A look back at the partition

[Virupaksha]

INC foreswore *any* use of violence.

Correction, INC(Gandhi/Nehru) foreswore *any* official use of violence against muslims. They were willing to use it against hindus/sikhs. The lower level congress many times participated in violence.

There are many instances of their "violent" behavior against the hindus. When Nehru was the interim prime minister, he threatened to use air force in bihar while just days earlier he refused to intervene in naokhali. He sent the army to control the bihar riots (unconfirmed but it is said he sent predominantly muslim units). No army was sent during the naokhali riots.

[devesh]

if a forced de-peg had happened, it would have given the impetus for India to take stock of the Gold present in the country and directly go to the US and make a deal with them to link Indian Gold and the economy with USD.

So the part of India which was at war with Britain, would magically make a deal with Britain's wartime ally, financial partner, not to mention future NATO partner and ally against Communism??????

wow....are you aware of the apoplectic rage that Churchill went into every time he had a meeting with FDR??? do you know that virtually most of the top American leadership under FDR and Truman were virulently against the survival of any remnants of the British Empire? it was only after the blunder of Indian leadership in not realizing this fundamental paranoia that America had of Britain, did British propaganda about India "breaking into pieces" become the official line of US elites. the Cold War attitudes of US against India only crystallized in the early 50's. until then, India virtually had a clean slate. a willing and visionary leadership could have taken advantage of this and made many covert and overt overtures to US. the best moment to do this was in the 45-47 period when US was systematically breaking any last remaining influence of Britain via various deals in the ME and in East Asia. as a good starting point, India could have taken up the issue of Diego Garcia and the remnants of British Naval power in IOR.

the fact of the matter is that Britain immediately post-WWII could have been attacked with a "thousand cuts" by an adamant Indian leadership. on every front, UK was on the retreat. instead our Nehru is so awed of British legacy that he is getting pictures taken sitting next to the Monarch and British PM at banquets and parties....

India instead chose to retain the British baggage in several key sectors like administrative services, civil services, bureaucracy, police, etc and virtually maintained an unbroken link of babudom with British past....

and to top it all off, if the Indian leadership was so open about "friendly relations" with Britain, why not America? I mean seriously, if Nehru can by chummy with British after the colonial experience, what stopped them from practical measures with America? this is one thing I don't get. any overtures to 1945-America are easily dismissed by "British ally; Anglo-Saxon legacy, etc" and other such reasons. so America's British background is the culprit here. then, if the mere British background was so thorny an issue, then Britain itself should have been a vastly monstrous thing. but clearly, the Indian leadership of Nehru did not feel such "dislike" for Britain. Why so? I will keep asking this question until I get a satisfying answer. Britain's ally 1945-America: chi-chi-chi onlee....but Britain itself: oh! they brought development to India....

[svinayak]

and to top it all off, if the Indian leadership was so open about "friendly relations" with Britain, why not America? I mean seriously, if Nehru can by chummy with British after the colonial experience, what stopped them from practical measures with America? this is one thing I don't get. any overtures to 1945-America are easily dismissed by "British ally; Anglo-Saxon legacy, etc" and other such reasons. so America's British background is the culprit here. then, if the mere British background was so thorny an issue, then Britain itself should have been a vastly monstrous thing. but clearly, the Indian leadership of Nehru did not feel such "dislike" for Britain. Why so? I will keep asking this question until I get a satisfying answer. Britain's ally 1945-America: chi-chi-chi onlee....but Britain itself: oh! they brought development to India....

Power of the Anlgo Indians! and deracinated Indians which kept the connection.

[Varoon Shekhar]

Devesh:Good one. But there's another side, too. The US' lack of effusiveness and warmth for India's independence. The US should have hailed more enthusiastically India's freedom as a major event, which would inspire other colonised countries to do the same. And American immaturity with respect to outbursts of people like Krishna Menon. The Americans should have calmly seen those speeches as the very spirited expressions of a newly independent country, that was a very sensitive about any traces of colonialism, which it had just freed itself from. Instead, the Americans took it as a major affront, and saw Menon as the representative of the vociferous, hyper-critical, difficult-to-get-along-with Indians. Which is an idiotic perception, by the way.

[ramana]

JLN thought INC was the new British as India was the jewel in the crown. He and his cohort were really afraid of coups and emasculated the Indian military. Especially the Indian Army through UPSC selection board and then promotions policy.
When PRC called his bluff India paid the price and is still paying the price. His and his decendents inverse Hamletian policy (to not test or to test) on nuke weapons led to further erosion.

[Sanku]

Devesh:Good one. But there's another side, too. The US' lack of effusiveness and warmth for India's independence.

Actually Devesh's point considers the period 45-47-50, the period under discussion, US was indeed quite pushy about letting India have her independence. The meetings with Churchill chronicle that.

A lot of it was of course Roosevelt's own innate good sense, but US's real politic was behind support to India too.

This is certainly a case of missed opportunities. Indian elite saw themselves as part of British, upper class and carried forth their disdain for the uncultured Yankee.

The easy "oh these barbarians" behavior that Indian elite had for the Americans would REALLY surprise folks today, with the danger being "MUTUism"

[Yayavar]

US was not painting itself in flying colours during those days and was soon to follow with even more egregious transgressions in Vietnam/Korea/south america, Iran etc. That could have given pause to Indian leaders just coming out from under another imperial power. There was not much of independent infrastructure either, which still led to dependence on the Angrez. There was also a strong socialist bend among the leaders.
We need to do a more holistic assessment rather than pick a few peeves or wrong paths taken and extrapolate it. Some of the characteristics for individual leaders may come true some not.

[Rahul M]

quit while you are ahead.

Thanks for your concern, but actual data is preferred to empty rhetoric.

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

Joint Army and Navy Basic War Plan Red, also known as the Atlantic Strategic War Plan, was a war plan by the United States in the event of war with British Empire (the "Red" forces).

Canada, in "crimson", Great Britain (and Newfoundland) are "red", India is "ruby", Australia "scarlet", New Zealand "garnet", and Ireland "emerald" according to War Plan Red - Other parts of the British Empire are pink (not part of the plan)

It was developed by the United States Army following the 1927 Geneva Naval Conference; and approved in May 1930 by the Secretary of War and the Secretary of Navy and updated in 1934–35. In 1939 it was decided that further planning was no longer applicable but that the plan be retained. [2] War Plan Red was declassified in 1974.

The war was envisioned as a conflict that arose between the British Empire and the United States due to commercial conflicts. Planning predicted that the British Empire would initially have the upper-hand due to the strength of their navy, and would use their former colony in Canada as an ally to stage an invasion of the United States. As such, the plan focused on the United States waging a war that would first be defensive against British forces invading through Canada, and eventually defeat the British empire through blockade and economic isolation of the United Kingdom.

[Yayavar]

^^ above seems not much different (except in scope) than the 1812 thrust against Canada. The key is 'commercial interest' ...that is what led to many of the transgressions referred to earlier. That realpolitik involves dealing with all this and getting what you need is true but it does not mean we view US as being a good guy out there in the 40s/50s working to help the colonised.

[SBajwa]

Airavat wrote:
devesh wrote:
if a forced de-peg had happened, it would have given the impetus for India to take stock of the Gold present in the country and directly go to the US and make a deal with them to link Indian Gold and the economy with USD.

So the part of India which was at war with Britain, would magically make a deal with Britain's wartime ally, financial partner, not to mention future NATO partner and ally against Communism??????

USA's general George Washington defeated Gen Cornwallis (who was successful in plassey and buxar battles in India) and declared independence in 1776. 1776 - 1990s., the relations between USA and England were very bad. USA managed these relations by playing France against England.

England attacked USA in 1812 and burned down Washington D.C.

Canada and India were part of the empire and Indians could easily travel to Canada. Many Indians escaped Canada (Caltutta-Singapore-Tokyo-Vancouver was the route followed by Indians) and moved to USA. British later stopped this practice and forced Indians (Ship Kamagata Maru) to return to Calcutta where defenceless people were murdered by British police.

bY 1908 5,000 Indians were living in USA/Canada.

copy/paste from an article
Many students from prominent universities like Berkeley University, Stanford and Harvard joined this association. Lala Hardayal of Stanford University, Sant Teja Singh of Harvard University, and Bhai Parmanand decided to get more students belonging to the poor families for Higher education in the USA and Canada.

Indians who went to the United States and Canada came from rural farming middle class and labour, a large number of among them being ex-servicemen. In the beginning, the Indians went to San Francisco and Stockton in California, Portland and St. John in Oregon and Washington states and to Vancouver and and Victoria in British Columbia n Canada. Such persons as Amar Singh and Gopal Singh who had gone to America in 1905, and Tarak Nath Das and Ram Nath Puri who followed them, starting preaching against the British rule in India.They also started a paper called Azadi ka circular in Urdu. This paper was distributed among the armed forces in India to rouse them against the British. Result was that Canadian government which was under British rule started harassing them. White labour was encouraged to harass foreign labour, while Chinese and Japanese government protested against these atrocities against their nationals, Indian goverment did nothing. The Canadian government further tightened the entry of Indians into Canada. It passed a legislation that newcomers would not be permitted to land on the Canadian soil "unless they came from the country of their birth or citizenship by a continuous journey, and on through tickets purchased before leaving the country of their birth or citizenship. They were also required to possess $200 against the previously fixed sum of $25.

----
British authorities could not dissuade USA authorities to hand them over these revolutionaries

[SBajwa]

Vietnam was actually French colony which USA tried to fix it for them.

[devesh]

US was not painting itself in flying colours during those days and was soon to follow with even more egregious transgressions in Vietnam/Korea/south america, Iran etc. That could have given pause to Indian leaders just coming out from under another imperial power. There was not much of independent infrastructure either, which still led to dependence on the Angrez. There was also a strong socialist bend among the leaders.
We need to do a more holistic assessment rather than pick a few peeves or wrong paths taken and extrapolate it. Some of the characteristics for individual leaders may come true some not.

once again this "coming out" of Britain's hold needs to be examined. when you have Nehru proudly stomping around the world proclaiming his legacy as the head of a commonwealth country, what "coming out" are we talking about? the fundamental likes and dislikes of Nehru and the Indian system that formed under him, retained almost without any changes, the basic character of the Indian state that existed under the British. the entire administrative/bureaucratic/govt-machinery-complex of the Indian state was a carbon copy of the British Indian state. so what "coming out" is this?

US at that point was nascent yet "open" about India. I would suggest that we look at US-Israel relations at that time too. during that same time, Israel was buying weapons from Soviet Union and yet the diplomatic relations between US and Israel were neutral at worst. after 1967, the two became overtly friendly. until then it was a cautious relationship where the US was sometimes irritated by Israeli actions. did that stop Israel from having an active diplomatic and behind the scenes effort to continue to talk to US? the answer is NO.

the misfortune is that Nehru, by being so malleable to British interests, set the precedent for all of his descendants and non-descendant successors. this is the real problem. the external interests started applying the Nehru yardstick to every head and the result is the deaths of LBS, IG, RG, forceful retirement of PVNR, etc....

Nehru, though his prejudices, cast the dye for his own descendants and made sure that they would have a fundamental weakness in their armor: the dependence on external-interest-support due to the mishaps of foundational ancestor...

[ldev]

what nonsense? by that time, US was already well into its plans for laying down Dollar hegemony. US had already reached an understanding to anchor Oil to the USD and US system. Britain was bankrupt.

IMO at that time, for Nehru, the choice was not between the US and the UK but between Soviet Central Planning and the "imperialist" west. Ever since his first visit to the USSR in 1927 Nehru was impressed by the USSR and the 1st and 2nd Soviet Five Year Plans initiated by Stalin from 1928 to 1938 transformed the USSR from a largely agrarian country to one that was industrially self sufficient by the start of the Second World War. Nehru did not hide his admiration for the USSR. Consequently there was no question of him tying India to either the UK or the US. It was only after the Chinese shock of 1962 that he looked to the West for help.

As far as the US and tying oil to the dollar is concerned, in 1945 when FDR met Ibn Saud, NONE of the large Saudi oilfields had been discovered. The US itself and Venezuela met 85% of the oil needs of the world other than that of the Soviet bloc. In the Gulf itself, the largest oil producer was Iran and when Iran got into turmoil after the 1953 coup, Kuwait was the largest oil producer from the Gulf. Kuwait, the UAE and Bahrain where oil was first discovered in the Gulf were all British protectorates. Consequently when FDR met Ibn Saud, little did either side know that the next 10 years would change the balance of oil power in the Gulf completely as all of the large Saudi oilfields such as Ghawar and Safaniya were discovered from 1948 and 1951 onwards.

So if you look at the world of oil in 1945, while the US was the largest producer (because of its domestic production), in the Middle East, the oil producers were all British protectorates and nobody knew whether much oil would be discovered in Saudi Arabia. The British had already got the low hanging fruit, FDR was going after what was left.

[brihaspati]

(1) FDR Churchill clash over Indian independence/self-determination is well known. At least one close aide of FDR was sent to Delhi with such considerations. US position on where J&K should belong to - in the earliest days of the controversy should be explored. It was different from the Brit+Paki position.

(2) There is one school of thought that indicates the Brits actively took up trying to convince the "susceptible" within congrez about US yeevil intentions post WWII - from even before Partition/Independence.

On the other hand, Brits simultaneously began a campaign to convince the US about the need and utility for Pak and the potential unreliability of the "congrez" in the coming "cold war" with communism. They had a ready example in our great leader of course whose leftist sympathies were well highlighted. So one can understand why the prominence of JLN was so crucial to the needs of the hour.

(3) The result of the campaign did yield results - at least the US mood changed after 1949, especially with the Korean war looming and the fall of Peking to Mao's troops.

(4) The "breakdown plan" was not so trivial as outlined here. To look for its origins, one has to go back to Linlithji. The plan was severely opposed by the "conservatives", Churchill who almost began to hate Wavell, as well as Labour. One has to consider the strong indications - that most of the proposals from the Brit side were insincere. They were often formulated consciously to deceive, and intended to drive people to react in certain ways to suit longer term goals of the prevailing Brit regime.

If one goes through the details of the "breakdown plan", one will be able to find Brits own intel providing significant contradictory indications to the way it has been claimed here that the Brits would have managed to use the army and the navy to their purpose. From casual statements by the congrez leaders and MKG [who was no longer even a primary member of the party] it does appear that they were aware that the Brits were aware of disintegration of control over "coercive" forces.

[arnab]

BRF is such a hoot these days

JLN is being criticised for not getting close to US; MMS is being criticised for getting close to US.

MMS is being criticised for allowing the entry of foreign nuke reactors into India; Christians are being criticised for protesting the entry of reactors into india.

Westerners are being criticised for being materialistic, JLN is being criticised for pushing India into poverty through the 'non-materialstic rate of growth' in India.

In such a spectrum - small wonder we are always 'ahead of the curve'

[ldev]

^^ Very good observation!! Though not at all surprising.

On a more serious note even if Nehru had wanted to do everything that the behind the curve brigade wants, I dont think India as a country was in any position to play power politics. In 1947, it was an impoverished country with a 12% literacy rate. The greatest accomplishment was that after 1947 the country did not go through any further partitions - no small achievement given the state of the world. The biggest mistake was not letting go off Central Planning after the first 10-15 years.

[brihaspati]

^^ Very good observation!! Though not at all surprising.

On a more serious note even if Nehru had wanted to do everything that the behind the curve brigade wants, I dont think India as a country was in any position to play power politics. In 1947, it was an impoverished country with a 12% literacy rate. The greatest accomplishment was that after 1947 the country did not go through any further partitions - no small achievement given the state of the world. The biggest mistake was not letting go off Central Planning after the first 10-15 years.

If retrospective hindsight is to be laughed at - is it not similarly ridiculous to ask for letting go off central planning after the first 10-15 years? After all - if everything else done then was justified from the "special" situation the leadership was facing at the time, and it is a rotfl situation to be criticizing steps taken "then" by the leadership for all other stuff - surely then one should find "not dropping off central planning" a need of the hour? As judged by the eminent leaders who always did what was best for the country under given situations?

Why is there such a huge problem in accepting this part of JLNesque planning and vision through "central planning" when his sagacity and vision is unquestionable on all other fronts!!

[Airavat]

The US was certainly in favor of Indian independence, but they wanted a UNITED INDIA, and not a divided India which would result from an armed rebellion. In their view a balkanized India would fall an easy prey to Communism, which was the principal global threat at that time.

The US supported the INC leaders precisely because their movement was legislative and non-violent, and they believed in democracy. Therefore when the INC launched the 'Quit India' movement the US sent Colonel Louis Johnson to India to ascertain how this would affect the war effort.....Nehru assured him in the following words: "Though Gandhiji does not wish to embarrass the war situation and will not start a movement unless forced to do so, the recognition of India's independence is now essential to successfully fight the war and utilize India's great resources for it."

Colonel Johnson's reply: "You should know that Mr. Gandhi's statements are being misunderstood in the United States and are being construed as opposing our war aims."

And here people claim that launching an armed rebellion would somehow make the US an ally of the Congress portion of India!

Further reading: Shadow of the Great Game

[ldev]

Brihaspati,

Misallocation of resources.

PS: Forgive the brevity. Trying not be verbose here.

[arnab]

Brihaspati,

Misallocation of resources.

PS: Forgive the brevity. Trying not be verbose here.

to add to this - the 5 year plans worked relatively decently up until 1961, then it went on a downward spiral so to speak. Why did policy makers not change course? The answers in my opinion are:

1. intellectual hubris - the power a policy maker feels regarding their ability to influence the lives of millions. The 'lassaize faire' approach seems so shallow by comparison ; They probably tried to explain the decade of 1960s as 'atypical' due to 2 wars, famines etc.

2. Focus on equity rather than efficiency - I think focus on economic growth was eschewed in favour of income redistribution (Kaldor's committe on taxes to incease tax base etc etc). It was only in the 1990s that C Rangarajan commented that "Economic growth is the best anti-poverty program".

3. The over dependence of policy makers on leontiff input-output models and ignoring the game-theoretic approach, which would have included the impact of behavioural changes (policy making was not as sophisticated in those days) - so the outcomes achieved could be very different from what was intended, because people respond to policy changes.

4. Entrenched interest groups in the bureaucracy - by the 1970s, the services had started getting politicised and there were a lot of incentives in preserving status quo.

[surinder]

The US calculations over British India were not that complicated. US & Britain have had a long history of conflict, starting from indendence and culimanating in the Suez crisis. As SBajwa said, UK burnt the white house in 1812. US clashed on the canadian border. In the civil war, surprise surprise, UK supported the south, a very classic divide and rule. But the Yankees fought it out and neutralized it.

But this was not it. US was a puny power until the early 1900's. It's calculus was simple: for US to become a power, UK must go down. UK's main strength is her empire. The empire's crown jewel is India. US realized that unless it docolonized and cut UK to size, it will never emerge as a power.

WW2 gave US a chance to do that. US made assistance to UK pre-conditioned on UK accepting to decolonize. America was not about to fight a war to help UK retain her empire. UK was caught in a pinch, basically crushed between two rocks: On one side were the nazis ready to crush them, the other was survival with american mercy but minus the empire. They chose the latter. They amerikhans squeezed their b@@lls real hard.

When martial aid was announced, US withheld aid from Netherlands because they were refusing to exit from Indonesia. UK actually spent a lot of covert effort to manipulate the US public opinion. Massive amount of effort/money went into PR campaigns to affect public opinion. Some of the British proposals to INC, it is beleived, were basically a show for US. Churchill encouraged his daughter-in-law to have an affair with a prominent amrican to secure american assistance. (Just has Mountbatten encouraged JLN to mount his lady).

Brihaspati & Devesh are right: JLN was encouraged to be enamoured of socialism to keep Congrez/India from falling in US lap. US was encouraged to befriend TSP, since they were "their chaps". Balance of power at its highest. JLN comes out at the worst in this because he shows british disdain towards US, but not towards his master the UK. He was enamoured of USSR, we are told, but JLN and his dynasty stood by sheepishly when USSR rolled in tanks in Eastern Europe and A'stan and its Gulag's full and Stalin's pogroms were at their worst. INC never seemed to be bothered with it too much.

If India was a pragmatic nation led by pragmatic people, the confluence of interest in 1940's between India and US was a tremendous opportunity. It was a lost opportunity for India to use these geostrategic realities to get its goals met. But our leaders were living in a fools paradise.

If you want a current example of another such lost opportunity, it is spelled as I S R A E L. Which party is the most reflexively against this entity? No prizes for guessing.

[Airavat]

Roosevelts Foreign Policy Decisions, 1940-1945

Just before he was incarcerated, Gandhi sent a personal appeal to Roosevelt. In reply the President sent a sanctimonious note in which he said: "I am sure that you will agree that the United States has consistently striven for and supported principles of fair dealing, of fair play and of all related principles looking towards the creation of harmonious relations between nations. Nevertheless, now that war had come, the supreme effort must be against the Axis who would deny forever all hope of freedom in the world.” He ended with an appeal to Gandhi to make a common cause with the United States against “a common enemy.”

The violence subsided and, although the Japanese threat failed to materialize, Roosevelt did not again press Churchill for information on plans for India. At Teheran he may have tried to curry favor with Stalin by warning him against raising the question of India with Churchill as an unrepentent imperialist. The President claimed that his own view was that the solution for India would be “reform from the bottom, somewhat on the Soviet line.” Stalin seems to have been unimpressed by Roosevelt’s anti-imperialism and only commented that reform from the bottom meant revolution. At this point the issue of India’s freedom seems to have rested. Nor was there any American initiative in behalf of decolonization in other areas. Secretary of State Cordell Hull states: "At no time did we press Britain, France or The Netherlands for an immediate grant of self-government to their colonies. Our thought was that it would come after an adequate period of years, short or long, depending on that state of development of respective colonial peoples, during which these peoples could be trained to govern themselves?"

[Yayavar]

I noted the lack of active support for decolonization a few comments above. Hind-sight is all well and good but it needs to consider the realities of the time. One can analyse the errors or missed opportunities by Indian leaders and lay blame even but it is useful only if the idea is to watch out for similar errors or correct an ongoing wrong for the future. It is not helpful to make assumptions and then rue a path not taken when the path never existed.

[Sanku]

BRF is such a hoot these days

JLN is being criticised for not getting close to US; MMS is being criticised for getting close to US.

No dearest Arnab; the issue is not close or not close.

The issue is being able to play off to powers against each other for Indian intrests.

JLN toed the British line, and MMS is toeing the US line.

What we need is people toeing Indian line playing each other off.

Try and think of the world in terms of having more options than India just becoming some one's toady. Open your mind and all that.

[Airavat]

It is not helpful to make assumptions and then rue a path not taken when the path never existed.

+1

[arnab]

No dearest Arnab; the issue is not close or not close.

The issue is being able to play off to powers against each other for Indian intrests.

JLN toed the British line, and MMS is toeing the US line.

What we need is people toeing Indian line playing each other off.

Try and think of the world in terms of having more options than India just becoming some one's toady. Open your mind and all that.

Sure - and what consitutes 'indian interests' unfortunately vary when you deal with a Russophile, a francophile, a USphile or a UKphile. Which is why Russian reactors become 'good good' and US reactors 'bad bad'. Same for C-17s or T-90s
So being a 'toady' to the 'right' country depending on ones biases, is what is being debated here.

Look at the fantastic options being pedelled - JLN could have gone to the US orbit to destroy UK once and for all. Do you think other countries are static observers and will not mould behaviours to counteract these "play-offs"? Think game-theory and all that

[Sanku]

Roosevelts Foreign Policy Decisions, 1940-1945

The following is an excellent summary of facts and factors dealing with FDR/US support to Indian independence, both support and lack of it.

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=r4-U ... om&f=false

Clearly the issue of FDR being supportive for Indian independence had to be tempered with real-poltic. That we know. There was a difference between public pronouncements and private pressures and actions. As expected.

Whats the upshot? The upshot is that Nehru totally frittered away the opportunity of engaging with US to drive a bigger wedge -- what could be done for example was

1) Send a ton of Indian nationalists to plead for common cause in US. Generate public sympathy.
2) Eschew rabid leftism of Fabian socalism mold from Britain and instead opt to build bridges with US using financial conservative parts of INC.
3) Keep the pressure of British on the issue of partition, not accept a partition plan, if need be go on indefinite fasting with loss of life of MKG to tilt the balance.

Alas, none was done, actually I dont think JLN could do it, he just did not have the competency or mental wherewithal to scale up -- so in a sense this is pointless, since India had to make do with what it had, which unfortunately meant JLN at that point of time.

However that does not mean we do not carry out our own analysis instead of giving a free pass "Chacha Nehru said so therefore it must be" type of thinking.

[Sanku]

Sure - and what consitutes 'indian interests' unfortunately vary when you deal with a Russophile, a francophile, a USphile or a UKphile.

Arnab Babu, I see the concept of a Indo-phile totally escapes you. You just cant wrap your mind around the concept of some one not being one of the above.

Figures.

[Sanku]

It is not helpful to make assumptions and then rue a path not taken when the path never existed.

+1

The idea here is to show that paths existed, and just because some one said so something at some point of time, it aint the gospel truth.

[Sanku]

And here people claim that launching an armed rebellion would somehow make the US an ally of the Congress portion of India!

Airavat, who has talked about launching an armed rebellion here? Kindly do not distort, even accidentally to make your point, you are too good a poster/person for that. Some other worthies make that their mainstay tactic, but we expect a much higher standard from you.

[arnab]

Sure - and what consitutes 'indian interests' unfortunately vary when you deal with a Russophile, a francophile, a USphile or a UKphile.

Arnab Babu, I see the concept of a Indo-phile totally escapes you. You just cant wrap your mind around the concept of some one not being one of the above.

Figures.

er..and presumably you are one of this elusive breed ? What did G B Shaw say - "The more he spoke of his honesty - the faster we counted the spoons"

[arnab]

Airavat, who has talked about launching an armed rebellion here? Kindly do not distort, even accidentally to make your point, you are too good a poster/person for that. Some other worthies make that their mainstay tactic, but we expect a much higher standard from you.

umm

surinder wrote:

There is a fundamental flaw in the whole Partition narrative. A foundational flaw.

INC foreswore *any* use of violence. That meant that all they could do was negotiate, and if they did not get what they wanted, they had to just negotiate harder. They had lost all leverage.

[Sanku]

quote="arnab">>
Sure - and what consitutes 'indian interests' unfortunately vary when you deal with a Russophile, a francophile, a USphile or a UKphile.


Arnab Babu, I see the concept of a Indo-phile totally escapes you. You just cant wrap your mind around the concept of some one not being one of the above.

Figures.

er..and presumably you are one of this elusive breed ? What did G B Shaw say - "The more he spoke of his honesty - the faster we counted the spoons"

We know who is not, that much is clear, by the choice of mental models the person displays in terms of quotation from sources etc.

But can we stop discussing BRF and BRFites and go back to the topic? Why is that you folks always start bringing in personal remarks and dissing the forum whenever an exploration into the holy cow-u's of INC is undertaken?

[devesh]

Brihaspati ji,

the point about "needing" JLN is very true. if we look at other figures like Sardar, Rajendra Prasad, etc, none had the kind of "leftist" sympathies and tilt and especially, in the Indian context, leftist ideological inclinations that JLN did. the other leaders were mainly concerned with practical policies which ensured the prosperity of a nation emerging out of colonial morass. a man like Sardar or Prasad or even Sarvepalli, would not have any kind of affinity with any particular economic system like Stalin's Russia, or Fabian Socialism, etc. they had the kind of image and outlook which basically was founded on the needs of the nation, not on their personal fantasies. keeping this in mind, it was extremely important to "hoist" JLN on India and paint India as a whole with the association of Nehru and his own Leftist sympathies and leanings....

[Airavat]

umm

surinder wrote:

There is a fundamental flaw in the whole Partition narrative. A foundational flaw.

INC foreswore *any* use of violence. That meant that all they could do was negotiate, and if they did not get what they wanted, they had to just negotiate harder. They had lost all leverage.

Yeah that and somebody asked what would have happened if Gandhi had openly supported the revolutionaries.

While people keep talking about INC did this or that, what about the other parties in the provinces? Why for instance did the parties representing Sikhs also accept partition? Baldev Singh became defence minister in the government knowing full well what carnage would be unleashed against non-Muslims. Earlier he negotiated with Sikandar Hyatt Khan of the Unionist Party......Why didn't these and parties in other regions take a more violent path?

[Sanku]

Airavat, who has talked about launching an armed rebellion here? Kindly do not distort, even accidentally to make your point, you are too good a poster/person for that. Some other worthies make that their mainstay tactic, but we expect a much higher standard from you.

umm

surinder wrote:

There is a fundamental flaw in the whole Partition narrative. A foundational flaw.

INC foreswore *any* use of violence. That meant that all they could do was negotiate, and if they did not get what they wanted, they had to just negotiate harder. They had lost all leverage.

Arnab I do not have the advanced comprehension skills you and your friends like Somnath posses, but I am having a LOT OF TROUBLE getting

INC foreswore *any* use of violence. == launching an armed rebellion??????

Not foreswearing violence has been discussed here as:
1) Calling in Army at a very early level to curb Islamic rioters
2) Not calling for people to get happily butchered but saying that Indians preserved the right to self defense.
etc..

However as has been corrected, INC had no issues in using violence to protect Nehru's hide, as also to stop Hindu's from protecting themselves. Only against the British brutality and Islamist violence did the "we must not blink an eye" come about.

[devesh]

Yeah that and somebody asked what would have happened if Gandhi had openly supported the revolutionaries.

what's wrong with openly supporting revolutionaries? were they mass murderers? were they rapist goons? were they demanding secession and partition of the country? why the allergy for revolutionaries? what did Bhagat, Bose, Azad, and numerous others do that makes them deserving of such disdain from INC/Gandhi/Nehru???? and more importantly, why are you so allergic to revolutionaries which makes you gasp in fright about "what would have happened if INC supported revolutionaries"?????

[Sanku]

Airavat, please look at above post, what is not being asked for is a armed insurrection, what is being asked for is lack of selective abdication of force -- it is mischievous upon arnab's part to make the extrapolation.

Yeah that and somebody asked what would have happened if Gandhi had openly supported the revolutionaries.

There is a world of difference in support and not attacking. Gandhi was openly critical of revolutionaries. He need not have been, a statement like "those are not my methods, however to each his own" would have also gone a long long way.

..Why didn't these and parties in other regions take a more violent path?

A political party in India asking for a more violent path expressly flouting clear orders from MKG/JLN.

As it is, Hindu Mahasabha and other such parties did not share the same "dont blink an eye outlook"

[ldev]

From:

Towards Freedom:An Autobiography of Jawaharlal Nehru (New York: John Day Co., 1941), pp. 228-231

I had long been drawn to socialism and communism, and Russia had appealed to me. Much in Soviet Russia I dislike-the ruthless suppression of all contrary opinion, the wholesale regimentation, the unnecessary violence (as I thought) in carrying out various policies. But there was no lack of violence and suppression in the capitalist world, and I realized more and more how the very basis and foundation of our acquisitive society and property was violence. Without violence it could not continue for many days. A measure of political liberty meant little indeed when the fear of starvation was always compelling the vast majority of people everywhere to submit to the will of the few, to the greater glory and advantage of the latter.

Violence was common in both places, but the violence of the capitalist order seemed inherent in it; while the violence of Russia, bad though it was aimed at a new order based on peace and co­operation and real freedom for the masses. With all her blunders, Soviet Russia had triumphed over enormous difficulties and taken great strides toward this new order While the rest of the world was in the grip of the depression and going backward in some ways, in the Soviet country a great new world was being built up before our eyes. Russia, following the great Lenin, looked into the future and thought only of what was to be, while other countries lay numbed under the dead hand of the past and spent their energy in preserving the useless relics of a bygone age. In particular, I was impressed by the reports of the great progress made by the backward regions of Central Asia under the Soviet regime. In the balance, therefore, I was all in favor of Russia, and the presence and example of the Soviets was a bright and heartening phenomenon in a dark and dismal world.

I dont think Nehru needed anyone to push him towards the Soviet model of Central Planning. His admiration is plain. This was written in 1941 when the West had gone through 10 years of economic Depression, while the Soviets had industrialized their country in their 1st and 2nd Five Year plan.

[ramana]

In those days Command Economies were the fashion. In US mega corporations were the fashion.