A look back at the partition

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.
Jarita
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2260
Joined: 30 Oct 2009 22:27
Location: Andromeda

Re: A look back at the partition

Postby Jarita » 21 Nov 2009 04:44

Link on the seven exoduses from Kashmir
http://ikashmir.net/exodus/index.html
I will look at both the assassin and man behind the assassin because the assassin in this case was willing.
And yes we lost a lot in terms of culture and tradition. I don't even know the dialects that were spoken. However, the partition was the best thing for indic people. It gave us space to rediscover our roots, to recover our confidence from Dhimminess. Prior to that it was a one way stream with more and more people and territory lost but no graphic and obvious manifestation as we saw during the partition. It was a cataclysm that partially woke us up. The last such episode was when the Marathas and Sikhs took over.
People in punjab saw the writing on the way way before the 1930's. The migration had started then. Both migration and conversions were an ongoing process. I can look for enough links and research on the same.
I know a Pakistani girl with a hindu/sikh last name. She claims that her ancestor was a sikh who converted end of 19th century under coercion western Pakjab (bordering with NWFP). This was not an isolated inci.
The real tragedy is that our elders are passing away and we have not fully documented the truth. All we have is hunky dory stories from the media with pictures of sobbing long lost relatives (of course one relative converted but no one asks why). Unlike the Jews who have kept their past alive we have killed it and painted a fictional picture of what we want it to be not what it was. Many of our elders dont even talk about it anymore.

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

Re: A look back at the partition

Postby surinder » 21 Nov 2009 04:58

Jarita, the example you cite is from Kashmir, not Punjab.

You need to look at the assasin's hand, because you need to protect yourself from immediate danger. But if you do not look at the assasin's sponsor, many different assasin hand will continually keep appearing. If we can, it is best to get rid of the sponsor.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11636
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: A look back at the partition

Postby A_Gupta » 24 Nov 2009 07:06

A little late to the topic; not sure where to post it.
Quoting from http://sites.google.com/site/cabinetmissionplan/jaswantsinghgandhijinnahtalks1944
Former Foreign Minister of India, Jaswant Singh has written a 669-page book on Jinnah and the partition of India. To be frank, I do not understand a lot of his polemic in the book, especially since I find it is not supported by the primary material which he himself provides as excerpts. It appears that Jaswant Singh faults the Congress for not accepting the Cabinet Mission Plan 1946. It is not clear from Mr. Singh's book whether he understands what the Cabinet Mission Plan implied for the boundaries and defence of India vis a vis Pakistan.

It is amazing to think that a foreign minister of India believes (and perhaps believed even during his term in office) that (for instance) 'Hindustan'-'Pakistan' boundaries should have passed through Delhi, that the whole of the current Northeast should have been part of Pakistan and that the large 'Pakistan' thus created by the Cabinet Mission Plan should have had an unchangeable veto on 'Hindustan's' army, defence, and foreign affairs. It is also surprising that no one has so far asked him to explain himself to the public on this issue.

But in any case, some of the primary material he provides in his book is interesting. The material on the Gandhi-Jinnah talks of 1944 is quoted below in lieu of direct quotes from the sources he in turn quotes from. These quotes supplement the primary source material in Extra(2) - Gandhi-Jinnah talks in 1944 on defining Pakistan.

It is very difficult to argue, given any contemporaneous description of the 1944 Gandhi-Jinnah talks, that Jinnah did not want a sovereign independent Pakistan. The conclusion one is forced to reach from Jinnah's intransigence visible in these excerpts as well, is that Pakistan was not a bargaining counter which Jinnah wanted to use for further negotiation of the Muslim position within a united India. The bargaining counter which Jinnah wanted was in fact Gandhi's(or the Congress's) willingness to discuss the terms of partition and Pakistan, in order to further his(Jinnah's) cause of an independent sovereign Pakistan.

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

Re: A look back at the partition

Postby Sanku » 24 Nov 2009 12:15

It appears that Jaswant Singh faults the Congress for not accepting the Cabinet Mission Plan 1946. It is not clear from Mr. Singh's book whether he understands what the Cabinet Mission Plan implied for the boundaries and defence of India vis a vis Pakistan.


Quite frankly this one bit of criticism does appear valid on first reading however, carefully reading the book and thinking about it does clarify what Jaswant Singh is trying to say.

1) Congress is not being faulted only for not accepting the plan, the major fault is in the manner they did so. To explain, Congress dithered a lot over the plan, and sometimes showed luke warm interest and tried to go along with it. Some times tried to sabotage it and some times plainly reject it on the basis of fundamental principle. It was hence not clear what Congress considered view on the matter was, was it a matter of principles on key components? Was it a matter of practicality of implementation, both, neither? Was this because of opposition to imperialist Britian? Or because of an idea of India? Were they working with the British? Were they opposed? Did they have an alternate idea, if so did they stick to their guns on their view of India?

Compared to the same -- Jinaah and ML were far more focused (goals below), and were open to working with British if needed to achieve their ends. They therefore along with British completely outmaneuvered and defeated the Congress, which appeared too weak to push their own agenda through.

So according to Jaswant Singh, the confusion and poorly executed mess of the Cabinet plan was such a blunder that Congress Ceded the space it had created by the hard work of many a public movements and strength based on MASS movements in political positioning.

This seems to be constant refrain for Modern India, the work of the masses lost by blunder of the classes.

2) The second thought that Jaswant Singh seems to have was, there was no need to be "idealistic" about the plan perhaps, if the India that congress wanted in all its glory was not possible, rather than partition from which there would be no return, the way to go would be to seemingly accept the more federated structure and then return to the full India on the basis of the real capital of MASS support that Congress had. Congress could have taken the federated India and won elections all over on the plank of unity and used that to restore balance.


ML goals -- Their primary guiding principle was of course getting the maximum possible leverage of those practicing Islam within India, both in the Muslim majority areas as well where Muslims were minority.

Where majority they wanted power as would be granted by their numbers, in minority they wanted special status.

This being clear, the geographical grouping of state and principles for Muslim league was relatively fluid. They were open to working with British, Congress or who ever they could at the moment to get towards that goal.

The above goals were what essentially were carried over since 1857 and groomed through AMU and deoband etc and came to ML in a historical continuity.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11636
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: A look back at the partition

Postby A_Gupta » 24 Nov 2009 18:15

All I can say to the above is that working for independence by definition meant working against the British, and the Congress was unambiguous about that. The Muslim League could work with the British because it remained ambiguous about independence.

The only ambiguity (that continues till today) lies in the persistent idea that Jinnah was bargaining for a better position vis a vis Hindus in united India, and did not really want partition. The 1944 Gandhi-Jinnah talks make it very clear. Jinnah said that Muslims constitute a separate nation with a right of self-determination, and that a Muslim-only vote would determine the future of Punjab, Bengal, etc.. The Cabinet Mission Plan with its compulsory grouping of provincies would have conceded this to Jinnah.

ML goals -- Their primary guiding principle was of course getting the maximum possible leverage of those practicing Islam within India, both in the Muslim majority areas as well where Muslims were minority.

Where majority they wanted power as would be granted by their numbers, in minority they wanted special status.


The above is so misleading as to be laughable. By virtue of being a 51% majority in Punjab and a 55% majority in Bengal, the Muslim League wanted sovereignty over the whole two provinces. The guiding principle of the ML was to somehow avoid the moth-eaten Pakistan that they ended up with, and instead get all of the north-west and north-east.

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

Re: A look back at the partition

Postby Sanku » 24 Nov 2009 22:08

A_Gupta wrote:All I can say to the above is that working for independence by definition meant working against the British, and the Congress was unambiguous about that. The Muslim League could work with the British because it remained ambiguous about independence.


WHAT!!!

Congress has/had chosen time and again to work WITH the British, not till 42 was independence even on the agenda, they wanted to ask the British to give them the dominion status.

Seriously, I dont even know where that comes up with.

The only ambiguity (that continues till today) lies in the persistent idea that Jinnah was bargaining for a better position vis a vis Hindus in united India, and did not really want partition.


There is no ambiguity. ML wanted a return to Independent India under a new Mughal rule. Their charter makes it clear what their principle was.

They wanted partition only as a last resort -- when they could not get all of India on their terms.

Sanku wrote:ML goals -- Their primary guiding principle was of course getting the maximum possible leverage of those practicing Islam within India, both in the Muslim majority areas as well where Muslims were minority.

Where majority they wanted power as would be granted by their numbers, in minority they wanted special status.

The above is so misleading as to be laughable. By virtue of being a 51% majority in Punjab and a 55% majority in Bengal, the Muslim League wanted sovereignty over the whole two provinces. The guiding principle of the ML was to somehow avoid the moth-eaten Pakistan that they ended up with, and instead get all of the north-west and north-east.


If this understanding comes from the criticism you posted, clearly you need to at least actually read the book by Jaswant Singh and not quote second hand sources which I am not sure how much you understand. The sources themselves dont understand the book too much by the

Any other good book covering the period is also fine of course, it will have the same material.

Please look at what the 10 point program of ML was. Not only they wanted Sovereignty over the two provinces (of course they did -- thats obviously obvious) they ALSO wanted a 1/3 reservation + veto in areas which DID NOT have a majority.

In addition they wanted special status in the central cabinet.

Clearly you are not well informed, yet choosing to take a combatative position, rather than engage in a discussion. Given the kind of post you have made about the 1900 era, I think it is best for you to not continue this but look up what I am saying from original sources and then chose to contradict me with data.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11636
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: A look back at the partition

Postby A_Gupta » 25 Nov 2009 01:40

I've plenty of data at my finger-tips including the entire set of Transfer of Power papers. What I haven't done yet is read all of Jaswant Singh, so I'll do that first.

Post script:

With regard to the other points, what time frame are you concerned about? Both the Congress and Muslim League changed over time. I'm concerned from 1937 onwards.

But note, even in 1929, Gandhi's concept of dominion status allowed India to secede.

There is no ambiguity. ML wanted a return to Independent India under a new Mughal rule. Their charter makes it clear what their principle was.

They wanted partition only as a last resort -- when they could not get all of India on their terms.


Yes, and they all wanted to go to heaven, too. Let's be realistic about what their goals were.

If this understanding comes from the criticism you posted, clearly you need to at least actually read the book by Jaswant Singh and not quote second hand sources which I am not sure how much you understand.


This understanding comes from a lot of material including **ALL** the material posted on the website cited;
a perusal of parts of the N volumes of the Transfer of Powers papers, the collected works of Gandhi and the
collected speeches, messages and statements of Jinnah 1934- onwards.
Last edited by A_Gupta on 25 Nov 2009 02:08, edited 1 time in total.

ManuT
BRFite
Posts: 595
Joined: 22 Apr 2005 23:50

Re: A look back at the partition

Postby ManuT » 25 Nov 2009 01:51

Sanku wrote:Congress has/had chosen time and again to work WITH the British, not till 42 was independence even on the agenda, they wanted to ask the British to give them the dominion status.


Just 2 minor points I wanted make.

Err... why does India celeberate its Repulic Day on 26th January.

Second, on Dominion status, INC demand for dominion status was along the lines of dominion status for OZ, NZ, Canada and SA. As we know... OZ, NZ, Canada still have the Governor General. SA was removed after it implemented apartheid in 1948. OZ and NZ still have the Union Jack in their flags. Nominally, these 3 even today have dominion status, and not Independence from Britain. OZ has made this transition from being a penal colony.

From of the treatment of Egypt 1922 and also from the expericences of British and French 'mandates' under League of Nations, INC (under JLN) moved away from dominion status.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11636
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: A look back at the partition

Postby A_Gupta » 25 Nov 2009 02:14

Gandhi's thoughts on dominion status for public consumption:

WHAT IS IN A NAME?
December 29, 1928]

At the time of writing this (forenoon, 29th December) it is too early to give my impressions of the Congress. The events are moving and changing so fast that the impressions of the morning are nullified by those of the evening. Meanwhile, therefore, it may be well to understand the controversy raging round Dominion Status and Independence. The more I hear the arguments of those who have forced the issue, the more clearly do I see the harm that is being done by it. Up to a certain point it was perhaps health giving and necessary. It was certainly good to appreciate the fact that nothing short of independence could possibly be the goal of the nation and that therefore every advance should be interpreted in terms of independence. It follows therefore that every political change or reform that may impede the nation’s march towards independence should be rejected.

But what is the meaning of this independence? For me its meaning is swaraj. Independence is a word employed for European consumption. And those whose eyes are turned outward, whether it be towards West or East, North or South are thinking of anything but India’s independence. For finding India’s independence we must look to India and her sons and daughters, her needs, and capacity. It is obvious that the contents of her independence must therefore vary with her varying needs and increasing capacity. India’s independence therefore need not have the meaning current in the West. Italian independence is different from that of England, Sweden’s differs from both.

One thing that we need is undoubtedly freedom from British control in any shape or form. But freedom from such control of any other power is equally our need in terms of independence. The Nehru Report points the way to such freedom and it prescribes the remedy that India can assimilate today. It is a worthless document if it means anything less. Its acceptance is wholly compatible with the national goal and I venture to think that the fiercest champion of national independence can and should safely work for its full fruition. The Report is not an end in itself. It simply gives us the formula according to which we should work. It presumes concentrated ceaseless work by all the different parties before it can bear fruit.

Great confusion has been created by tearing the much abused expression ‘Dominion Status’ from its context. It is not an elixir of life to be imported from Westminster to put life into us. The expression has been used by the distinguished authors of the Report to show by analogy what in their opinion is needed for India’s political growth. The scheme of government adumbrated in the Report, whether it is known by the expression Dominion Status or any other, whilst it may fully answer our needs today, may easily fall short of them tomorrow. But it contains its own corrective. For it is a scheme to be worked out by the nation, not one to be imposed upon or thrown at her by Britain. If it fructifies, it contains all we need for future growth; hence I call it the Charter of our Independence.

After all, if the Nehru Report is consigned to oblivion, we shall still need a charter. It may be known as the charter of India’s independence and may still conceivably be much less than the Dominion Status of the Nehru Report. If what we want therefore cannot be sufficiently described by the swadeshi word swaraj, it cannot be described by any other word that can be coined. All that the man in the street should know is that he wants the scheme of government framed by the nation’s representatives without the change of a comma and then he can say with the greatest confidence: ‘What is in a name?’

That the Nehru scheme requires endorsement by the British Parliament is no defect in it. Since we are connected with Britain, we shall in every case need some sort of endorsement from her Parliament whether the scheme is to be transmutation of the present bondage into an absolutely equal partnership to be destroyed at will or whether it is to end every sort of connection with Britain. I shall always maintain that the transmutation, complete conversion, is any day a higher status than destruction. But of this later. Enough for us to learn by heart for the moment that any scheme to take us towards swaraj or if you will, independence, must be framed by us and must be accepted without a single alteration dictated by the British Parliament.
Young India, 3-1-1929


PS: Any Englishman of that time would be rightly skeptical that Congress intended that "dominion status" would mean continued British control over India. Let's not play with words. That was something that Jinnah was great at.

SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5224
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: A look back at the partition

Postby SBajwa » 25 Nov 2009 02:35

some input regarding Muslims in Punjab.

Punjabi Hindu Rajput tribes of Janjua and Minhas had fought Ghauri and Ghaznavi but
today we have Pakistani Rajputs with the same last names (Janjua and Minhas) proudly
sitting besides Ghauri and Ghaznavi missiles. why?


The punjabis were converted to islam very slowly over 700 years reaching critical mass in 1920-30s.

The 1000 years when Delhi was ruled by Turkish, Afghans and Mughals.,very few
Punjabis converted to Islam (mostly to get political/economic favours)., while majority of
muslims at the same time who converted were from UP/Haryana under the influence of Nizamudeen.

Even upto the times of Jahangir there were no Muslim majority villages in Punjab., There
were muslim "owned" villages but not Muslim majority. One example is the village of Talwandi
where Guru Nanak Dev ji was born., it is said that this village was gifted to the Rai Bular Bhatti's
ancestors by Ghauri. Rai Bular Bhatti's ancestor named Rae Bhoe was in the army of Prithviraj
Chauhan and after the battle he was so ashamed that he converted and decided to live in
Punjab. Ghauri gifted the village which was named "Rae Bhoe Di Talwandi", But Rae Bhoe made sure
that majority of his village population always remain a Hindu even upto the times of
Guru Nanak Dev ji (1470's). Guru Nanak Dev ji witnessed the barbarity of the first Mughal invasion
(Babur). here is a quote

"Guru Nanak was an eye witness to the havoc created during these invasions. Janam Sakhis
mention that he himself was taken captive at Saidpur. A line of his, outside of
Babarvani hymns, indicates that he may have been present in Lahore when the city was
given up to plunder. In six pithy words this line conveys, "For a pahar and a quarter,
i.e. for nearly four hours, the city of Lahore remained subject to death and fury" (GG, 1412).
The mention in one of the Babarvani hymns of the use of guns by the Mughals against the
Afghan defence relying mainly upon their war elephants may well be a reference to the
historic battle of Panipat which sealed the fate of the Afghan king, Ibrahim Lodhi."


Most of the muslims of India upto the times of Aurungzeb lived in cities while Hindus
lived in countryside (due to security and economic reasons).

Punjab became majority muslim only during the rule of Aurungzeb (1705 - 1730s) and after
when Sikhs were hunted and people were forcibly converted to islam.

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

Re: A look back at the partition

Postby surinder » 25 Nov 2009 03:23

SBajwa,

I think we can we say with fair amount of confidence that after Guru Teg Bahadue embraced martyrdom in Delhi & Aurunga's rule was over, forcible conversion ended in India.

What was Punjab's M %age after Auranga's departure? Did it change dramatically upuntil Ranjit Singh rose? Was it that much different when British took over in 1850? If there was a change, was it due to immigration or fertility differential? I somehow think there was not much of a fertility edge for M's. What caused the population to jump in 1920's?

I think it is important to have some idea of these population figures. The only figure I have read is in a British report which cited a pretty high %age for M's in the Punjab, somewhere in the neighborhood of 40-50% in Punjab proper. I don't have a citation ready at hand, though, but I can look for it if it is important. These numbers are vital for us to understand Partition, hence to understand Pakistan. Some rough idea of proportion might shed light on the changing fortunes of Punjab (and hence Pakistan).



BTW, today is the Shahidi Diwas of Guru Teg Bahadur Ji (9th Guru). He (and his 3 companions) were brutally martyred on this day by Aurangzeb.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21100
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: A look back at the partition

Postby Prem » 25 Nov 2009 03:39

I have a friend who use to live very close to Sheesh Ganj Gurdwara and do lot of seva . Many people dont know that huge amount of volunteers do the drain and street claning etc this day to learn humility. Wonder is that while Auranga's grave is being spit on , here mililions come to pay homage.
i think most of the Pakjabis converted somewhere around 14-15th century. The advent of Sikh Dharma must have put breaks on the conversion process in Punjab thus angering the Kazi Mullahs.

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

Re: A look back at the partition

Postby brihaspati » 25 Nov 2009 04:55

The population jump in Punjab should be explored form two angles :
(a) the protection Muslims, and especially the Ulema got under the British. Marathas are reputed to have "reconverted" or "rescued" "captives" forcibly converted. If the British were not on the scene, what would have happened in Punjab? The Khalsa kingdom would have held sway and neo-converts would have either gained courage or seen the benefits of "coming back to the fold".
(b) The surveys were being conducted under British officials. Or collated at the top by British officials. How much access did the surveyors at the lowest levels have into the interior of Muslim households? We have reports that Pathans connected to the BIA, as soldiers, and at least in one case an ordnance supplier, regularly smuggled rifles/parts/shells/cartridges into AFG tribal hands. So in spite of the legendary integrity of anyone who happened to join the BIA and promptly forgetting at least while on service, any community/ethnic loyalty - could the same have happened for Muslim personnel involved in the survey?

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

Re: A look back at the partition

Postby surinder » 25 Nov 2009 05:38

B,

(a) There is no doubt that the history of current day India would be *VERY* different had the British not shown up at the most wrong time in India.

Politically, we know for that Khalsa kingdom would have expanded Southward towards Delhi, and also taken Sindh & Baluchistan. Ranjit Singh was eyeing Sindh & B'stan, but was prevented by British counter moves. More than likely it might have come in some conflict with the Marathas, had the British not been there.

Secondly, on the socio-religious front, there is little evidence that I can see that M's were converting back. So the possibility certainly is tantalizing that M-to-Hindu/sikh conversions would take place, but there is little data that can serve as a starting data points of the extrapolation.

>> Marathas are reputed to have "reconverted" or "rescued" "captives" forcibly converted.

I am not exactly sure that the Marathas brought back anyone to the fold either. Can you tell us more details of your assertion. What were the cases & if possible the numbers of those brought back? Swami Dayanand is supposed to have done "Shudhi" of the M's, but I have not seen any evidence of that either.

I am not sure if we have ever seen any major wholescale reconversion of M's back in India. This approach has not been tried (or has not been successful) in India. Those lost, are lost forever.


(b) British population numbers may not be accurate, but they are all we seem to have. It is important to see these numbers for us to understand the dynamics of Punjab (and by extension Pakistan).

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21100
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: A look back at the partition

Postby Prem » 25 Nov 2009 06:15

surinder wrote:B,
>> Marathas are reputed to have "reconverted" or "rescued" "captives" forcibly converted.
I am not exactly sure that the Marathas brought back anyone to the fold either. Can you tell us more details of your assertion. What were the cases & if possible the numbers of those brought back? Swami Dayanand is supposed to have done "Shudhi" of the M's, but I have not seen any evidence of that either.
I am not sure if we have ever seen any major wholescale reconversion of M's back in India. This approach has not been tried (or has not been successful) in India. Those lost, are lost forever.
.


Nothing is permanent , not even ME oil. The future Shuddhi of Bhudhi or Khalsa movements from time to time will have good chance to save many lost souls living in the fear of hell . They will be happy to come back once unshattered and taste the spirit of freedom .

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

Re: A look back at the partition

Postby brihaspati » 25 Nov 2009 06:24

Surinder,
Khafi Khan and Manucci both state that Marathas used to capture Muslim women because, according to them, "the Mahomedans had interfered with Hindu women in (their) territories". Farishta also refers to "Muslim" women being captured by "Hindus" and "taken".

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

Re: A look back at the partition

Postby brihaspati » 25 Nov 2009 06:32

Surinder, another ref to something you asked me a while ago - about arms being available and common in common Indian hands before the advent of the Raj :

In 1632, Peter Mundy, [Peter Mundy, Travels] states that he saw in Kanpur region, "labourers with their guns, swords and bucklers lying by them while they ploughed the ground". Manucci states in Akbar's time, that he saw the villagers of the Mathura region fighting against Mughal revenue-collectors: "The women stood behind their husbands with spears and arrows, when the husband had shot off his matchlock, his wife handed him the lance, while she reloaded the matchlock."

I will post more as I trawl my old references.

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

Re: A look back at the partition

Postby Sanku » 25 Nov 2009 12:20

A_Gupta, you are right playing with words is what Jinaah did best and look where it got him.

Ignore and dismiss it as unimportant at your own peril.

The whole disagreement was based on the your statement that Congress was working against the British. Fundamentally thats flawed -- the congress was working towards a Goal of Indian say in India and was open to working with the British to get there.

Again it was not working against the British in the sense that Suyra Sen or Bhagat Singh were working against the British. Congress had no problems making deals with the British, attending conferences and joining governements and such like. In contrast Veer Savarkars of the world were being chased all over the world and rotting in Kala pani.

They had a political approach of convincing the British to meet their goals, not a combative one. The goal themselves changed from home rule, to self rule to dominion status to complete independence as the public mood changed. The document you post of Gandhi's view are AS LATE AS 1928 and signify a shift in his views.

Note this is not a criticism of Congress but merely a observation on their methods.

Finally, to get back on track
1) The commentary on Jaswant Singhs book is only superficially correct -- but not in depth correct.
2) Congress was significantly out maneuvered by ML during the 40s
3) The goals of ML are REAL to THEM, any ones opinion of their realism is irrelevant. This is the same trap Nehru fell into. The goals of ML form the BEDROCK of Pakistani world view TODAY. Ignoring this is ignoring truth at your own peril.

SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5224
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: A look back at the partition

Postby SBajwa » 25 Nov 2009 20:21

The only figure I have read is in a British report which cited a pretty high %age for M's in the Punjab, somewhere in the neighborhood of 40-50% in Punjab proper.


True!! but What is punjab? I think during british times all the territory from Delhi to river Indus was considered Punjab (including the current Western UP, Himachal Pardesh, some parts of Uttaranchal).

At then end of Aurungzeb's rule we had Hindu and Muslim villages (by majority population) all over Punjab.

May be the names can give some clue.. from this website

(www.mypind.com) Just the amritsar district below

http://www.mypind.com/vlamrit.htm

anywhere you see a word named "Kalan" attached it means "Bigger" and "Khurd" means "Smaller" i.e

Kot Dharam Chand Kalan
Kot Dharam Chand Khurd

Kot means "place" Dharm Chand is the name

Here is an intersting village name in Amritsar district "Ram Diwali Musalmanan "

http://amritsar.nic.in/

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

Re: A look back at the partition

Postby surinder » 25 Nov 2009 21:07

I understand that the term Punjab for the British when the liquidated the Sikh empire was the Punjab controlled by the Lahore Kingdom: This would be the PUnjab north of Sutlej, which would include Paki Punjab, Indian Punjab, most of Himachal, but not include Kashmire, Jammu, or Pashtun areas. It might include the cis-Satluj states of Nabha, Jind, Patiala etc. In other words, I think it would be what we called Punjab at the eve of Independence. That is my thinking, but one can search for these documents and it can indicate relative population trends.

Yes, I have noticed village & town names in Punjab whcih show a remarkable shift of religious affiliation: When you travel from Delhi to PUnjab, you see labels which say "Rasulda", "Mullanpur", "Ahmedgarh", etc. Also, most folk hereos and stories of love are from a certain faith (Sassi-Pannu, Heer-Ranjha, Sohni-Mahiwal, etc.). Population wise, Punjab was already lost, enemy territory, by 1700's. Militarily, we lost it in 1850. Cartographically, we lost it in 1947.

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

Re: A look back at the partition

Postby surinder » 25 Nov 2009 21:14

brihaspati wrote:Surinder, another ref to something you asked me a while ago - about arms being available and common in common Indian hands before the advent of the Raj :

In 1632, Peter Mundy, [Peter Mundy, Travels] states that he saw in Kanpur region, "labourers with their guns, swords and bucklers lying by them while they ploughed the ground". Manucci states in Akbar's time, that he saw the villagers of the Mathura region fighting against Mughal revenue-collectors: "The women stood behind their husbands with spears and arrows, when the husband had shot off his matchlock, his wife handed him the lance, while she reloaded the matchlock."


B,

As I read more & more on the history of various peoples, it is dawning on me that a disarmed population is a recipe for disaster. If these accounts are to be beleived to be respresentative, not incidental, then it appears that India resistance was pretty high. Probably higher than now. No wonder that none other than Swami Vivekananda himself castigated the British for disarming India.

I can also add that when British defeated the Sikh Kingdom, their first step was to disarm the population. The British were *VERY* *VERY* nervous of Indians being armed. They were very incomfortable with the Sikh requirement of wearing the Kirpan. It is said that they worked they managed to reduce the length of the Kirpan to a small length. Apparently, before the british came, those who are baptized wore full sword-length long Kirpans, not the short ones now in fashion.

Post-Independence GoI, or INC, carried on with the British discomfort of an armed population. Armed population will never have suffred the massacres 1947, 1984, or KP cleansing from Kashmir.

Most Indians today will have grown up, not having even seen a weapon, let alone use it.

B, I would be interested in more citations, if you can find them without too much difficulty.
Last edited by surinder on 25 Nov 2009 22:34, edited 1 time in total.

Jarita
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2260
Joined: 30 Oct 2009 22:27
Location: Andromeda

Re: A look back at the partition

Postby Jarita » 25 Nov 2009 21:31

Disarming of the population not only hurt us against the British but also against the Jihadis.
There has also been a masisve decline in martial arts of India. Surinder, you must be familiar with Ghatka and other martial arts of Pnjab of which today we have barely any proponents (these were taught to kids as young as 5 and Ive met one such kid - he could bring down a grown up man with the sheer strength in his body).
This was further reinstated with the Gandhi Messiah model.
I've mentioned this before. We have to arm ourselves.

Vikas
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6555
Joined: 03 Dec 2005 02:40
Location: Where DST doesn't bother me
Contact:

Re: A look back at the partition

Postby Vikas » 25 Nov 2009 21:39

Aha! exactly what RM ji had suggested in one of the thread. Let commoners own weapons. Disarming the population and considering everyone as future criminal only makes owning of weapons go underground and with criminals.
IMO We need a nation with martial instincts and not non-violent types who can take hit but never strike back.
After all this nation not only produced Buddha, Ashoka and Gandhi but also Samudra gupta, Shivaji and Chandrasekhar Azad.

Jarita
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2260
Joined: 30 Oct 2009 22:27
Location: Andromeda

Re: A look back at the partition

Postby Jarita » 25 Nov 2009 21:43

Thing is we all need to be vestibules of our traditions. For all of proposing martial spirit etc we can atleast start with ourselves - learn an Indian martial art or even learn to use guns.

Jarita
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2260
Joined: 30 Oct 2009 22:27
Location: Andromeda

Re: A look back at the partition

Postby Jarita » 27 Nov 2009 08:40

Please excuse me if this article has been featured


http://www.newstatesman.com/asia/2009/0 ... j-pakistan
Hindu India was entering its most difficult phase of its whole existence. Its religion, which is to a great extent superstition and formalism, is breaking down. If the precedents of history mean anything . . . then we may well expect, in the material world of today, that a material philosophy such as Communism will fill the void left by the Hindu religion.

Tucker was hardly alone among Raj officials. By then, it was almost an orthodoxy to believe that Hinduism was, if not an evil force, at least spent and worthless. Islam, on the other hand, was a religion the west could understand and with whose political leaders it could do business.
Rudyard Kipling, the great chronicler of the Raj, had long made clear his fondness for Muslims and his distrust of Hindus. He was appalled by the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, the two great Hindu classics, and repulsed by the jumble of the faith’s beliefs. In contrast, Kipling claimed that he had never met an Englishman who hated Islam and its people, for “where there are Muslims there is a comprehensive civilisation”.
The British had seized power in the subcontinent mainly from Muslim rulers, and the crushing of the 1857 revolt, after which the last Mughal emperor was removed, put paid to any chance of Muslim revival. By the beginning of the 20th century, however, the Muslims had become the allies of the Raj as it struggled to quell the agitation for freedom led by the Indian National Congress. The Raj encouraged the formation of the Muslim League and determinedly portrayed the INC as a Hindu party, despite its constant promotion of its secular credentials and advertisement of its Muslim leaders. (True, the party was mostly made up of Hindus; but as India was overwhelmingly Hindu, this was hardly surprising. The Raj just could not believe that a party made up largely of Hindus could be truly secular.)

Such was the hatred for the Hindus, particularly Brahmins, that the Raj could not be shaken from this fixation – even when the Congress Party had political victories in diehard Muslim provinces, the most remarkable of which was in the North-West Frontier Province. Today, parts of the province (which voted to join Pakistan in 1947) are adopting sharia law, but in the 1930s a secular Muslim movement had grown up there, led by Ghaffar Khan and his brother Khan Sahib. They joined the Congress Party and won successive election victories from 1937 onwards, defeating established Muslim parties.

But the Raj pictured these secular Muslims as dupes of the wily Hindus. The only consolation for Sir Olaf Caroe, considered to be the supreme Raj expert on the local Pashtuns, was that they would soon come to their senses, “It is hard to see how the Pathan [Pashtun] tradition could reconcile itself for long to Hindu leadership, by so many regarded as smooth-faced, pharisaical and double-dealing . . . How then could he [the Pathan] have associated himself with a party under Indian, even Brahmin, inspiration . . .”

arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

Re: A look back at the partition

Postby arnab » 27 Nov 2009 11:11

Has this been posted before?

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad: The Man Who Knew The Future Of Pakistan Before Its Creation


Maulana A K Azad's interview in April 1946 to shorish Kashmiri

http://newageislam.org/NewAgeIslamWarOn ... cleID=2139

Q: Maulana, what is wrong if Pakistan becomes a reality? After all, “Islam” is being used to pursue and protect the unity of the community


I feel that right from its inception, Pakistan will face some very serious problems:

1. The incompetent political leadership will pave the way for military dictatorship as it has happened in many Muslim countries.

2. The heavy burden of foreign debt.

3. Absence of friendly relationship with neighbours and the possibility of armed conflict.

4. Internal unrest and regional conflicts.

5. The loot of national wealth by the neo-rich and industrialists of Pakistan.

6. The apprehension of class war as a result of exploitation by the neo-rich.

7. The dissatisfaction and alienation of the youth from religion and the collapse of the theory of Pakistan.

8. The conspiracies of the international powers to control Pakistan.

In this situation, the stability of Pakistan will be under strain and the Muslim countries will be in no position to provide any worthwhile help. The assistance from other sources will not come without strings and it will force both ideological and territorial compromises.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23772
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: A look back at the partition

Postby SSridhar » 27 Nov 2009 13:33

Jarita wrote:The British had seized power in the subcontinent mainly from Muslim rulers, and the crushing of the 1857 revolt, after which the last Mughal emperor was removed, put paid to any chance of Muslim revival. By the beginning of the 20th century, however, the Muslims had become the allies of the Raj as it struggled to quell the agitation for freedom led by the Indian National Congress. The Raj encouraged the formation of the Muslim League and determinedly portrayed the INC as a Hindu party, despite its constant promotion of its secular credentials and advertisement of its Muslim leaders.


In fact, the predecessors to the Raj, the British East India Company, who accumulated relentlessly Indian princely states, often dubbed themselves as extension of Mughal rulers, though the Mughal empire had practically passed into the hands of the Mahrattas by that time.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16859
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: A look back at the partition

Postby Rahul M » 27 Nov 2009 19:33

A_Gupta wrote:I've plenty of data at my finger-tips including the entire set of Transfer of Power papers. ......


gupta ji, it was my understanding that those were yet to be made public and are yet to be declassified. IIRC 1997 was the date up to which it was kept classified starting from 1947 and the date was subsequently extended by 15 years, that is 2012.

could you kindly clarify what exactly you are speaking of in this case ?
TIA.

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

Re: A look back at the partition

Postby brihaspati » 27 Nov 2009 20:55

^^^I think so too. They are still classified. And their extension of "classification" could continue. Hopefully we will not have missing documents like in the case of "Bose". Isn't it surprising that our glorious leadership who were paragins of integrity and had nothing to hide, have so much to hide even long after their death?

As for those wishing for martial arts training, let us be realistic. Build in the fact that those against whom you may have to resist will be armed with AK47's, or field assault rifles and semi-automatics, or grenades at the minimum. Fighting is not just about bravery or dying or giving one big smash. It is about the ability to sustain smashing until you turn your enemy into dust, non-existent, never able to revive. You need to maintain your capacity to hit back until the enemy is completely destroyed.

Even the V5 manuals do not give protection against projectiles from a distance. All martial arts mostly concentrate and rely on physical contact or proximity.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11636
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: A look back at the partition

Postby A_Gupta » 27 Nov 2009 21:54

Rahul:

Mansergh, N.; Lumby, E. W. R.; and Moon, Penderel, eds. India: The Transfer of Power 1942-1947. 12 vols. London: HMSO, 1970-1983.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11636
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: A look back at the partition

Postby A_Gupta » 27 Nov 2009 21:56

Such was the hatred for the Hindus, particularly Brahmins, that the Raj could not be shaken from this fixation – even when the Congress Party had political victories in diehard Muslim provinces, the most remarkable of which was in the North-West Frontier Province.


Winston Churchill's reaction to Congress victories was rather extreme, I am told.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16859
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: A look back at the partition

Postby Rahul M » 27 Nov 2009 22:03

^^ that contains the body of the agreement which was signed by INC leaders on behalf of the Indian Union ? namely the transfer of power agreement ?

Jarita
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2260
Joined: 30 Oct 2009 22:27
Location: Andromeda

Re: A look back at the partition

Postby Jarita » 27 Nov 2009 22:47

brihaspati wrote:^^^I think so too. They are still classified. And their extension of "classification" could continue. Hopefully we will not have missing documents like in the case of "Bose". Isn't it surprising that our glorious leadership who were paragins of integrity and had nothing to hide, have so much to hide even long after their death?

As for those wishing for martial arts training, let us be realistic. Build in the fact that those against whom you may have to resist will be armed with AK47's, or field assault rifles and semi-automatics, or grenades at the minimum. Fighting is not just about bravery or dying or giving one big smash. It is about the ability to sustain smashing until you turn your enemy into dust, non-existent, never able to revive. You need to maintain your capacity to hit back until the enemy is completely destroyed.

Even the V5 manuals do not give protection against projectiles from a distance. All martial arts mostly concentrate and rely on physical contact or proximity.


The mujahideen was able to shoot at the soviets and withstand their assault till they were ribbons. They had a secret ingredient - opium

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2991
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: A look back at the partition

Postby Kanson » 27 Nov 2009 22:53

arnab wrote:Has this been posted before?

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad: The Man Who Knew The Future Of Pakistan Before Its Creation


Maulana A K Azad's interview in April 1946 to shorish Kashmiri

http://newageislam.org/NewAgeIslamWarOn ... cleID=2139



What a foresight he had....truly amazing.

dipak
BRFite
Posts: 199
Joined: 31 Dec 2008 19:18

Re: A look back at the partition

Postby dipak » 28 Nov 2009 00:23

arnab wrote:I feel that right from its inception, Pakistan will face some very serious problems:

1. The incompetent political leadership will pave the way for military dictatorship as it has happened in many Muslim countries.

2. The heavy burden of foreign debt.

3. Absence of friendly relationship with neighbours and the possibility of armed conflict.

4. Internal unrest and regional conflicts.

5. The loot of national wealth by the neo-rich and industrialists of Pakistan.

6. The apprehension of class war as a result of exploitation by the neo-rich.

7. The dissatisfaction and alienation of the youth from religion and the collapse of the theory of Pakistan.

8. The conspiracies of the international powers to control Pakistan.

In this situation, the stability of Pakistan will be under strain and the Muslim countries will be in no position to provide any worthwhile help. The assistance from other sources will not come without strings and it will force both ideological and territorial compromises.


He was true visionary - all his words are proven prophetic, except the bold portion - rather opposite is there in full swing.

Jarita
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2260
Joined: 30 Oct 2009 22:27
Location: Andromeda

Re: A look back at the partition

Postby Jarita » 28 Nov 2009 01:25

Maulana Azad and Deoband also had a vested interest in an unpartitioned India

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53881
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: A look back at the partition

Postby ramana » 01 Dec 2009 03:14

dipak wrote:
arnab wrote:I feel that right from its inception, Pakistan will face some very serious problems:

1. The incompetent political leadership will pave the way for military dictatorship as it has happened in many Muslim countries.

2. The heavy burden of foreign debt.

3. Absence of friendly relationship with neighbours and the possibility of armed conflict.

4. Internal unrest and regional conflicts.

5. The loot of national wealth by the neo-rich and industrialists of Pakistan.

6. The apprehension of class war as a result of exploitation by the neo-rich.

7. The dissatisfaction and alienation of the youth from religion and the collapse of the theory of Pakistan.

8. The conspiracies of the international powers to control Pakistan.

In this situation, the stability of Pakistan will be under strain and the Muslim countries will be in no position to provide any worthwhile help. The assistance from other sources will not come without strings and it will force both ideological and territorial compromises.


He was true visionary - all his words are proven prophetic, except the bold portion - rather opposite is there in full swing.


As a true real red-blooded maulana (he was born in Jeddah now in KSA) he is worried that the eventual collapse of TSP will lead to disenchantment of Muslim youth from Islam and that would be reversal of Qasim's invasion.

In addition to peace, TSP should be destroyed to make his prediction complete.

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3548
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

Re: A look back at the partition

Postby Paul » 01 Dec 2009 03:17

He was a true Deobandi who wanted to do Jehad while staying within the tent. A true muslim follows his her own version of white man's burden...fight to convert the land to dar ul islam.

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3548
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

Re: A look back at the partition

Postby Paul » 13 Dec 2009 05:41

Ramana wrote:Also isn't this eerily similar to how Partition happened in Punjab and Bengal? The people never thought it would come about and went along with the demands thinking its all fun and games. Suddenly a decision is announced and all hell breaks lose.


A 24 carat nugget from Ramana....now that it really happened in front of our eyes...helps us understand the power play between the elites. Replace the Brits then with INC for the AP/Telengana mess and it all becomes crystal clear.

Muppalla
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7084
Joined: 12 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: A look back at the partition

Postby Muppalla » 13 Dec 2009 05:46

^^^^

That is the thrust in the book written by JS in his first book.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Shakthi, UlanBatori and 80 guests