Discussion on Jaswant Singh's book on Jinnah

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
svenkat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4725
Joined: 19 May 2009 17:23

Re: Discussion on Jaswant Singh's book on Jinnah

Postby svenkat » 03 Sep 2009 22:21

surinder wrote:Guys, what kind of a story is this: A decision of such magnitude as Partition and Gandhi is not informed? He is sitting in a meeting and asking JLN, why was I not informed? What kind of leadership is this? Is the implication that Gandhi is getting an alibi or a fait acompli? What about the possibility that Gandhi is lying, and JLN is part of that lie. It is either dishonest, or it is incompetence of the highest order.


Very disturbing.

Surinderji,
I can understand why Sikhs sneer at MKG and JLN.Here were a people who had broken the back of Mughals,thrown out Muslim rule after 700 years and had developed a robust communal existence.I think it is some sort of miracle that you are not abusing MKG.I am anguished when I read Gandhijis theatrics on partition.
Last edited by svenkat on 03 Sep 2009 22:28, edited 1 time in total.

Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4787
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

Re: Discussion on Jaswant Singh's book on Jinnah

Postby Yayavar » 03 Sep 2009 22:23

ramana wrote:
surinder wrote:Guys, what kind of a story is this: A decision of such magnitude as Partition and Gandhi is not informed? He is sitting in a meeting and asking JLN, why was I not informed? What kind of leadership is this? Is the implication that Gandhi is getting an alibi or a fait acompli? What about the possibility that Gandhi is lying, and JLN is part of that lie. It is either dishonest, or it is incompetence of the highest order.


Maulana Abul Kalam Azad in his biography "India wins Freedom" corroborates this. Gandhiji and he were not informed. The book was banned for quite few years.

I think they wanted to short circuit both these leaders in their anxiety ot transfer power ASAP. May be Lady Mount bat ten might have revealed more about British plans.


He himself with-held 30 pages or so from being published. ...those were published in 80's I beleive. I've the updated book.....he certainly feels Nehru's unthoughtful remarks were instrumental but does not blame Nehru (if i remember correctly) for any deliberate wrong-doing.

Abhi_G
BRFite
Posts: 688
Joined: 13 Aug 2008 21:42

Re: Discussion on Jaswant Singh's book on Jinnah

Postby Abhi_G » 03 Sep 2009 22:31

viv wrote:He himself with-held 30 pages or so from being published. ...those were published in 80's I beleive. I've the updated book.....he certainly feels Nehru's unthoughtful remarks were instrumental but does not blame Nehru (if i remember correctly) for any deliberate wrong-doing.


What were Nehru's "unthoughtful" remarks? Could you please elaborate?

Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4787
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

Re: Discussion on Jaswant Singh's book on Jinnah

Postby Yayavar » 03 Sep 2009 22:43

krishnapremi wrote:
surinder wrote:Guys, what kind of a story is this: A decision of such magnitude as Partition and Gandhi is not informed? He is sitting in a meeting and asking JLN, why was I not informed? What kind of leadership is this? Is the implication that Gandhi is getting an alibi or a fait acompli? What about the possibility that Gandhi is lying, and JLN is part of that lie. It is either dishonest, or it is incompetence of the highest order.


Very disturbing.

Surinderji,
I can understand why Sikhs sneer at MKG and JLN.Here were a people who had broken the back of Mughals,thrown out Muslim rule after 700 years and had developed a robust communal existence.I think it is some sort of miracle that you are not abusing MKG.I am anguished when I read Gandhijis theatrics on partition.


Krishnapremi, when I look at your comments - I see Sikhs do this, jats do that, Brahamanas could not do this or that, Banias something else. Is that all that India is? I almost feel like giving exact counter examples from various sub-groups but that would perpetuate the fixation on sub-groups. I do not agree with what Surinder has said above but, assuming it is true, why would only Sikhs sneer? Would other Indians not feel wronged?

Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4787
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

Re: Discussion on Jaswant Singh's book on Jinnah

Postby Yayavar » 03 Sep 2009 22:44

Abhi_G wrote:
viv wrote:He himself with-held 30 pages or so from being published. ...those were published in 80's I beleive. I've the updated book.....he certainly feels Nehru's unthoughtful remarks were instrumental but does not blame Nehru (if i remember correctly) for any deliberate wrong-doing.


What were Nehru's "unthoughtful" remarks? Could you please elaborate?


It has been a while...I'll relook and post.

Rahul Mehta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2577
Joined: 22 Nov 2001 12:31
Location: Ahmedabad, India --- Bring JurySys in India
Contact:

Re: Discussion on Jaswant Singh's book on Jinnah

Postby Rahul Mehta » 03 Sep 2009 23:08

Lets compare strengths of Mountbatten, Mohanbhai, Jawahar, Vallabhbhai, and Jinha.

If Lord Mountbatten is taken as Police Commissioner, then these 4 were some Constables, no more.

Mountbatten had soldiers under him, which made him in-charge of 90% of the guns in India (spare rag tag armies of good for nothing kings). What did these 4 weaklings had? Truth, Ahminsa and charkha? And may be Jinha had some goons with him. No match against soldiers.

Mountbatten can threaten these 4 leaders in many ways. eg Mountbatten can say "obey me, or else we British will hand over whole India to Indian Military and walk away". May be empty threat, but what effect would such threat have on these Mohanbhai, Jawahar, Vallabhbhai, and Jinha? If Indian Military comes into power, many freedom fighters would stop their agitation, as their enemies were British. Any Indian ruler is good for them, be Congress or Military. Then what powers will Jawahar etc have if Military was given the charge? They would lose all the focus for years to come.

Also, Mountbatten could have said "Subhashjee is alive, and obey me, or we will bring Subhashjee back in India". Now may be Subhashji was dead or may be he was alive. But very threat of Subhashjee coming to India would make Mohan, Jawahar, Vallabh and Jinha squeal. If Subhashji were to come back to India, he would have become The Leader of India and people would have pushed aside Mohan, Jawahar, Vallabh and Jinha.

Mountbatten can also threaten "we will recognize each Kingdom as a state and disband Indian Military". Now without Indian Military, there was no way to bring kingdoms under one rule. And Mohanbhai, Jawahar, Vallabhbhai, and Jinha did not have capacity to create such Military. Vallabh was smart and rutrhless enough to use Military, I dont think he had talent to create a Military from scratch. And if each Kingdom becomes a state and gets recognition as state from UK, US and UN then Jawahar and Vallabh, did not have courage to attack them.

Pls note that our 4 "heroes" of independence -- Mohanbhai, Jawahar, Vallabhbhai, and Jinha -- were mere paper tigers and nothing more. They werent Chairman Mao with 10 lakh soldiers. They were not even like Subhashjee who had at least 10k soldiers under him. They were not even Bhagat Singh, who had just 10 soldiers but had a will to die which makes him as potent as 1000 soldiers. These 4 were easy going guys, who did not want to risk their life or limb. Forgive my crude remark, but "Mohanbhai, Jawahar, Vallabhbhai, and Jinha were not Rajputs or Sikhs, they were some Bania". And so they obeyed whatever goon with gun (Mountbatten) said.

All in all, Mountbatten was as strong as huge cat and rest 4 were as weak as baby mice. So they obeyed what Mountbatten said. QED.

Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4787
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

Re: Discussion on Jaswant Singh's book on Jinnah

Postby Yayavar » 03 Sep 2009 23:24

Rahul Mehta wrote:These 4 were easy going guys, who did not want to risk their life or limb. Forgive my crude remark, but "Mohanbhai, Jawahar, Vallabhbhai, and Jinha were not Rajputs or Sikhs, they were some Bania". And so they obeyed whatever goon with gun (Mountbatten) said.

.


Here comes another casteist. .....sigh!!

One Raj Malhotra earlier found Brahmins to not have gumption (good thing Kargil hero Manoj Pandey didnt know about it, or Azad) , Brihaspati terms commoditization as Baniafication (Lala Lajpat rai escaped..for he was in early 20th centrury I suppose) , Sikhs are always brave so that is a small mercy, Jats too probably. Shudra too I guess -- have not seen anything bad written. Kayastha - nothing bad written so far -- but to ward it off - Lala Hardyal and Vivekananda would fall in that bracket.

Can we just have a set of indexed remarks created in a separate page. And then in normal discussion the casteists can just reference the indices for their comments. We can look up your put downs on the other page :).

surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1421
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Re: Discussion on Jaswant Singh's book on Jinnah

Postby surinder » 03 Sep 2009 23:42

Rahul Mehta,

Let me be honest, you have basically described the reality of the situation of relative power of these four men against the Brutish very well. Perhaps a little politically incorrectly, but accurate nevertheless.

Essentially, these men (and probably many more) chose a path. Early on they abjured all use of vioolence. They were basically without that many choices---choice-less. That was not merely true in 1947, but had been true pretty much all along. If they were standing alive in the room in Lutyen's Delhi with intact limbs, and had come in cars, were scheduled to go back in their cars to their modest rooms in palatial houses, that was all due to British benevolence. British had the power to put them in Kalapani for 10 years, or for that matter hang them, or arrang for a fanatic to kill them, or you know accident can happen, or some food poisoning can occur. If not to them, to their their family members ... some of them could go through some of the British tender loving care. After all, British have been hanging, shooting, kala-panying Indians for over a century now. These men, whether they admitted or not, knew it quite well too. In reality they did have some power---the power of public mobilizations. But that too had been accumulated because British benevolence had allowed them to live in one peice in the first place.

So what would these men do when British present a plan? They have to accept. There isn't much of a choice, if the push comes to shove. Some noises can be made, but what else can they do.

When you choose a path, you have to accept all that comes as a consequence. Bhagat Singh chose a path, he knew the Fansi was the obvious destination, which he happily accepted. Subhash C. Bose knew his path lead to a life of hardship & death, and accepted it gladly. All it basically boils down to is is that INC, MKG, JLN, SVP, Jinnah got exactly what they had bargained for all their life. Indians got what they bargained for by following these men.

surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1421
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Re: Discussion on Jaswant Singh's book on Jinnah

Postby surinder » 03 Sep 2009 23:44

viv wrote:I do not agree with what Surinder has said above but, assuming it is true, why would only Sikhs sneer? Would other Indians not feel wronged?


And Krishnapremi did not suggest that other Indians would not. Re-read how the post is worded.

svenkat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4725
Joined: 19 May 2009 17:23

Re: Discussion on Jaswant Singh's book on Jinnah

Postby svenkat » 03 Sep 2009 23:51

viv,
I am a small person talking big.I dont mind someone pointing that out.But then India too is made up of a lot of people-big people talking big,big persons who do not talk big,small persons talking big,small persons talking petty and others who have no time to talk.

It gives me no pleasure to talk these things.But do you mean to say that India is a nation like England.Even in US class interests matter.In India,the different people have had different histories.I am not an Anglo-Saxon historian of India,but is it not a fact that perceptions of past and future and group identities influence current politics in India.

I have not made any stereotypes.Can you point out any statement which is stereotyping someone,or offensive or is not relevant to the context.In India,indvidual perceptions are affected by group identity and have played an important role and continue to play an important role in politics.

The basic standards for the entire population has to rise.These means confronting the ghosts of the past.Which means iniquities have to be reduced without demonising anyone.

I believe this was the philosophy of the Congress.It is this I am defending.But as frail human beings,our self interests and group interests have taken precedence at times(or some time or most of the time,depending on your perception or group identity)

brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Discussion on Jaswant Singh's book on Jinnah

Postby brihaspati » 04 Sep 2009 00:03

Real casteism is about allocation by "birth". Lala Lajpat Rai, was born in a "Vaisya" family no doubt, but studied law, and led trade-union movements. Professionally he was behaving like "brahmin" and a "shudra". In my framework, he is showing multiple "varna" characteristics in the same person as and when required for the bigger benefit of society- a proper interpretation of the purusha shukta.

brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Discussion on Jaswant Singh's book on Jinnah

Postby brihaspati » 04 Sep 2009 00:19

krishnapremi wrote
These means confronting the ghosts of the past. Which means iniquities have to be reduced without demonising anyone.

Well if pointing out the horrors of the "caste system" (without analyzing sources properly and checking whether it was a colonial project) as in the articles of JLN was not demonizing the "Hindu" but facing up to facts, why the need to reconstruct the Arabic Islamic as a high sophisticated benevolent culture that could not fulfill its mission of upgrading the non-Islamic Indic because of the "barbarian central Asians"?

Those very "central Asians" who then do not become "demonized" despite being dubbed so, in spite of being accepted as the major Islamic "carriers" into India and therefore ancestors of the major portion of Indian Muslims!!

And all this done by specifically denying those selected passages from the colonial history project that shows the Islamic in "bad light"? But using other parts of the very same sources in "non-demonizing" the Hindu for its "casteist" or other "retrogressive" practises? Criteria for rejection of "barbarity" proof in one case, and accepting it for "another"? It simply does not exist in the most complete historical thesis of JLN - "Glimpses of Indian History".

svenkat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4725
Joined: 19 May 2009 17:23

Re: Discussion on Jaswant Singh's book on Jinnah

Postby svenkat » 04 Sep 2009 01:04

Bji,
I am not quite able to follow you.Whatever his faults,JLN did not demonise Hindus.The Dalits faced some severe disabilities everywhere in India.I am only talking about social disabilities.It was strongly felt that there should be improvement in their condition.This can come about only by general consensus.Not by personality cults.JLN claimed that India was moving in that direction.Whether he really achieved that is doubtful.But that was what his apologists claim as one of his virtues.

This is all I want to say,He prodded India in that direction.Whether that was the right approach or was it effective,I do not know.

If I came across as a christist or a marxist,blame it on the pompous Nehruvian legacy of sloganeering and my clumsy verbiage ,again a mark of Nehruvian 'ideology'.

brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Discussion on Jaswant Singh's book on Jinnah

Postby brihaspati » 04 Sep 2009 01:16

krishnapremiji
My problem with JLN's historical reconstructions is short and clear - if he was pursuing a non-demonizing agenda, to reduce social inequities, this is not apparent in his writings as an uniform policy extended to all "parties" involved in creating "inequities". He selectively constructs the "Islamic" as something which on the one hand denies Islamist's contribution towards the existing inequities, and provides/copies excuses for the Islamist to raise separatis claims of supriority. His ideological projections end up blaming the Bharatyia for all the "inequities", but not a single word of condemnation for the "Islamic".

He not only does this as a part of political skull-duggery, but apparently formulates his policies and his public pronouncements on his own constructed vision. Thus believing in his own false reconstructions he advises non-Muslims to stay back in areas where they are going to be chewed up. It is one thing to believe in one's own wishful thinking, but allowing that fantasy to take millions of lives, and still persist in that propaganda, is something very hard to understand.

I did not accuse you of being a Christist or a Marxist.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54781
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Discussion on Jaswant Singh's book on Jinnah

Postby ramana » 04 Sep 2009 01:29

Then Shyam Benegal comes and televises the book as "Bharat Ek Khoj" and numerous unpad viewers are scarred for ever. JLN's damage was to the reading public. Benegal took it all viewing public. And stingy NRI TV channels in US showed them to all subscribers and scarred young NRI children who cant differentiate the psy-ops. The worst episode was Allaudin Khilji's attack on Chittor.

sanjaychoudhry
BRFite
Posts: 756
Joined: 13 Jul 2007 00:39
Location: La La Land

Re: Discussion on Jaswant Singh's book on Jinnah

Postby sanjaychoudhry » 04 Sep 2009 02:47

Whatever his faults,JLN did not demonise Hindus.


He had nothing but contempt for Hinduism which he blamed for keeping India poor and backward. He wanted to get rid of it and create a new Renaissance Man. He walked out in the middle of a function organized by Rama Krishna Mission in Kolkatta, calling Hinduism as "false spirituality." He also slapped some Sadhus in public who had come to meet him. There are many such incidents. He was basically a communist.

Sometimes he boasted: "I am the last Englishman to rule India." At other times, he claimed "I came to India through the West." He was truly a unique case of what happens to a boy who used to cower before a domineering father and who was forced to live among aliens in a tender, impressionable age. Why Nehru became like this -- arrogant and boastful outwardly, but insecure and hollow inwardly -- and remained stunted intellectually, the answer lies in the first 15 years of his life. His over-ambitious, domineering father was the main culprit in screwing his personality.

The book "Genesis and Growth of Nehruism" is a brilliant introduction to Nehru's personality. Read it online:
www.voiceofdharma.com/books/gagon/
Last edited by sanjaychoudhry on 04 Sep 2009 03:02, edited 2 times in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54781
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Discussion on Jaswant Singh's book on Jinnah

Postby ramana » 04 Sep 2009 02:53

Some of us came up with how the encounter with the West has affected us.

Sanathan Dharma (SD): What existed in Bharat
I
I
V
Hindusim : What the West thought SD was in their own image.
I
I
V
Aryansim : What the West came up with to get rid of their Hebrew origins of Christianity
I
I
V
Nazism: A new religion for Europe that incorporates Aryanism
I
I
V
New Age Paganism without Idols: Retry the message to reinvent themselves

-Thanks to one who created this formulation.

Karna_A
BRFite
Posts: 432
Joined: 28 Dec 2008 03:35

Re: Discussion on Jaswant Singh's book on Jinnah

Postby Karna_A » 04 Sep 2009 03:31

sanjaychoudhry wrote:
Whatever his faults,JLN did not demonise Hindus.


He had nothing but contempt for Hinduism which he blamed for keeping India poor and backward.


Hinduism over the years has become like an Onion and the fault of Nehru type people is to forget the core and concentrate on the peels. It's only when you peel away all the so-called traditions that the core of Hinduism appears which is not far from Patanjali's Yog Sutras: Yama, Niyama, Asana, Pranayama, Pratyahara, Dharana, Dhyana and Samadhi.

To confuse Hindusim with Widow Burning, Casteism etc. is to lose real perspective just like Nehru mold people do who miss the peels for the core.

http://www.sacw.net/article819.html
Columnist A.G. Noorani last week quoted an encounter Nehru had in 1963 with young and senior foreign ministry officers. His foreign secretary Y.D. Gundevia reminded Nehru that the communists had won power in Kerala in 1957 and asked: ’But what happens to the services if the communists are elected to power, tomorrow, at the Centre, here in New Delhi?’

Gundevia records: ’He pondered over my long drawn out question and then said, looking across the room, ‘Communists, communists, communists, why are all of you so obsessed with communists and communism? What is it that communists can do that we cannot do and have not done for the country? Why do you imagine the communists will ever be voted into power at the Centre?’ There was a long pause after this and then he said, spelling it out slowly and very deliberately, ‘The danger to India, mark you, is not communism, it is Hindu right-wing communalism.’


ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54781
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Discussion on Jaswant Singh's book on Jinnah

Postby ramana » 04 Sep 2009 03:54

Jawad Naqwi is a Resident Indian Paki (RIP). He will quote anything to paint Hindus as extremely bad.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Discussion on Jaswant Singh's book on Jinnah

Postby RayC » 04 Sep 2009 11:38

AG Noorani is another RIP.

I sounded him off when he came as a guest speaker at the DSSC.

Quite an odd oaf.

Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5280
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: Discussion on Jaswant Singh's book on Jinnah

Postby Pranav » 04 Sep 2009 12:10

sanjaychoudhry wrote:
Whatever his faults,JLN did not demonise Hindus.


He had nothing but contempt for Hinduism which he blamed for keeping India poor and backward. He wanted to get rid of it and create a new Renaissance Man. He walked out in the middle of a function organized by Rama Krishna Mission in Kolkatta, calling Hinduism as "false spirituality." He also slapped some Sadhus in public who had come to meet him. There are many such incidents. He was basically a communist.

Sometimes he boasted: "I am the last Englishman to rule India." At other times, he claimed "I came to India through the West." He was truly a unique case of what happens to a boy who used to cower before a domineering father and who was forced to live among aliens in a tender, impressionable age. Why Nehru became like this -- arrogant and boastful outwardly, but insecure and hollow inwardly -- and remained stunted intellectually, the answer lies in the first 15 years of his life. His over-ambitious, domineering father was the main culprit in screwing his personality.

The book "Genesis and Growth of Nehruism" is a brilliant introduction to Nehru's personality. Read it online:
http://www.voiceofdharma.com/books/gagon/


Motilal Nehru is said to have been a Freemason (http://www.dnaindia.com/lifestyle/repor ... rs_1268342). Freemasonry is a tool through which Western Elites (many of whom are members of the the Sabbatean-Frankist sect) control society.

These same elites also control the Church organizations, although they are not Christian themselves. (See my post viewtopic.php?f=24&t=5159&p=732147#p732147). It is important to keep this in mind when discussing connections between the Church and the LTTE or the Maoists.

The Bolshevik revolution was also funded by the same Elites.
Last edited by Pranav on 04 Sep 2009 18:55, edited 1 time in total.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20963
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Discussion on Jaswant Singh's book on Jinnah

Postby Philip » 04 Sep 2009 18:45

I will finish my views tomorrow,but to just interject,from my reading of the book,especially the words of Lohia,who meticulously observed and documented the crucial meetings,that had the AICC given Gandhi a free hand to discuss the future of India with Mountbatten,both Mountbatten and Jinnah would've been well and truly fixed by him.He was far wilier than the entire lot put together,also because he was truthful to India and himself.It was a great mistake for Nehru,Patel and the others,not to have trusted in his judgement,leadership and unmatched ability to deal with the British and defeat their purpose of partitioning India,which he would've achieved if given a free hand.

Mountbatten and the British could've been swept aside like flies had the signal been given.As mentioned before,the former Viceroy Wavell in his report to the King said that he was astonished how despite their control of India bordreing "impotence",still thanks to their former reputation were able to decide events.Even if the British had arrested all the Congress leaders if they refused to accept partition,how long do you think after WW2 that the British could've controlled India? Arresting them would've brought the country to the brink of mutiny again.All that Gandhi had to do after being arrested again was to have sent a message that if by such-and-such a date the British did not "leave" themselves,the hundreds of millions of Indians should "peacefully" remove the British and take over! We saw before how thousands of our freedom fighters simply took British beatings without a struggle.A veritable tsunami of magnitude even greater than in 1857 would've ignominiously swept them away.After Bose's gallant fight for independence through the INA during WW2,the back of British control over Indian troops had been broken.It was the British who wanted to flee from India as fast as possible,with their Imperial reputation intact,letting "the Devil take the hindmost"!

It was the clear intent of the British to leave India a divided nation and found in their scheme of Partition the perfect villain,Jinnah,whose megalomania and personal rivalry with Nehru saw to it that he and Patel in particular knew that working with him would be a near impossibility and that they would never accept him as being India's first PM.

Airavat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2326
Joined: 29 Jul 2003 11:31
Location: dishum-bishum
Contact:

Re: Discussion on Jaswant Singh's book on Jinnah

Postby Airavat » 05 Sep 2009 08:34

Philip wrote:Even if the British had arrested all the Congress leaders if they refused to accept partition,how long do you think after WW2 that the British could've controlled India?

....A veritable tsunami of magnitude even greater than in 1857 would've ignominiously swept them away.


Yes the British would have been swept away.....but swept away to where? Right into the northwest and northeast of India, the future Pakistans.

The previous Viceroy Wavell had prepared a "breakdown plan" if worst came to worst. It called for the withdrawal of British civil and military personnel to the Muslim-majority provinces in the northwest: Punjab, N.W.F.P. Sindh and Baluchistan; and to Bengal and Assam in the east, leaving the Congress-ruled provinces to their fate. It would have resulted in further chaos, a messy division of the BIA, and fragmentation of India.

And in case of a violent rebellion and overthrow, the British had other tricks up their sleeve to screw the future of India. "We have one high trump in our hand, the Big Stick. We can in the last resort make things practically impossible for India by various kinds of sanctions of which principal would be blockade. We could cut off India from all kind of supplies of oil, kerosene and import of all kinds," Wavell's note to the Cabinet Delegation to India in March 1946.

The actual blueprint of partition, down to the maps, was also prepared by Lord Wavell. Mountbatten, Ismay, and Radcliffe merely implemented it. The only exceptions were the princely states; under Wavell's scheme, princely states in Punjab and Baluchistan, and the J&K State would have remained under the British in West Pakistan while Sikkim, Bhutan, Cooch Behar, and the NE princely states would come under East Pakistan. In addition big states like Hyderabad and some others would remain independent. Under Mountbatten the princely states were offered to the INC in return for their accepting the creation of Pakistan (ref Sardar Patel's statement in Parliament).

Rahul Mehta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2577
Joined: 22 Nov 2001 12:31
Location: Ahmedabad, India --- Bring JurySys in India
Contact:

Re: Discussion on Jaswant Singh's book on Jinnah

Postby Rahul Mehta » 05 Sep 2009 10:35

Philip wrote:Even if the British had arrested all the Congress leaders if they refused to accept partition,how long do you think after WW2 that the British could've controlled India?

....A veritable tsunami of magnitude even greater than in 1857 would've ignominiously swept them away.


Yes, but then control would have passed into the hands of Subhashjee like people i.e. soldier-cum-politician. Congress would have lost all the focus it had.

===========

We have analyzed the roles of British and the nobodies like JLN, Vallabh, Mohan and Jinha. We should also focus on role of the then elitemen who owned a big part of media. These elitemen did NOT want a violent uprising in India against British as that violent uprising could have create a Russia style Communist India. So these elitemen did NOT support various Indian Military revolts Navy Revolt, Jabalpur Revolt etc. So these Indian elitemen too wanted to obey British lest India becomes communist.

.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54781
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Discussion on Jaswant Singh's book on Jinnah

Postby ramana » 05 Sep 2009 11:07

Airavat wrote:
Philip wrote:Even if the British had arrested all the Congress leaders if they refused to accept partition,how long do you think after WW2 that the British could've controlled India?

....A veritable tsunami of magnitude even greater than in 1857 would've ignominiously swept them away.


Yes the British would have been swept away.....but swept away to where? Right into the northwest and northeast of India, the future Pakistans.

The previous Viceroy Wavell had prepared a "breakdown plan" if worst came to worst. It called for the withdrawal of British civil and military personnel to the Muslim-majority provinces in the northwest: Punjab, N.W.F.P. Sindh and Baluchistan; and to Bengal and Assam in the east, leaving the Congress-ruled provinces to their fate. It would have resulted in further chaos, a messy division of the BIA, and fragmentation of India.

And in case of a violent rebellion and overthrow, the British had other tricks up their sleeve to screw the future of India. "We have one high trump in our hand, the Big Stick. We can in the last resort make things practically impossible for India by various kinds of sanctions of which principal would be blockade. We could cut off India from all kind of supplies of oil, kerosene and import of all kinds," Wavell's note to the Cabinet Delegation to India in March 1946.

The actual blueprint of partition, down to the maps, was also prepared by Lord Wavell. Mountbatten, Ismay, and Radcliffe merely implemented it. The only exceptions were the princely states; under Wavell's scheme, princely states in Punjab and Baluchistan, and the J&K State would have remained under the British in West Pakistan while Sikkim, Bhutan, Cooch Behar, and the NE princely states would come under East Pakistan. In addition big states like Hyderabad and some others would remain independent. Under Mountbatten the princely states were offered to the INC in return for their accepting the creation of Pakistan (ref Sardar Patel's statement in Parliament).


So explains why the Gilgit Scouts under Brown rebelled. the idea was to ensure J&K goes to TSP their holding pen.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20963
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Discussion on Jaswant Singh's book on Jinnah

Postby Philip » 05 Sep 2009 17:32

The British forces would've found it hard put to even reach these areas.The key personnel would've been trapped in Delhi and in the other realms of the country.Excellent hostages to be used to prevent further perfidy against India later on.But as some have pointed out,this would've been India's equivalent to the Russian revolution,where our comfy aristo elite,bourgeoisie,petit bourgeoisie and kulaks,would've lost out to the proletariat!

Therefore a "bird in the hand",without its two wings, was seen by the Congress airstocracy as being far more acceptable to a united India in the bush.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Discussion on Jaswant Singh's book on Jinnah

Postby RayC » 05 Sep 2009 19:16

As for the Gilgit issue is concerned there is also other game that was being played out.

During this period Capt Mirza Hassan Khan Sahib of 4 Jammu and Kashmir, along with other Muslim officers met Quaid-e-Azam in Bombay and sought his guidance.

After Second World War, the Muslim elements of Jammu and Kashmir State Army reached Satwari Cantonment, Jammu from overseas in January 1946. They found an atmosphere of changed attitudes, religious intolerance and turbulent times. The future of the state of Jammu and Kahmir in general was up for th grabs due to impending partition of the Sub-Continent.

The Muslim officers of the State Forces got together and hatched a secret Military Revolutionary Council, headed by Major (promoted thereof) Mirza Hassan Khan Jarral sahib. This Council initially consisted of Major Afzal Shaheed, Major Mohammad Din, Major Rehmat Ullah, Major Sher, Major Ghazanfar Ali Shah, Major Feroz Din, Captain Mansha. Major Aslam was cultivated with difficulties.

Gradually with persuation some other Muslim officers were also included. The indoctrination was amazingly welcome by majority of the Muslim Junior Commissioned Officers and other ranks. According to Colonel (late) Mansha Khan, the secular ones were not included.

They connived with Col Brown of the Gilgit Scout.

On 31 July, Hari Singh’s Governor arrived to find “all the officers of the British Government had opted for service in Pakistan”. The Gilgit Scouts’ commander, a Major William Brown aged 25, and his adjutant, a Captain Mathieson, planned openly to engineer a coup détat against Hari Singh’s Government. Between August and October, Gilgit was in uneasy calm. At midnight on 31 October 1947, the Governor was surrounded by the Scouts and the next day he was “arrested” and a provisional government declared.

Hari Singh’s nearest forces were at Bunji, 34 miles from Gilgit, a few miles downstream from where the Indus is joined by Gilgit River. The 6th J& K Infantry Battalion there was a mixed Sikh-Muslim unit, typical of the State’s Army, commanded by a Lt Col. Majid Khan. Bunji controlled the road to Srinagar. Further upstream was Skardu, capital of Baltistan, part of Laddakh District where there was a small garrison. Following Brown’s coup in Gilgit, Muslim soldiers of the 6th Infantry massacred their Sikh brothers-at-arms at Bunji. The few Sikhs who survived escaped to the hills and from there found their way to the garrison at Skardu.

On 4 November 1947, Brown raised the new Pakistani flag in the Scouts’ lines, and by the third week of November a Political Agent from Pakistan had established himself at Gilgit. Brown had engineered Gilgit and its adjoining states to first secede from J&K, and, after some talk of being independent, had promptly acceded to Pakistan. His commander in Peshawar, a Col. Bacon, as well as Col. Iskander Mirza, Defence Secretary in the new Pakistan and later to lead the first military coup détat and become President of Pakistan, were pleased enough. In July 1948, Brown was awarded an MBE (Military) and the British Governor of the NWFP got him a civilian job with ICI - which however sent him to Calcutta, where he was attacked and left for dead on the streets by Sikhs avenging the Bunji massacre. Brown survived, returned to England, started a riding school, and died in 1984. In March 1994, Pakistan awarded his widow the Sitara-I-Pakistan in recognition of his coup détat.

svenkat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4725
Joined: 19 May 2009 17:23

Re: Discussion on Jaswant Singh's book on Jinnah

Postby svenkat » 05 Sep 2009 22:15

Philip saar,
What about reaction in muslim majority areas,where Congress had little support?What about kingdoms like Hyderabad where Muslims would have committed genocide?What about the psychology of Hindus and the economic development then-would it have been rule of proletariat or anarchy?Lohia hardly covered himself in glory in post-independent india.He was a Nehru baiter.He hated English.I would say he was petty minded.I am astonished that Indians who benefited from Nehruvian worldview quoting from Lohia.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23317
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Discussion on Jaswant Singh's book on Jinnah

Postby chetak » 06 Sep 2009 12:19

' Qatil-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah ’





KanchanGupta

Mohammed Ali Jinnah, we are told, cried in public only thrice in his life. The first occasion was at the grave of his wife, Ruttie, the day she died. The next time he was spotted weeping was on the train from Calcutta after Congress refused to countenance the Muslim League’s objections to Motilal Nehru’s 1928 report (known as the ‘Nehru Report’) proposing dominion status for India with a Constitution that provided for a unitary system of governance and equal rights for all citizens. The last time Jinnah was seen shedding tears, or so his friends recall in their memoirs, was during a visit to a Hindu refugee camp in Karachi in January 1948. Moved by the plight of the refugees, he is believed to have hoarsely whispered, “They used to call me Quaid-e-Azam; now they call me Qatil-e-Azam.”

It is possible that Jinnah, who is not known to have ever smiled, grieved over Ruttie’s grave. It is also believable that he wept bitter tears of rage after being given the short shrift by the Congress over the Nehru Report (he was to later come up with what is known as ‘Jinnah’s 14 Points’ which, under the guise of proposing that the “future Constitution should be federal with residuary powers vested in the provinces,” demanded that “in the Central Legislative Assembly, Muslim representation shall not be less than one-third”). But it’s rather hard to believe that the man who was unmoved by the blood-letting that followed his call for ‘Direct Action’ in August 1946 and continued till he had attained his “moth-eaten Pakistan” a year later would be moved by the sight of wailing women and orphaned children at a Hindu refugee camp in January 1948. If at all Jinnah was distressed it was because his vanity had been hurt — the ‘Quaid’ was being spat upon as a ‘Qatil’.

And unlike Jaswant Singh, as well as many others who believe that Partition was a blunder, that India would have been one large happy family had the Radcliffe line not been drawn, that the Congress should not have persisted with its idea of India as one nation with a unitary system in which power would be concentrated at the Centre, that the Muslim League had a case when it argued for proportionate representation if not more for Muslims to compensate them for the loss of the power they wielded before the British took charge of India’s affairs, I belong to the minority which believes that Partition was the second best thing to have happened to us. The first was the failure of the ghazis to prop up a dissolute badshah in 1857. In his literally weighty tome Jinnah: India - Partition - Independence, Jaswant Singh obviously disagrees with this contention: “It was here in the middle of the 19th century that the symbol of our sovereignty was finally seized and trampled underfoot by British India.” Not everybody mourned that event, just as Hindus in Bengal were not terribly upset when Nawab Siraj-ud-Daulah was given the boot in 1757.

But that defeat of presumed Muslim supremacy in 1857 was not without significance. Rudely stripped of their status as a minuscule minority ruling over India’s vast majority, Muslims discovered salvation in separatism in the subsequent decades — first in terms of faith and culture, and later with the formation of the Muslim League in 1906, in Muslim identity politics. Jinnah did not gravitate towards the League then, but it was his natural home and he couldn’t possibly stay away for long. The “ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity” thought he could bargain for a slice of power through exclusivist constitutionalist politics, which he thought was his forte, but when Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi steered the Congress to mass politics, Jinnah, clad in Savile Row suits, scoffing whisky and munching on ham sandwiches, couldn’t quite see himself mingling with the unwashed masses.

Ironically, this is the man, who had little knowledge of Islam and even lesser respect for its core beliefs, who would emerge as the ‘sole spokesman’ of undivided India’s Muslims, or so he would insist on being known as; that was a platform he found convenient so as not to get pushed out from national politics by the Congress and its stalwarts, namely Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. Yet, for all his rancid denunciation of Hindu majoritarianism, of Congress’s emphasis on centralisation of power, of everything that together shaped India and the Indian identity, he could never command cross-country Muslim support. Or else the Muslim League would not have to look for proportionate representation.

Much of Jaswant Singh’s book covers territory that has long been charted by scholars and historians, although its documentation is truly rich: Potted history is useful for non-historians and as a ready-reckoner for dates and events. Nor is there anything startlingly new about Jaswant Singh’s thesis spun around the idea of Jinnah as the ‘sole spokesman’ of India’s Muslims. Ayesha Jalal expounded this theory many years ago in her book, The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League and the Demand for Pakistan which, in a sense, provides the most comprehensive explanation for Jinnah’s politics. True, Ayesha Jalal’s is a Pakistani’s perspective; but is Jaswant Singh’s the Indian perspective? If yes, then which India is he speaking for? That which revels in lighting candles at Wagah border even as more lives are laid to waste to satiate the lust ignited by Jinnah’s rhetoric that became the recurrent theme of Muslim League politics after the Lahore Resolution of 1940? Would Jinnah have ever recanted had Nehru toed the line of least resistance? Jaswant Singh writes about the Cabinet Mission Plan, of the divergence in the responses of the Congress and the Muslim League, but that alone cannot be evidence of ‘majoritarian’ perfidy.

Nehru talked of conditional participation in the Constituent Assembly, of reserving the right to modify the Cabinet Mission Plan. Jinnah spoke a sharply different and sinister language: He recalled the Lahore Resolution and reiterated the demand for Pakistan; he threatened “direct action”. Thus was conceived, in the dark labyrinths of his mind, and given shape to in consultation with his Faustian colleagues, ‘Direct Action Day’ to be observed on August 16, 1946. “We shall have India divided or we shall have India destroyed,” Jinnah thundered. Did the Quaid-e-Azam feel any sense of remorse when he saw vultures feasting on the dead after the Great Calcutta Killing? He didn’t. That is the Jinnah which Jinnah: India - Partition - Independence white-washes and presents as a man who was deeply wronged by Nehru and Patel.

Jaswant Singh’s book revolves around the contention that if only Nehru had been farsighted, had he and Patel not colluded to pass the March 8, 1947 Congress resolution asking for the partition of Punjab (and keeping the option of partitioning Bengal open), had they been more accommodative towards Jinnah, there would have been no Pakistan, no Bangladesh today, but a “magnificent edifice of a united India”. Jinnah’s opposition, Jaswant Singh argues, “was not against the Hindus or Hinduism, it was the Congress that he considered as the true political rival of the Muslim League, and the League he considered as being just an extension of himself”. Jaswant Singh oversimplifies the case for the Quaid-e-Azam when he says, “The Muslim community for Jinnah became an electoral body; his call for a Muslim nation his political platform; the battles he fought were entirely political — between the Muslim League and the Congress; Pakistan was his political demand over which he and the Muslim League could rule.” The recrimination is equally sweeping: Nehru was “one of the principal architects, in reality the draftsman of India’s partition” who “began questioning himself, his actions, his thoughts soon enough”. Does Jaswant Singh really believe that had the Congress accepted Jinnah’s conditions and created within an undivided India six separate ‘Pakistans’ — what the Muslim League called the “six Muslim provinces” (the Punjab, the NWFP, Sindh, Balochistan, Bengal and Assam) with near-total autonomy — there would have been a “magnificent edifice of a united India” today?

Jaswant Singh regrets that Jinnah died too soon “to re-examine what he had done… but he too had begun to recognise the enormity of this partition… His pre-1947 statements and the often quoted 11 August 1947 speech are in reality but indicators of his thoughts, not any definition”. This by no means detracts from the fact that Jinnah, who died 13 months after ensconcing himself as the Governor-General of Pakistan, sowed the seeds of his country’s break-up before he discovered that even ‘sole spokesmen’ are but mere mortals. On his first and only visit to Dhaka, he pompously declared that Urdu would be the state language; the Bengalis could either like it or lump it.

Bangladesh chose to lump it. So much for Jinnah’s ‘Muslims first’ identity politics.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23317
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Discussion on Jaswant Singh's book on Jinnah

Postby chetak » 06 Sep 2009 12:52

' Flawed thesis on partition ’




A Surya Prakash

Although Mohammed Ali Jinnah propounded the pernicious two-nation theory and forced the partition of India on the ground that Muslims constitute a separate nation, he is not wholly to blame. Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Patel and other Congress leaders who failed to stop Jinnah ought to take the rap. In fact, Nehru is the draftsman of India’s partition! Further, even after partition and the emergence of a secular, democratic India, those Muslims who chose to remain in India find themselves abandoned and bereft of “psychological security” and so, by implication, the secular majority must take the rap!

The partition meant untold suffering for millions. Over 15 million people were uprooted on both sides of Jinnah’s inhuman divide and over half-a-million were butchered in the senseless communal frenzy. This was the largest killing of human beings instigated by a politician in this part of the world. While the killing of Hindus went on unabated,

Mahatma Gandhi and leaders of the Congress, all of whom were sufficiently indoctrinated in the most noble traditions of secularism and peaceful co-existence by the Mahatma, took firm measures to stem the violence against Muslims on the Indian side.

These are historical facts which are well chronicled. Yet, the burden of Mr Singh’s argument is that the leaders of the Congress must take the blame for partition. Secondly, Mr Singh seems to hold the Hindu majority responsible for the secessionist tendencies among Muslims prior to partition. Finally, lo and behold, even after partition, the Hindu majority must take the blame for the maladjustment of Muslims in democratic India!

We are all now sufficiently familiar with what has become of the Islamic state that Jinnah created and the road traversed by secular, democratic and liberal India. Pakistan is an Islamic Republic which constitutionally prohibits non-Muslims from holding certain public offices. The population of the Hindus in Pakistan has crashed from 25 per cent in 1947 to 1.6 per cent in recent times. For much of the last 62 years that have gone by since partition, Pakistan has been under military dictatorship.

Contrast this with India. The Muslim population in India has risen from around 35 million in 1947 to over 150 million. We have a secular, democratic Constitution that ensures equity and equality. Indeed, we are so secular that since 2004, those who call the shots in India (and this includes the Prime Minister) are non-Hindus. Yet, if you go by Mr Singh’s logic, we get no marks at all for our humanistic approach to life and nation-building.

Shockingly, Mr Singh says, “Those Muslims who remained or were left behind in India now find themselves as almost abandoned, bereft of a sense of real kinship of not being ‘one’, in their entirety with the rest. This robs them of the essence of psychological security”. This is not all. Mr Singh fuels the demand for reservations for Muslims when he says “having once accepted this principle of reservations, circa 1909, then of partition, how can we now deny it to others, even such Muslims as have had to or chosen to live in India? Which is why some voices of Muslim protest now go to the extent of speaking of a ‘Third Partition’.”


In short, Mr Singh’s thesis is terribly flawed. He is so enamoured of Jinnah that he even describes Nehru as “one of the principal architects, in reality the draftsman of India’s partition”. He is also contemptuous of leaders like Nehru and Patel when he says he was struck by “the petty preoccupations of most ‘leaders’ of those times”. His misplaced sympathy for Jinnah and antipathy for Nehru, Patel and other Congress leaders does violence to our secular, democratic ideals even as it treats the perpetrators of religion-based hatred with much compassion and understanding. This is a dangerous argument. Every citizen who values secularism and democracy and hopes for the extension of these ideals, specially into non-secular frontiers like Pakistan, must summarily reject Mr Singh’s formulation.

Equally extraordinary is his claim (despite the thousand cuts inflicted on us by Pakistan, including 26/11) that Pakistan is now “somewhat mellowed” and “accommodative”.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23317
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Discussion on Jaswant Singh's book on Jinnah

Postby chetak » 07 Sep 2009 00:25

' Advani as the lion in winter ’






Kanchan Gupta

These are not happy times for Mr LK Advani. Colleagues in the BJP who were in total awe of him and owe their rise in the party as well as in national politics to his unstinted support have turned bitter critics. Fawning journalists who would call Mr Advani’s office incessantly for an ‘exclusive’ interview or felt privileged to be invited for a cup of tea with him are now busy writing his political obituary or ridiculing him pitilessly. The Delhi commentariat, which has arrogated to itself the task of thinking for the masses, would want us to believe that five decades of public life can be summed up in 33 minutes and 47 seconds of discussion as was witnessed last Monday on a 24x7 news channel.

Last Tuesday, on a rain-soaked morning I met Mr Advani at his residence. He looked his usual affable self, warm and effusive as ever. But his eyes reflected a sense of pain and anguish. For a while we talked about books and authors. Mr Advani is a voracious reader although, unlike some of his critics, he does not flaunt intellectual pretensions. The conversation meandered to the past fortnight’s turmoil in the BJP and suddenly there was a tinge of hurt in his voice. “This is not the party I knew… it has changed so much,” he said wistfully.

It has indeed changed in many ways. Thirteen years ago, when Mr Advani was party president, the BJP projected itself as an alternative to the Congress not merely in terms of political ideology but also policy and programme. Few people would know about it, and fewer in today’s BJP would care to recall, that he and Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee were constantly thinking in terms of new ideas to craft an alternative agenda of governance in keeping with the aspirations of the times. Mr Vajpayee was the ‘big picture’ man — “We need to change the system, otherwise governance cannot change” — while Mr Advani would think in terms of nuts and bolts, the small details, of how to actually go about changing the system.

I had accompanied Mr Advani on a long tour through Marathwada during the 1995 Maharashtra Assembly election campaign. Those days there were no Learjets at his disposal. We travelled by train every night and by car during the day, stopping at the homes of party workers for lunch and dinner. One night after boarding the ‘Second Class AC’ compartment of a train he began talking about the need to start preparing for the 1996 general election. “We should have a complete agenda of governance before the election is announced,” he said, and then went on to list some key areas where the BJP could come up with new ideas. I casually asked him, “Do you think the BJP can come to power this time?” There was a brief pause before he replied, “The question is not whether we can come to power, it is whether we are prepared for power.”

Today many (though not all) of those who aspire to take charge of the party have neither the time nor the inclination to indulge in ideational thinking. Rhetoric has come to replace crafting of agenda. Any serious effort to engage them in discussing alternative policy ideas invariably fails because they find it boring. For some it’s easier to outsource that task to lobbies and pressure groups: They come up with ‘alternative policies’ and these are then peddled as possible party objectives. Others think it’s a waste of time as ultimately intellectual engagement in framing policy or fleshing out ideas does not add up to votes. This is the age of television studio one-liners that do not require lateral thinking.

But the ability to think, the effort that went into drafting over a period of time an agenda — ranging from economics to foreign affairs, agriculture to security — for the BJP which was truly an alternative to that of the Congress, of painstakingly preparing the party for power, is not the only thing that sets the Vajpayee-Advani era apart from what we see today. It’s also the moral authority which Mr Vajpayee and Mr Advani wielded. Mr Vajpayee rarely spoke, but when he did it was the final word. Mr Advani didn’t need to speak. His body language spoke for him.

Soon after the bogus reconciliation of warring factions of the BJP in Gujarat (one led by Mr Shankersinh Vaghela and the other by Mr Keshubhai Patel) the party’s national executive met outside Delhi. During the mid-morning tea break, Mr Vaghela decided to make a public show of his repentance. Mr Advani was standing in a corner, talking to some of the national executive members, with a cup of tea in his hand. Mr Vaghela walked up to him and tried to touch his feet. With amazing alacrity, Mr Advani stepped aside, turned around, and walked out of the room without even uttering a word. The message was loud and clear for all who were present: To forget is not to forgive; once you violated party discipline, you remained an outcaste forever. Mr Vaghela has since found solace in the Congress.

Times change, people change. Each one of us has a fatal flaw. Mr Advani’s fatal flaw, to my mind and reaffirmed after my recent chat with him, is that he could never assert himself forcefully and aggressively, rudely over-ruling others. His ‘tough man’ image helped him avoid acrimonious discussion on contentious issues, but if push came to shove, he would let Mr Vajpayee take the call. Age and circumstances have softened that image; black and white have turned into shades of sepia; and, Mr Vajpayee is no longer a participant in the decision-making process. It’s not surprising that Mr Advani should now be seen, more than ever before, failing to assert himself, of doing what his instinct tells him is the right thing to do. He admitted as much during our chat.

Yet, I have also seen Mr Advani act with steely determination, brushing aside objections hesitantly offered by his colleagues. People have forgotten about May 1996 when the BJP emerged as the largest party in that year’s general election. If memory serves me right, on May 13 Mr Advani convened a meeting of senior leaders in his office at the party headquarters and insisted that the BJP should stake its claim to form the Government. Not everybody was in agreement because the chances of cobbling together a majority were dim. Mr Vajpayee himself wasn’t too sure, but for a change it was Mr Advani who took the call. The then President, Shankar Dayal Sharma, accepted the BJP’s claim and Mr Vajpayee was sworn in as Prime Minister on May 16. That Government lasted for only 13 days; the rest is history.

Mr Advani was confident that the BJP would be asked to form the Government and had come for the May 13 meeting with a piece of paper on which he had scribbled the names of the Ministers who would take the oath of office along with Mr Vajpayee. It was a short list and included Mr Jaswant Singh as Finance Minister.

surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1421
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Re: Discussion on Jaswant Singh's book on Jinnah

Postby surinder » 08 Sep 2009 22:19

RayC,

Thanks for the history of Brown's takever.

Do you happen to know what was the % compositon of Sikhs, Musalims & Hindus (if any) in the force at Bunji? Was the massacre by M's done in a surreptition fashion?

Do you think if the 6th J& K Infantry Battalion had not fought with itself, it could have defeated Brown's forces?

Brown's felicitation by the Brutish rulers shows that it was an officially sanctioned coup (while their professed rules of the game of partition were different).

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3810
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: A look back at the partition

Postby suryag » 09 Sep 2009 03:25

Didnt know where to post it, this is regarding Jaswant Singh and his humble backgrounds(which was hitherto unknown to me, I always thought he was a well-to-do royal)

Traveling out of the village was a great adventure

Mods please move it to appropriate thread, apologise for adding to your workload

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Discussion on Jaswant Singh's book on Jinnah

Postby RayC » 09 Sep 2009 11:31

I had met Brig Ghansara Singh. He was quite old and his recollection rather foggy.

He has written a book. I believe it gives a graphic description of the coup.

Airavat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2326
Joined: 29 Jul 2003 11:31
Location: dishum-bishum
Contact:

Re: Discussion on Jaswant Singh's book on Jinnah

Postby Airavat » 09 Sep 2009 14:29

Fall of Gilgit by Col KS Samyal:

Gilgit area was garrisoned by 6 J&K Infantry, less than two companies with Headquarters at Bunji, about 54 kms from Gilgit on the road to Srinagar. Commanded by Lt. Col Abdul Majid Khan, the battalion was composed of Muslims and Sikhs in almost equal proportions. The Sikhs, according to the Commanding Officer, were raw recruits and were not fit for active duty for the next 5-6 months, till they had fired their musketry course. The Muslim companies had men from Punch and they having heard all about the horrible communal killings in Punjab, were in a violently communal frame of mind.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20963
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Discussion on Jaswant Singh's book on Jinnah

Postby Philip » 09 Sep 2009 17:29

We (our leaders at the time of Partition) were still in some awe of British imperial power and their rulers.Had we access to the wiritings of Wavell and others and saw with their eyes their perilous state in India,where they were on the brink of the abyss,needing only a small push to finish them off,our leaders perhaps would've been bolder.In fact,in the book,Nehru many years later says that "if Gandhiji had asked us not to do so (agree to partition),we would've listened to him."This is a strange contradiction as from the events of the crucial AICC meetings,Gandhi and Azad were deliberately kept in the dark and bulldozed later on by Nehru and Co.He continued with his "tired old men..." words that probably is closest to the truth.But I feel that they gave in to perfidious Albion because they were weak and tired as Nehru said.Had they realised their true strength and taken heart from Bose and the INA,things could've been different.One other mystery is why the Congress did not put up a rival to Jinnah to turn the Muslims away from partition,as they also had some eminent Muslim leaders who collectively could've outflanked Jinnah.We know that the Brits supported Jinnah from behind though.

In conclusion can one then say that Partition was inevitable because of the perfidious role that the British (and their ambitious megalomaniac protege Jinnah) played,ensuring that the Hindus and Muslims remained divided? Or could we disagree and say that we (our tired leaders at the time) did not try hard enough to save India,that petty personal rivalries prevented us (AICC) from saying NO to Britain with one voice? Could we take a vote?

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Discussion on Jaswant Singh's book on Jinnah

Postby Sanku » 09 Sep 2009 18:17

Philip wrote:In conclusion can one then say that Partition was inevitable because of the perfidious role that the British (and their ambitious megalomaniac protege Jinnah) played,ensuring that the Hindus and Muslims remained divided? Or could we disagree and say that we (our tired leaders at the time) did not try hard enough to save India,that petty personal rivalries prevented us (AICC) from saying NO to Britain with one voice? Could we take a vote?


I do not think partition was inevitable, and as I have said before on the partition thread, there is sufficient data to show that enough prominent muslim groups and leaders were interested in the One India concept as well, there is no reason to doubt that it would have been worked out if ways and means of leveraging that support base was used.

But I think by the time 40s came, the mistakes were all made, so at the time of independence it would have been difficult to undo the prior mistakes.

But one thing that clearly rankles is how MKG was cut of the loop, I have confidence that if he was involved, the wily old man (even though not being in the prime) would have pulled a coup.

Atish
BRFite
Posts: 417
Joined: 07 Jul 2000 11:31
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Re: Discussion on Jaswant Singh's book on Jinnah

Postby Atish » 09 Sep 2009 18:43

I think that the non violence emphasis on the movement stopped Muslim martyrs who died fighting for the country that could have emerged as an emotional pole for Muslims to converge to the One India Concept. Its one of the Unintended Consequences that makes so much in life mystifying, what seems good turns out to be bad and vice versa. And maybe by that logic Partition was good. This is a rather philosophical post I realize.

Cheers.
Atish.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20963
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Discussion on Jaswant Singh's book on Jinnah

Postby Philip » 10 Sep 2009 18:27

I'm reading again JS's last chapter "in retrospect",which sums up his views on the issue. The book he says traces Islam's arrival on the Indian scene,the Moghul empire which existed thanks to treaties with Rajput kingdoms,until 1657 and the British Raj taking over from John Co.,a rule which lasted only 100 years.The British says JS ,never understood India ,but for a small few,and only Gandhi though western educated,understood the real nature of India and what a free Indian state should be.Nehru and Jinnah were both westernised,but conceived their independent states of India and Pak on European models.One aspect which has also not received enough attention is that of the other Muslim parties (Khaksars,etc.) against partition as mentioned in a post above.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23317
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: A look back at the partition

Postby chetak » 10 Sep 2009 19:56

suryag wrote:Didnt know where to post it, this is regarding Jaswant Singh and his humble backgrounds(which was hitherto unknown to me, I always thought he was a well-to-do royal)

Traveling out of the village was a great adventure

Mods please move it to appropriate thread, apologise for adding to your workload



Where did you get the idea that he is of humble background?

He is a minor royal and not from an impoverished family.

Singh , Shri Jaswant
[Bharatiya Janata Party -Rajasthan ]

Father's Name : Late Thakur Sardar Singhji
Mother's Name : Shrimati Kunwar Baisa
Date of Birth : 3 January 1938
Place of Birth : Village Jasol, Railway Station Balotara, Distt. Barmer (Rajasthan)
Marital Status : Married
Spouse's Name : Shrimati Sheetal Kumari
Children : Two sons
Educational Qualifications : B.A., B.Sc. Educated at Mayo College, Ajmer, Joint Services Wing, Clement Town, Dehradun, N.D.A., Khadakvasla and Indian Military Academy, Dehradun
Profession :
Permanent Address : Vill. Temawas,Gram Panchayat, Mewanagar,Tehsil:Pachpadra,Post Office: Jasol,Distt:Barmer,Rajasthan


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: A Sharma, Ambar, milindc, souravB and 37 guests