive <BR>governments of the United Kingdom have earned it the reputation of being the <BR>Mother of Parliaments. Abiding by the law has become a cherished dictum for <BR>people all over the world. Abiding by the law has become the Emperor's Magic <BR>Wand, so to speak. It is in this light that I request you to see and <BR>interpret your position on J & K.<P>The acceding by the Princely State of J & K to India was within the <BR>framework of His Majesty's Government. Why would you now as prime minister <BR>of Her Majesty's government want to preside over the liquidation of the <BR>Emperor's Wand? If that happens, it will be a sad day in the history of the <BR>UK. And the ignobleness shall fall upon you.<P>When the newly independent Pakistan army marched into a part of J& K, India <BR>did not retaliate immediately. The then Prime Minister Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru <BR>again let himself be influenced by His Majesty's envoy --- the last Viceroy <BR>of undivided India, and the first Governor General of the new divided India <BR>--- Lord Mountbatten, Earl of Wellington. Before Lord Mountbatten himself <BR>had time to advise Nehru to react quickly to a dramatically changig <BR>situation, the Pakistan army had marched across J & K. When India belatedly <BR>took action, approximately one-third of J & K had been occupied by the <BR>Pakistan army. This is the so-called Azad Kashmir, which has been in the <BR>hands of the Pakistani government since that fateful day, when Nehru towed <BR>the line of Lord Mountbatten. When the Indian army succeeded in stopping the <BR>advancing Pakistani army, it could have easily pushed back the Pakistani <BR>army. But again on the advice of Lord Mounbatten, Nehru unilaterally <BR>declared a truce and took the matter to the Law. India took the matter to <BR>the United Nations on the advice of the Governor general of India, Lord <BR>Moutbatten. Nehru was an avid admirer of Your Majesty's Wand.<P>Should I remind you that the Emperor's Wand is in favor of India. The <BR>appropriate U.N. resolution declares Pakistan as an aggressor. So why should <BR>you want to deprive your Emperor's Magic Wand of its charm?<P>Perhaps you would understand the situation better, if I present you with a <BR>recent example, where your country went to war and won, thanks to the <BR>powerful support of the United States. While the war of the Malvinas --- <BR>Falkland Island --- is not entirely similar to that of J &K, there are <BR>comparable elements. You may recall that the Island of Malivinas was under <BR>British suzerainty, when the then military government of Argentina took over <BR>the island, which lies off the coast of Argentina. Argentina has been <BR>claiming this territory for over a hundred years, when it took it over in <BR>1981. Your Majesty's government did not abide by its own advice, and did not <BR>take the matter to be addressed within the legal purview of the United <BR>Nations. Instead, it waged a full scale war with the United States as its <BR>major ally. Thanks to the US, your Majesty's Government won and retains the <BR>Island of Falkland.<P>The war situation in J & K was similar. India, unfortunately, was more <BR>faithful to the Emperor's Wand than the Emperor himself. Nehru was caught up <BR>between his own vision of the historical evolution of India and Lord <BR>Mountbatten's influence upon that vision on the one hand and India's <BR>interests on the other. In retrospect, it is easy to see how the Emperor's <BR>Wand had proved more magical to him than to those who advocate its mythical <BR>power.<P>Your Majesty's government had a wonderful and powerful ally in Mahatma <BR>Gandhi until 1918, the year before the Massacre of Jalian Wallabagh. Until <BR>the year 1919, Gandhi like Lord Moutbatten genuinely believed that the <BR>British Empire was a glorious one, beneficial to humanity. He was himself an <BR>advocate of law and believed in challenging it legally, when the law seemed <BR>unjust. He was prepared for the legal consequences of challenging a law. His <BR>SatyaGraha was a legal weapon always implemented with sufficient notice in <BR>the tradition of Anglo-Saxon law. He gave the Emperor time to prepare his <BR>defense. With the 1919 massacre of Jalian Walabagh, Britain lost a powerful <BR>ally and a noble well-wisher. Had the British government had a historic <BR>vision, Britain would have been still a global leader on its own, much to <BR>the envy of the world. That did not happen, and events subsequent to 1919 <BR>show that Britain was foolish. All it does now is to envy the United States, <BR>while at the same time trying to be its ally.<P>It is a different world now from the world of 1919. But the United States <BR>has still a chance to be a genuine leader of the world. The world needs such <BR>a leader, as it is becoming bankrupt fast. If Britain does not play the same <BR>"legally illegal" game it did through 1919 and later, America has a chance <BR>to succeed. In this endeavor, it needs India and the Soviet Union as much as <BR>it does Britain. Peacemaking is not a role of which Britain has a track <BR>record. If Britain keeps out of India-Pakistan affairs, and does not keep <BR>waving its magic wand, the world will be obliged for this remarkable sense <BR>of self-control and love for a truly global government.<P>I request you to give thoughts to these matters.<P>Yours sincerely,<P>T.M. V

How lies led to Pro-Pak bias<BR> <A HREF="http://www.indian-express.com/ie20020107/top1.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.indian-express.com/ie20020107/top1.html</A><P>Excerpt:<P>In 1947, when Pakistani tribesmen invaded Kashmir, Britain decided to adopt a pro-Pakistan tilt — not because of any merit in the case but strictly in pursuit of British global interests in the belief that this was essential for her Middle Eastern policy. Unfortunately for India, the British minister in charge of executing this policy, Philip J Noel Baker, had few scruples in exceeding his instructions.

The Partition debate <P><BR>Sir, - I am amazed that Mushirul Hasan should be surprised (The Partition debate, Jan. 2- 3) that Partition led to widespread violence. The Indian state was a living reality and an organic unit in 1947. That its cutting up should lead to much bleeding was as natural and inevitable as would the cutting off of a person's two arms. The learned author holds the Congress and the RSS responsible for the violence. But he has no word of condemnation for the Muslim League which staged the `great Calcutta killing' in August 1946 and the `rape of Rawalpindi' in March 1947 to force Partition. <P>The RSS was born in 1925. But until 1940 - when the Muslim League passed its Partition resolution - who had heard of it? The RSS was the anti-body produced by Hindu society to counter the virus of the Muslim League. Action and reaction are equal and opposite. <P>It is amazing that Mr. Hasan does not see any British role in the titanic tragedy of Partition. Apart from the game of separate electorates, reservations and weightages, the British advanced the date of their exit from June 1948 to August 1947. They did this because they knew that Jinnah was dying and they knew also that if he died before Independence, there would be no Partition. <P>Partition was the result of Muslim naivete and British knavery. The two sides of the Indian political triangle proved greater than the third Congress/Hindu side. <P>K.R. Malkani, <P>New Delhi

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by kgoan:
Is there a reason to avoid looking at the context in which such decisions are made?<p>People seem to have a fascination to play "what if" games, devoid of any connection to reality. Adopting the economists famous, "..all other things being equal..." viewpoint, we then proceed to show how idiotic, foolish, stupid etc. our past leaders were, and by implication, to show how brilliant, clever, educated etc. we are!<p>It rarely seems to cross the mind of our 20-20 hindsight geniuses that perhaps the social, political and military context in which our past leaders operated may not exactly have been the cakewalk that our geniuses think. <p>We certainly need to understand our past, but when people purport to write "history", with their oh-so-clever method of focusing solely on single issues, thus ripping them out of context and allowing all sorts of "20-20 hindsight" contextual ideas to be superimposed on them, then what we end up with is nothing more than the usual standard whine fest. <p>Why bother?<hr></blockquote>
A rather belated response. kgoan, you are extremely right about the 20-20 hindsight and ripping things out of context and how difficult things were then. But isn't that why the job of a leader so difficult ? Foresight, cunning, ruthlesness and the ability to size up people and situations are some of the hallmarks of great leaders. Excuses that the situation then was too murky or difficult only serves to prove that Nehru was not up to the occassion. He was pretty much the monarch of India with no worry about votebanks, elections that bedevil a present day politician (this statement in no way discounts the enormous problems caused by Mountbatten and the British C-in-C's tilt). Whether it was absolutely out of his power to redeem Kashmir or wasn't, will probably never be known. But, IMHO, his performance will always be judged as pedestrian, simply because he did not rise to the occassion. Had he secured a victory somehow, he would have been the tallest of heros, had he failed, accursed. But who said it is easy being a leader.

Partition <p>Sir, — Apropos the article `The man who divided India upsets Pakistan' (Dec. 7). Mohammad Ali Jinnah has been excessively blamed for what turned out to be the catastrophe of Partition. The fact was that the division was half-baked and incomplete. For Jinnah and a number of Muslim leaders such as the Nawab of Mamdot, Pir Ilahi Bux and Feroze Khan Noon, a transfer of population was an integral part of Partition. It was not wishful thinking on their part but based on a study of the European experience in the post-World War I period. <p>The Turko-Bulgarian Convention of 1913 resulted in a complete shift of all Bulgarians from Turkey and of all Turks from Bulgaria. Similarly, the Treaty of Laussane of 1923 insisted that the Turks living in Greece go back to Turkey and the Greek residents in Turkey return to their motherland. A total of some 20 million people thus changed homes. <p>According to the Pakistan daily, Dawn, at a press conference on November 25, 1946 at Karachi, Jinnah appealed to the Central as well as the provincial governments to take up the question of population exchange (quoted from Stern Reckoning by Justice Khosla in 1948). Earlier that year, Sir Feroze Khan Noon, while addressing the Muslim League legislators, had gone to the extent of threatening the re-enactment of the murderous orgies of Chenghiz Khan and Halaku Khan if the non-Muslims did not agree to the proposal for population transfer. <p>Incidentally, the expression ethnic cleansing was legitimate as enshrined in the Treaty of Laussane. As it happened, most Hindus were chased out of West Pakistan and many had to leave the eastern wing. By comparison, fewer Muslims changed their country. <p>Partition therefore was not merely incomplete but also turned out to be lopsided. Why, therefore, condemn Jinnah now? If anything, it was the Congress leadership of the time which should accept the blame. <p>Prafull Goradia,

As far as I remember, Nehru-Liaqat Pact had provisions for exchange of population. Later Nehru backtracked on the ground that India being a secular republic cannot agree to population transfer.<p>However, exchange of population was almost complete in Punjab. Bengal and Assam suffered most due to Pakistan disregarding the pact and Nehru's indifference.

up