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.
niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5535
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by niran »

SanjayC wrote:Reading this, one realizes how delusion that Nehru turd was, refusing to accept reality that went against his woolly headed worldview, and what a fundamentalist supporter of Muslims he was, compromising the interests of Hindus at every opportunity. How did such a rabid anti-Hindu man managed to become the leader of a Hindu majority India?
not delusional Sir, most cunning turd sir, he and half dhoti managed to fool Indians and still fools Indians, any person/s who manages to fool such numbers of people for so long cannot be delusional but most cunning. the plan was simple given them coolies a brown sahib as rulers (rulers sirs, not Government heads) who as Gora stooge will do the Gora's bidding and while them coolies can think themselves "independent" one small e.g.

why was BCCI formed?
Ans- to keep the tribute flowing of course

why did not INC change the administration system to suit Indian environment?
Ans- to keep coolies as coolies of course

hope you get the hint sir.
sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6088
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by sanjaykumar »

https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/05/26/pa ... ce-gandhi/


Rarely is it that an article is factually wrong or half-true in every sentence. This Muslim has done it!
Sachin
Webmaster BR
Posts: 8963
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Undisclosed

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by Sachin »

sanjaykumar wrote:Rarely is it that an article is factually wrong or half-true in every sentence. This Muslim has done it!
From the article you posted..
Muslims, who formed a little under a quarter of the 400 million citizens of pre-independence India, could judge from Congress’s electoral victories in the 1930s what life would look like if the party took over from the British: Hindus would control Parliament and the bureaucracy, the courts and the schools; they’d favor their co-religionists with jobs, contracts, and political favors.
Then what was this joker thinking? That Indian Hindus would chase away the British and give every thing back to the useless Mughal dynasty to run the show? The sense of entitlement of these folks are seen to be believed. If Nehru and Gandhi's policy helped in keeping such folks as a separate country (to stew in their own juice), that may be one wise thing they did :P.
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12056
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by A_Gupta »

http://asiasociety.org/blog/asia/video- ... ut-kashmir
Asia Society discussion (scroll to the bottom for the full video): Nisid Hajari, author of the recently published Midnight’s Furies: The Deadly Legacy of India's Partition, former Ambassador of Pakistan to the United States Husain Haqqani, and CNN host Fareed Zakaria.

PS: some commentary on that discussion:
http://sadhanag.blogspot.com/2015/06/co ... on-on.html
Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3800
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by Paul »

Rahmat Ali's vision for Pakistan...In addition Jinnah wanted land corridors to connect these enclaves in India.

Image
Varoon Shekhar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2178
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 23:26

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by Varoon Shekhar »

"Hindus would control Parliament and the bureaucracy, the courts and the schools; they’d favor their co-religionists with jobs, contracts, and political favors."

The British gave Moslems jobs out of proportion to their numbers in areas like the civil service, police and military. This would now end in a Hindu majority, independent, democratic set up. The Hindus were already ahead, before the 1937 elections, in education, wealth and private sector jobs, even some British controlled government jobs.
Varoon Shekhar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2178
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 23:26

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by Varoon Shekhar »

[
PS: some commentary on that discussion:
http://sadhanag.blogspot.com/2015/06/co ... on-on.html[/quote]

The pro-Pakistani twit who comments on Sadhana's response to the discussion, says absolutely nothing. Even blames Hindus and Gandhi for provoking the Kohat killings by the conversion activities of some Hindus. So the mere conversion or attempt to convert, Moslems becomes a provocation and justification for Moslems to riot and rampage. No alternative info about the murder of Allah Baksh. Also, gratuitous accusation that Patel and Congress instigated the direct action day in Calcutta in 1946. What about the fact that Suhrawardy was constantly threatening violence, and only helped Gandhi control the violence, after it was seen that Moslems were suffering casualties in Calcutta. Before that, Suhrawardy and the League thought they had the upper hand.
Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4832
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by Yayavar »

Varoon Shekhar wrote:"Hindus would control Parliament and the bureaucracy, the courts and the schools; they’d favor their co-religionists with jobs, contracts, and political favors."

The British gave Moslems jobs out of proportion to their numbers in areas like the civil service, police and military. This would now end in a Hindu majority, independent, democratic set up. The Hindus were already ahead, before the 1937 elections, in education, wealth and private sector jobs, even some British controlled government jobs.
It is the colonial pattern - favour one set and then when the foreign ruler leaves there is a problem. Tamil-Sinhala problem in SL has similar antecedents. The complaint by separatists in Punjab that the representation in the Army went down over time not recognizing that now it was a more open process etc. etc.
member_19686
BRFite
Posts: 1330
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by member_19686 »

5 Things you didn’t know about Winston Churchill and the Islamic World

1. Churchill regularly played polo with Indian Muslims and Sheiks while he was a soldier.

When Churchill was stationed in India as a subaltern in 1896, he, like most British cavalry officers, was an avid polo player. In a letter to his mother on 12 November 1896, Churchill was happy to announce that the 4th Queen’s Own Hussars (for whom he played) won a polo tournament for the Golconda Cup in Hyderabad and that this victory was a record because ‘no English Regiment ever… won a first class tournament within a month of their arrival in India.’ Churchill told his mother he would send pictures of the event and that she would be able to see him ‘fiercely struggling with turbaned warrior.’ The ‘turbaned warriors’ Churchill, later recalled, were the ‘famous Golconda Brigade, the bodyguards of the Nizam himself.’ (The photographic evidence of this in the Churchill Archives Centre in Cambridge.) Churchill greatly enjoyed polo matches with the native Indian Army officers and even returned to play in the Inter-Regimental Tournament in February 1899, when he stayed with Sir Pertab Singh (the Maharaja of Idar, a British Indian Army officer, and a polo enthusiast) for a week prior to the tournament.

2. He tried to fight for the Ottoman Empire in the Greco -Turkish war of 1897

By 28 April 1897, Churchill made up his mind to fight on the side of the Ottomans and asked his mother to send money to the Ottoman bank. However, he feared the Balkan War would be over too soon for him to get involved. Churchill met Ian Hamilton (later Sir General Ian Hamilton) on the transfer boat, and while Hamilton had promised his service to Greece, Churchill had promised his to Turkey. While Churchill’s peculiar allegiance to Turkey largely owes to his lust for glory, an additional explanation might be that he inherited a ‘Turkophile’ attitude from his father. Some historians have dismissed such connections, arguing that ‘subalterns are often Turkophile’ but regardless, the two men shared little love for one another on the boat ride due to their conflicting alliances. Interestingly, Churchill himself recalled the incident years later, saying that Hamilton was a ‘romantic’ and was thus ‘for the Greeks,’ while Churchill ‘having been brought up a Tory… was for the Turks.’ However, their formal confrontation was not to be, for by the time they reached their port of call at Port Said in Egypt, the war was over. Churchill lamented his lost adventure in a letter to his mother in late May 1897: ‘I have reluctantly had to give up all hopes of Turkey as the war has fizzled out like a damp firework.’

3. He used to dress up as an Arab Bedouin at Wilfrid S Blunt’s estate in Sussex

It is remarkable that such an eccentric character like Wilfrid Scawen Blunt and Winston Churchill were friends in the first place. Churchill was a rising star in the Edwardian political scene and Blunt had become “the avatar for anti-imperial causes” and an active force for the “regeneration of Islam” by means of “agitation and negotiation as well as by poetry and horse breeding.” Perhaps even more bizarre was that they would dress as Arabs and would wander around Blunt’s estate in Sussex pitching tents and pretending to be Bedouins. This first occurred in 5 July 1904 and continued as a tradition until Blunt’s death in 1922. For instance, Blunt recorded in his diary for 19 Oct 1912, ‘It was a fine night and we dined in the bungalow , dressed in gorgeous Oriental garments , Clementine [Churchill] is a suit of embroidered silk, purchased last year in Smyrna, Winston [Churchill] in one of my Bagdad robes…Winston was very brilliant in all this .’

4. Churchill’s sister-in-law was afraid he might convert to Islam

Churchill’s curious fascination with Islamic culture even became obvious to others around him. He received a letter from his long-time friend and soon-to-be sister-in-law, Lady Gwendoline Bertie on 27 August 1907 who was perhaps alarmed at Churchill’s new relationship with Wilfrid S Blunt. In her letter, she explained she was afraid that Churchill was so fascinated by ‘Oriental cultiure’ that he might actually convert to Islam:

‘Please don’t become converted to Islam; I have noticed in your disposition a tendency to orientalism, pasha-like tendencies, I really have; you are not cross my writing this, so if you come in contact with Islam, your conversion might be effected with greater ease than you might have supposed, call of the blood, don’t you know what I mean, do… fight against it.’

5. He defended Muslim civil rights in British India during the 1930s

Sure everyone knows that Winston Churchill tried to keep India in the British Empire in the 1930s and that he developed a real grudge against Mahatma Gandhi calling him ‘a half-naked fakir’ and a ‘seditious Middle Temple lawyer.’ However, what most people don’t know was that one of the dimensions of Churchill’s argument for keeping India within the Empire was his defence of Muslim civil rights.

Churchill’s relationship with India’s Muslims is far more complex than the traditional narrative indicates. Far from lumping all of India’s groups together as non-differential imperial subjects, Churchill distinguished between the different ethnic and religious communities of India. Like many of his contemporaries, Churchill typically favoured the Muslims due to their status as a “martial race”. This was a recurring theme throughout Churchill’s speeches during the 1930s when he referred to Muslims as “men of martial nature”, members of a “fighting race”. Moreover, Churchill held on to this idea of courageous and loyal Muslim soldiers through World War I and after. In his note on “the importance of fair dealings with Moslems of India”, he recalled that: “During the Great War the Moslems of India confounded the hopes of their disloyalty entertained by the Germans and their Turkish ally and readily went to the colours; the Punjab alone furnished 180,000 Moslem recruits.”

Though Churchill was heavily influced by books like Mother India by Catherine Mayo, the most important influences which helped shape Churchill’s defence of British rule in India were his various friendships with prominent Muslims such as the Aga Khan, Baron Headley (president of the British Muslim Society), Waris Ameer Ali (a London judge), Feroz Khan Noon (a future Prime Minister of Pakistan) and even M.A. Jinnah — the so-called father of Pakistan.”

While the Aga Khan and Baron Headley connected Churchill to important pro-Islamic groups such as the British Muslim Society, the greatest influence on Churchill’s thinking regarding the Muslim population of India was probably Waris Ali. Waris Ali and Churchill became good friends whose correspondence lasted into the post-war years, and they worked closely together on the Indian Empire Society, which later became a part of the Indian Defence League. Waris Ali used his connections in India to keep Churchill informed of Muslim opinion on the ground in India, and continually sent Churchill information which Churchill would then use in the House of Commons as evidence of the necessity of British rule. For Instance, on 12 April 1931, Waris Ali wrote to Churchill regarding the Cawnpore Massacre saying that the Cawnpore riots were a “well thought-out […] programme for […] the terrorisation of the Muslim minority into submission and surrender of their demand for effective safeguards in the future constitution of India”. Within a month Churchill addressed an audience in Kent thus: “Look at what happened at Cawnpore […] A hideous primordial massacre has been perpetrated by the Hindus on the Moslems because the Moslems refused to join in the glorification of the murder of a British policeman.”

Furthermore, the aspects of Churchill’s position which might be characterised as concern for the Muslim minority were informed by Ali and were evident in his portrayal of the Indian Congress Party, of which he later said that it “does not represent India. It does not represent the majority of people in India. It does not even represent the Hindu masses. Outside that Party and fundamentally opposed to it are 90 million Moslems in British India who have their rights to self-expression.” Churchill himself implied that Waris Ali had influenced his position, saying to Ali that he had “availed himself fully of [his letters and articles]” and that he planned “to recur to him” if he needed more help in Parliament.

Clearly, Churchill’s connection to prominent Indian Muslims had a major impact on his views of Indian independence. While Churchill’s opposition to Indian independence was not completely motivate by Muslim civil rights (he was still a Victorian imperialist after all), as an issue it certainly help characterize, and may have been an attempt to legitimatize his views on them British Empire in India.

For more interesting facts on Winston Churchill and the Islamic World out my book, Winston Churchill and the Islamic World: Orientalism, Empire and Diplomacy in the Middle East (I.B. Tauris, 2014).

http://warrendockter.com/5-things-you-d ... mic-world/
Churchill's jihadi friend Waris Ameer Ali referred to above was a Shia, son of Syed Ameer Ali:

Image

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1 ... ode=raaf20
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by ramana »

Wow one post that captures all the villans in one place: Churchill, Wilfrid Blunt, Waris Ali and Olaf Caroe!!!!!

By getting rid of Netaji Bose the Congress had no idea what they were up against.

Basically Blunt and Churchill wanted to revive the Islamo-Arabic empire as a British protectorate to keep the British Empire going.

Hitler invasion of Poland threw all this prep work down the drain.
SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5777
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by SBajwa »

wig
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2162
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by wig »

http://www.dailyexcelsior.com/padmavati-jauhar-mirpur/

the massacre of innocent Hindu women , children in Mirpur on 25 Nov 1947 by Muslim mercenaries is described in this article. after the muslims murdered their menfolk, women threw their children and then themselves into the cold waters of the Jhelum to escape from the clutches of rapacious muslims.
There is a Hindu tradition called Jauhar that originated in Chitod (Rajasthan) and was adopted by Hindu women of committing suicide by either jumping into fires, wells, or rivers to avoid falling into the hands of invading Muslim soldiers. Jauhar of Rani Padmini, Rani Karnavati and other brave women of Chitod is well documented and is shown on TV series and a controversial movieOn November 25, 1947, Pathans mercenaries supported by Pakistani army captured my birthplace Mirpur. Around 10,000 Hindu and Sikhs were made prisoners and marched on foot towards notorious Alibeg Prison. On the way hundreds of brave Hindu women committed Jauhar by jumping into Upper Jhelum Canal (Pakistan). Except for my book, there is no record of those brave women. I hope Indian leaders and historians will remember the Jauhar of brave Hindu women of Mirpur. Following are excerpts from chapter 8 of my book “Forgotten Atrocities: Memoirs of a Survivor of the 1947 Partition of India.”
“On November 28 at midnight, in the village of Thathal, the Pakistani soldiers woke us up and ordered us to march in the direction of Alibeg, which was about ten miles away. The Pakistanis had decided to march the Hindu and Sikh prisoners during the night to avoid detection by India Air Force airplanes.
The caravan of prisoners walked all night under the surveillance of the Pakistani soldiers. In the darkness, many local armed Muslims sporadically attacked the caravan. They randomly pulled Hindu and Sikh men, killed them with their swords or axes and abducted Hindu and Sikh women. Any Hindu who tried to protect the women was killed. I saw Muslims kill my mother’s uncle, Khem Chand Bhagotra, because he was trying to save his daughter-in-law from being kidnapped. I also saw Muslims shoot dead another of my mother’s uncles, Mukund Lal Sootwala, when he tried to protect his daughter from being kidnapped. In the twilight hours, we reached the Upper Jhelum canal, which was the border between Kashmir and Pakistan. Both the women jumped into Jhelum. We were still walking within the borders of Kashmir, but at some point, because of the difficult terrain, we were forced to cross a bridge and enter Pakistani territory.
As we traversed the bridges over the Jhelum, hundreds of captured Hindu women and young girls jumped and committed suicide to avoid abduction and rape by the Pakistanis. I could see dead bodies floating in the frigid waters of the canal. Some women still stood on the edge of the bridge with forlorn looks on their faces and others were standing near the banks of the canal.
They threw their children first into the fast flowing waters and seemed impervious to the shrieks and yelling of their own infants. As the children floated down the stream, their heads came up once or twice before the canal gobbled them up. The mothers looked on helplessly. Fear of abduction and torture by Muslims had wiped out all the color and emotions from their faces. Then they jumped in the canal and it was all over in the blink of an eye. Meanwhile, other children on the bridge saw what was coming. They ran to their mothers’ sides and clasped them around the knees with despair. The Pakistani soldiers tried hard not to let these women die. They cajoled, threatened, and even pointed their guns at these women. But the desire for self-immolation in these women was too great and was embedded for centuries amongst the Hindu women. They all went to their death with pride and dignity rather than leading a life of rape and torture by Muslims.
One of them was Shanti Devi, the wife of Dr. Nanak Chand Gupta, whom the Pakistanis had earlier pulled from the fire in Akalgarh. My aunt Swaran Devi and her daughter Nirmal also jumped from a bridge into the canal. Seeing them jump into the canal, my brother Ramesh, cousins Bhushan and Rajinder, and I, all started crying. However, some Muslims managed to pull both of them out of the canal and reunite them with us. The Muslims let them go, because aunt was pregnant, and Nirmal was just an eight-year-old girl.”
Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5380
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by Karthik S »

Didn't Nathuram Godse blame gandi for all this? That the partition was poorly planned because it left many hindus and sikhs defenseless on the other side and at the mercy of the pakis.
SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5777
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by SBajwa »

British had declared that they will leave India by June of 1948 as they slowly need to pull out their officers (IAS, IFS, military, etc) replacing them with local. They left suddenly in August of 1947 as they wanted Pakistan as a buffer state for their strategic interests. Nehru acted and worked for the British strategic interests.
wig
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2162
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by wig »

http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation ... 12888.html
This is an excerpt from the obituary of A L Fletcher, ICS who passed away in 1974. The article was published in the Tribune, Chandigarh today.

in this article there is a reference to the missing females during partition. the relevant portion is extracted here
excerpts
Fletcher had been frequently visiting Pakistan after Partition to verify the claims submitted by refugees and it was during this period that he collected information about missing girls/women with the help of his fellow officers (in Pakistan). He had even sought the help of patwaris and SHOs there. The information was compiled with pertinent details of each victim along with her abductor and his address. A rough proof of this extraordinary work was got prepared at the Government Printing Press, Shimla (then Punjab capital). This rare document remained in Fletcher’s personal custody for a few years. When things settled down and Punjab capital was shifted to Chandigarh, he presented that rough proof to Chief Minister Partap Singh Kairon in early 1956 and sought his permission for printing 100 copies for record. But the Chief Minister wrote on the file: “Please do not print it. This book will reopen the wounds of refugees.” The compendium had details of more than 35,000 girls left in Pakistan.
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by Prem »

Karthik S wrote:Didn't Nathuram Godse blame gandi for all this? That the partition was poorly planned because it left many hindus and sikhs defenseless on the other side and at the mercy of the pakis.
A Punjabi Hanood Madan Lal Pahwa was first to publicly declared Gandhi responsible for this mayhem and tried to get rid of him but failed. I think he is still alive and live in Delhi.
Avinandan
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 12 Jun 2005 12:29
Location: Pune

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by Avinandan »

Didn't know where to put this excellent video, please move it to appropriate Thread (if required)
wig
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2162
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by wig »

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comme ... 02655.html

The lead-up to the Radcliffe award
The Muslim League made the unreasonable demand of virtually the whole of Punjab to be included in Pakistan as it was a Muslim-majority state. However, it later pruned it to 24 districts of pre-Partition Punjab, leaving the five districts of Ambala Division — Ambala, Karnal, Rohtak, Hisar and Gurgaon — for India.
excerpted from the above
However, the extortionate ambition turned into smouldering desire when the award was announced. It raised significant objections regarding the award as the tehsils of Ferozepur and Zira in Ferozepur districts, Nakodar and Jalandhar in Jalandhar district, Ajnala in Amritsar district and Gurdaspur and Batala in Gurdaspur district had Muslim-majority and were almost contiguous to West Punjab (Pakistan), yet they were given to India.
The whole of the Muslim-majority district of Murshidabad and a greater part of the Muslim-majority district of Nadia, which were contiguous to East Bengal, were awarded to West Bengal in India.
The documents now available show that Sir Radcliffe showed the original draft of the proposed award to the Governor-General and Viceroy on August 9, 1947 at a lunch in Mountbatten’s Chief of Staff, Lord Ismay’s house in the Viceroy’s Estate (present-day Rashtrapati Bhawan) and on further consideration, he made the award in terms which departed from the first draft.
Christopher Beaumont, ICS (1936- Punjab), secretary of the Radcliffe Commission, has confirmed that frontiers had been secretly redrawn to favour India. He confirmed this in a newspaper article in The Daily Telegraph, London, on February 24, 1992.
British Prime Minister Clement Attlee had asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth, Philip Noel-Baker, to look into allegations by Sir Zafrullah Khan, Foreign Minister of Pakistan, who had denounced the alterations in the Radcliffe Award in the Security Council, under pressure from Congress leaders through Lord Mountbatten.
In the report to Attlee, it was stated that Radcliffe admitted that he had shown the award to the authorities in Delhi (Lord Ismay and Lord Mountbatten) and thereafter it was changed.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32224
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by chetak »

Sachin wrote:
sanjaykumar wrote:Rarely is it that an article is factually wrong or half-true in every sentence. This Muslim has done it!
From the article you posted..
Muslims, who formed a little under a quarter of the 400 million citizens of pre-independence India, could judge from Congress’s electoral victories in the 1930s what life would look like if the party took over from the British: Hindus would control Parliament and the bureaucracy, the courts and the schools; they’d favor their co-religionists with jobs, contracts, and political favors.
Then what was this joker thinking? That Indian Hindus would chase away the British and give every thing back to the useless Mughal dynasty to run the show? The sense of entitlement of these folks are seen to be believed. If Nehru and Gandhi's policy helped in keeping such folks as a separate country (to stew in their own juice), that may be one wise thing they did :P.

these entitled dregs of the remanants of the mughals were thinking right because they saw only dhimmis all around them, dhimmis who were most eager to do their bidding.

when one "leader" was proudly encouraging and exhorting all other poor, suffering and oppressed Hindus to willingly offer their necks so that mussalmans could slit them at will, and please note that not once did such people ever place their own necks in any significant danger, despite all the pretensions of "fasts unto death" threats and "ahimsa" and "non violent struggle", what else except a deep seated sense of entitlement could take birth in such diseased heads and hearts of people who saw themselves as the very natural successors who would rightfully rule over the Hindus after the departure of the britshits.

Another "leader" sang peans to the allegedly sheer sophistication of muslim "accomplishments" which, according to him, surpassed the huge "accomplishments" of tens of centuries of evolved Hindu civilization, culture and philosophy.

one must need wonder as to whose camp these "leaders" truthfully belonged
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by ramana »

Chetak, Those areas are dregs of the Slave Dynasty and the Mughals had not ruled that region.
Essentially the region remained unchanged from the time of Mohd Ghori conquest of that region.
Mughals focus was the East India. The Sikhs did not stay in power long enough to change them.

We mistake them as inheritors of the Mughals.
No they are inheritors of the Slave Dynasty antediluvian Islamic rule.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32224
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by chetak »

ramana wrote:Chetak, Those areas are dregs of the Slave Dynasty and the Mughals had not ruled that region.
Essentially the region remained unchanged from the time of Mohd Ghori conquest of that region.
Mughals focus was the East India. The Sikhs did not stay in power long enough to change them.

We mistake them as inheritors of the Mughals.
No they are inheritors of the Slave Dynasty antediluvian Islamic rule.

I see some shops where these guys are decked out in turkish fez complete with tassels as opposed to the skull cap routine headgear.

I see little local kids walking about in arab dresses, the full barsati ankle length raincoat type, especially on fridays where such costumes seem to be in full flow on the streets.

and yet they cry for "inclusion" while ever finding newer ways to include themselves out.

there is something post elections that one can't quite put one's finger on it that is causing them feel their oats.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by ramana »

After fall of Ottoman Calipahte the Indian Muslims suddenly realized there Turkic origins and started wearing red fez with black tassels. The Nizam of Hyderabad fancied himself to be the successor to Turkish Caliphate. in fact he got his sons married to the two daughter of the deposed last Ottoman Caliph!!!
Now think of his ideas of independent Hyderabad stat in middle of Deccan and the razakar movement to Islamize his state.
Sachin
Webmaster BR
Posts: 8963
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Undisclosed

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by Sachin »

ramana wrote:After fall of Ottoman Calipahte the Indian Muslims suddenly realized there Turkic origins and started wearing red fez with black tassels. The Nizam of Hyderabad fancied himself to be the successor to Turkish Caliphate
The infamous Moplah riots of 1921 in British Malabar (i.e today's central KL districts of Palakkad, Malappuram, Kozhikode) was also called the Khilafat struggle and shown as a protest against the Caliph getting kicked out by the Brits after WW1. This pathetic excuse was also used liberally to show this religious hatemongering and rioting as a freedom struggle -by our own "historians" (!?).
Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5380
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by Karthik S »

Sachin wrote:The infamous Moplah riots of 1921 in British Malabar (i.e today's central KL districts of Palakkad, Malappuram, Kozhikode) was also called the Khilafat struggle and shown as a protest against the Caliph getting kicked out by the Brits after WW1. This pathetic excuse was also used liberally to show this religious hatemongering and rioting as a freedom struggle -by our own "historians" (!?).
Is it true that actual violence started when muslims didn't get enough monetary donation from hindus and they took it as an insult and went about their violence?
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by chola »

^^^ That was one of the stories. Another was that Hindus "betrayed" them. But those reasons -- monetary or sense of betrayal -- are "human" that cover up the more blatant truth that most of the violence came from the same blind religious hatred of hindus that we saw a few decades later in the partition. Remember, hundreds if not thousands in the rebellion were murdered for not CONVERTING to the religion of peace.

The Partition was horrific but -- and I'm sorry for saying this -- I feel it was for the better. I cannot imagine a future where India is seething with 400M more of that sect.

The very root cause of the Moplah rebellion is the same cancerous root of the Partition. People who are genetically no different from us decided they are loyal to a set of alien culture and ideology that is inimical to Bharati culture and religion.
Last edited by chola on 17 Jul 2019 17:16, edited 1 time in total.
Sachin
Webmaster BR
Posts: 8963
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Undisclosed

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by Sachin »

Karthik S wrote:Is it true that actual violence started when muslims didn't get enough monetary donation from hindus and they took it as an insult and went about their violence?
No. There are multiple points of interest in the whole Moplah riots. I am just listing down a few (not elaborating and the list may also not be extensive)
1. The area in which riots took place had seen similar riots way back in 1890s as well. So the attitude of "riot mongering" was prevalent, and Brits knew it. One major riot was quelled by exiling one of the Muslim clerics to Arabia.
2. The social system at that time was that; the Hindu upper castes were the land lords and the others (including Muslims) were generally doing agriculture by sub-contracting the lands from them. The land lords collected a share (as tax dues) and also had the responsibility to pay the tax dues to the British government.
3. The Hindu upper caste land lords did not have any problems with British rule, as they were quite comfortable in dealing with them. The social system actually benefited them. There was resentment about taxation and the termination of sub contracts etc, among the tillers & farmers.
4. After WW1 there was a "demobbing" among the British Indian regiments. This also led to some of the Moplah majority units to get disbanded, and these weapon trained, young men coming back into the society. Later it was many such characters who actually led the rioters.
5. The congress also gave the rioters an excuse by associating with the Khilafat movement, guess our hero Mr. Gandhi also gave his blessings.
6. The immediate trigger of riots were incidents like police lathi charge on a Congress meeting and the Khilafat volunteers, and a Hindu land lord evicting a Muslim farmer out of his leased land. The police who supported the Hindu land lord had to beat a retreat.
7. A few Thangals (Mullahs) then decided to encourage rioting with a plan to form an independent Islamic state. This is when the rioting and religious bigotry came into full play.
8. Among the Hindus; weapon trained young men were less. They also were living in scattered mode, where as peacefools generally lived in ghettos. The Hindus because of the castes etc, were more disunited. They also had lots of hope on the British to ensure "law & order". The British did enforce it, but had taken some time to regroup and execute their plans. The Hindu land lords (most of them Brahmins, and erst-while feudal lords or kings) had absolutely no guts, and no commanding power over the Hindu communities to offer some sort of resistance. Their homes also became sitting ducks for looting & rapes. Many of them were rich enough to make arrangements to run away to safer areas in Kochi & Travancore kingdoms.
9. Many apologists for the Moplah rioters also put a strange theory - The moplahs thought that if the Hindus were forcibly converted, they would be loyal to Islam and the rioters and fight the British. Nothing of that sort actually happened.
ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4053
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by ArjunPandit »

Sachin wrote:
ramana wrote:After fall of Ottoman Calipahte the Indian Muslims suddenly realized there Turkic origins and started wearing red fez with black tassels. The Nizam of Hyderabad fancied himself to be the successor to Turkish Caliphate
The infamous Moplah riots of 1921 in British Malabar (i.e today's central KL districts of Palakkad, Malappuram, Kozhikode) was also called the Khilafat struggle and shown as a protest against the Caliph getting kicked out by the Brits after WW1. This pathetic excuse was also used liberally to show this religious hatemongering and rioting as a freedom struggle -by our own "historians" (!?).
sounds errieely similar to the pattern observed in azad maidan riots for protests against rohingyas...
Bart S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2938
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:03

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by Bart S »

chola wrote: The Partition was horrific but -- and I'm sorry for saying this -- I feel it was for the better. I cannot imagine a future where India is seething with 400M more of that sect.

The very root cause of the Moplah rebellion is the same cancerous root of the Partition. People who are genetically no different from us decided they are loyal to a set of alien culture and ideology that is inimical to Bharati culture and religion.
Absolutely!

It would be great if we could also celebrate Aug 14 (Pakistan's "Independence Day") as 'Good Riddance to Pakistan Day'! :mrgreen:

Aug 15th is great but not sure if it is something to celebrate to the extent that we do, we had a parasite and we got rid of it, move on...it is just a minor glitch in our civilization timeline. I think that celebrating it is giving too much important to the parasite (British), however given that the Congress was in power for much of our modern history it isn't surprising why this would be a big deal for them.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by ramana »

We will celebrate when we take back the whole region Insha Ganesha!

In Devi bhagvatam Ganesha leads the troops that fight Bandasura.
SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5777
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by SBajwa »

Bart S wrote:
chola wrote: The Partition was horrific but -- and I'm sorry for saying this -- I feel it was for the better. I cannot imagine a future where India is seething with 400M more of that sect.

The very root cause of the Moplah rebellion is the same cancerous root of the Partition. People who are genetically no different from us decided they are loyal to a set of alien culture and ideology that is inimical to Bharati culture and religion.
Absolutely!

It would be great if we could also celebrate Aug 14 (Pakistan's "Independence Day") as 'Good Riddance to Pakistan Day'! :mrgreen:

Aug 15th is great but not sure if it is something to celebrate to the extent that we do, we had a parasite and we got rid of it, move on...it is just a minor glitch in our civilization timeline. I think that celebrating it is giving too much important to the parasite (British), however given that the Congress was in power for much of our modern history it isn't surprising why this wouldhttps://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/ucp.php?i=pm&folder=inbox be a big deal for them.

Sir ji!! We have been doing this since the time of Raja Jayapal who fought against Ghaznavi. The boundaries of India are constantly getting shrunk and only because of this mindset of "It is for better that we are again majority now" Boundaries are shrinking with each passing day. Only option is to ban the idea that is against our own ethos!
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by ramana »

Correctly said.
sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3018
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by sudarshan »

Partition is a bad solution, as Bhishma found out WRT Hastinapura. It's like trying to buy peace with a land grant - never works.

The USA had the option of partition in 1861. Guess how strong the USA would be today if that had happened? Jinnah threatened Gandhi with civil war. Gandhi caved in. Compare and contrast with the USA in 1861 with Lincoln.
ricky_v
BRFite
Posts: 1134
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by ricky_v »

A bit confused as to where to post this, but this thread is tangential to the tale.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/22/worl ... delhi.html
For 40 years, journalists chronicled the eccentric royal family of Oudh, deposed aristocrats who lived in a ruined palace in the Indian capital. It was a tragic, astonishing story. But was it true?
I remember reading about this when the "king's"death was first reported,a palatial hunting lodge and grounds in modern day delhi given to courtly descendants as it were.
The story began with his mother. She appeared, on the platform of New Delhi’s train station in the early 1970s, seemingly from nowhere, announcing herself as Wilayat, Begum of Oudh.The begum declared that she would stay in the station until these properties had been restored to her. She settled in the V.I.P. waiting room, and unloaded a whole household there: carpets, potted palms, a silver tea set, Nepali servants in livery, glossy Great Danes. She also had two grown children, Prince Ali Raza and Princess Sakina, a son and a daughter who appeared to be in their 20s. They addressed her as “Your Highness.”
Eh, just read the piece in its entirety is pretty good though i will post the spoiler now:
Wilayat followed her husband, Shahid told me, but she never accepted his decision to leave India. She was obsessed with what she had left behind. In her mind, the grudge sprouted and germinated, and her behavior became volatile. Then her husband suddenly died. Now with all restraining influence on her gone, furious over the expropriation of her property, she accosted Pakistan’s prime minister at a public appearance, Shahid said, and slapped him.

This changed things for Wilayat. She was no longer a well-connected widow, but something shadier.

She was confined to a mental hospital in Lahore for six months after that — the only way, Shahid said, to avoid a long prison sentence. In the early 1970s, still empty-handed, increasingly bizarre in her behavior, Wilayat announced to the world that she was the queen of Oudh, demanding the vast properties of a kingdom that no longer existed.

An ordinary grievance, unaddressed, had metastasized to become an epic one.

They took on new identities: Farhad became Princess Sakina, occasionally Princess Alexandrina; Mickey became Prince Ali Raza, and later called himself Prince Cyrus. They no longer made any mention of their Pakistani relatives, or the spacious family house in Lahore that was waiting for them should they return. Maybe they forgot it existed. They seemed to shed their past entirely, to come from nowhere.

The rest of the story you already know.

They were so convincing, and so insistent, that for 40 years people believed them.
I sincerely believe that at heart this pakistaniyat at its peak, delusion, entitlement, haughtiness,imperious bearing,no actual locii. Also note that how the IG government first scrambled to find a palatial place for the freeloaders and a tidy sum of money and the rest just let it be, nicely sums up our relationship with the parasites. They take from us,lord over us,denigrate us,contribute fuk-all and at the end of the day you find they are simply random fukers from a hostile country and that you have contributed for their delusional up-keep. Why should'nt the rest of the pakis come here then and demand to be hosted on our tax money and good will? their ancestors were raped by the overlords after-all.
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12056
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by A_Gupta »

“MKG had no reason or pragmatic political pressure to be Islamophile,“

Really? Mass movement for Independence needed and would have worked better with more Muslim participation. The need for “Hindu-Muslim unity” was on every leader’s mind 1910-1940.
SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5777
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by SBajwa »

SriKumar wrote:
Primus wrote: Happened to the Jews in Europe. It appears that when a minority, following the laws of society laid down by the majority rises above that majority in terms of economic and intellectual wealth, it gets blamed for the 'misfortunes' of the society as a whole and becomes the target for retribution.

Another way to ask this question would be, despite being the rulers of Northern India for so long, and in equal or larger numbers in the population, why were the muslims less educated and less well-off overall? Or perhaps the question answers itself......
I think the analogy of Jews in Europe does not apply here. Jews were always in a minority. This analogy muddles the Lahore situation and the lessons to be obtained. I can see some tangential similarities of Lahore siutation with some towns/cities in India.

In Lahore, Hindus+ Sikhs were majority, not a minority. In other places where Hindus+Sikhs were a minority, well....at some point in the past, they were a majority and over time slowly became a minority. They went about their business (figuratively and literally) building businesses, hospitals etc. not minding, and I frankly believe, working closely with their Muslim friends and neighbours as own brothers/sisters. They worked in a spirit of bhai-chara and did not care about religion. But all the focus on development, economy, entreprenuership came to nought and many left with only the clothes they wore, and many did not get out alive-notwithstanding the 80% ownership of the economy (this floors me frankly).

I think the message here is that raising educated, productive citizens for the next generation does not guarantee anything, including their staying alive. Economic status of individuals can go poof overnight and the people can be literally running for their lives the next day. There isn't a more emphatic example than the city of Lahore (if SBajwa 80% number is to be believed, even 50% is a large number).
Such was the paucity of teachers in Punjab university at lahore in 1947 that few Muslim students were overnight made lecturers and professors., almost all were non-muslims.

check here
https://www.indiaofthepast.org/contribu ... 947-lahore

There were 300,000 Hindus and Sikhs living in Lahore as Independence approached. By August 19, 1947, that number had sunk to 10,000, and by the end of the month to just 1,000. The majority moved to India. Many were killed, though there is no knowing their number. Some neighbourhoods of the city were entirely Hindu and Sikh, others were mixed, while some were solely Muslim. Gumti Bazaar was a purely Hindu neighbourhood, with the exception of one resident: Maulana Salahuddin Ahmed, editor of Adabi Duniya, the leading Urdu literary journal of its time.

Outside the gated city, other predominantly Hindu neighbourhoods included Krishen Nagar, Sant Nagar, Rajgarh (Kamani Kaushal lived here), Ram Galli, Nisbet Road, Qila Gujjar Singh, Shah Alami and Gowalmandi, while the population of Beadon Road and Nicholson Road was a Hindu-Sikh-Muslim mix. Ichhra and Model Town lay outside the city as it then was. Ichhra, a Muslim-majority area, was said to be the original Lahore, the very site where the foundation of the city had been laid by Lahoo, a son of Raja Ram Chander Ji.

Model Town was founded by rich and upper middle-class Hindus and had few Muslim residents. Every house was fronted by a large lawn with lush fruit trees, especially ones that bore mangoes in summer. There was also a Model Town bus service that took you into the city, right up to Serai Rattan Chand, Gowalmandi and Shah Alami.

The residents of Model Town, who owned their spacious houses, were retired judges, rich businessmen, traders and upmarket store-owners. Many high court judges, doctors and engineers had also moved to Model Town from the city. Included among the residents of this best laid-out residential estate of Lahore were college professors and officers of the civil service. The famous communist leader BPL Bedi, who had studied at British and German universities, lived here. His son Kabir Bedi became a famous actor in post-independence India.

In British times, only a handful of Lahore's Muslims could be called affluent. Even in the old city, most of the grand mansions or havelis belonged to Hindus and Sikhs, for example, Haveli Kabuli Mal, Haveli Dhyan Chand and Haveli Rai Diwan Chand. The only exception was Haveli Mian Khan, which was located between Rang Mahal and Mochi Gate.

Mention, however, might be made of much smaller havelis owned by Muslims in the inner city. One was located in Mohalla Sammian. It was known as Haveli Judge Latif. The other was called Haveli Barood Khana where the family of Mian Amiruddin lived. It was located between Pani Wala Talab and Koocha Langay Mandi.

Most of the Hindus who lived in the city traded in gold and silver, foodgrains and textiles, both wholesale and retail. All the moneylenders of Lahore were Hindu. Every business in Suha Bazaar, Machhi Hatta, Gumti Bazaar, Bazaaz Hatta and Shah Alami was owned by non-Muslims. The only Muslim-owned store in Anarakli was Sheikh Enayatullah & Sons. Dabbi Bazaar had a number of small bookshops, mostly Muslim-owned. In the same Bazaar, you could find Kashmiri Pandits who sold shawls and fine wool fabrics.

Morning in the inner city in those pre-1947 days began with the siren sounded from the North Western Railway loco shop and Makandri Lal's factory. The call to morning prayers was sounded from the city's many mosques, while bells would be rung in Hindu temples to begin morning worship. Makandari Lal's factory was located in Badami Bagh.

Minto Park was where people took their morning walks and performed exercise.

Cows and buffaloes were a common sight in city streets. Hindus respected the ox because they believed it to be Shivji Maharaj's mount. The cow was, of course, sacred to all Hindus. Sometimes these animals would become a nuisance, blocking traffic, as they would decide to sit in the middle of the street. Some Hindu shopkeepers would place large slabs of rock salt on the street for animals to lick. The more devout Hindus had built water troughs here and there for these animals to drink from. These were all very humane gestures.

In all Hindu neighbourhoods, you found wedding halls called Janj Ghar, which were a boon for families that did not have the means to hold wedding ceremonies at home. While Hindu women did not observe the purdah as many Muslim women did at the time, unmarried Hindu girls were not allowed to apply makeup or go around immodestly dressed.

A great and beloved figure in the old city was that of Dr Sant Singh, whose clinic was located between Haveli Kabuli Mal and Chowk Chuna Mandi. He was an extremely kind-hearted man who would not charge for the medicines he dispensed. He treated everyone equally, without regard to their religion.

Another very kind-hearted doctor inside Modhi Gate was Dr Bahadur Shah who also did not charge for the medicines he gave out. At times, he would even give money to the poorer among his patients so that they could buy themselves some milk to gain strength.

Whenever a Hindu funeral passed through the bazaar, Hindu shopkeepers would drop whatever they were doing, come down from their shops to stand on the street with their hands joined together in respect to the dead. When a Hindu died, his body was removed from the bed and placed on the bare floor, the belief being that if the dead person was left where he had died, his spirit would not leave the house.

If a very old man died, his body was taken to the burning ground called shamshan ghat, led by a band playing merry music, including a popular movie hit of the time, Chal Chal re Naujawan (March on, march on, young man). Lahore's three or four shamshan ghats were located outside the city, one on the banks of the Ravi where the painter Amrita Sher-Gil, daughter of a Sikh father and Hungarian mother, was consigned to fire. She was only 28.

The most famous shamshan ghat in the city was located beyond Texali Gate. A relative of ours lived not far from there and sometimes I would visit the family. If a body were being readied for immolation, I would watch it stealthily, utterly mesmerised. A close family member would pour ghee on the pyre and then set it alight. In the morning, milk was poured over what had been left of the pyre, the remains, which were called phool, picked up, placed in an urn and emptied into the Ravi. The more affluent would travel to Banaras to consign the remains to the waters of the sacred river Ganga. It was believed that this would free the departed soul from the endless cycle of death and rebirth.

On a dare, I once visited the shamshan ghat at night because I had heard that if one did that, one would be imbued with supernatural powers. I was so terrified that I did not have the strength in my legs to run back home. Then suddenly, I heard my mother's voice, "Hamid, what are you doing here?" I turned but there was nobody there. I screamed and began to run, having somehow found the strength to do so. I never stopped till I had arrived home. Needless to say, I never went that way again, even during the day.
SriKumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2243
Joined: 27 Feb 2006 07:22
Location: sarvatra

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by SriKumar »

SBajwa wrote: I turned but there was nobody there. I screamed and began to run, having somehow found the strength to do so. I never stopped till I had arrived home. Needless to say, I never went that way again, even during the day.
Sad situation, obviously. Important thing is that the lessons and stories are not forgotten. They are just as relevant today.
sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6088
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by sanjaykumar »

We were ethnically cleansed.
SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5777
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by SBajwa »

sanjaykumar wrote:We were ethnically cleansed.
More than 80% of property in the districts of Lahore, Gurdaspur (Sialkot, etc), Lyallpur (Faisalabad) was owned by non-muslims. Montgomery city named after general Montgomery now called Sahiwal, Lyallpur named after James Lyall the civil engineer and now called faisalabad were BAR canal Colonies aka colonies created after many of the punjabi rivers were connected via artificial canals. British army did not give pension to the retiring soldiers, rather they gave them land in these colonies. Soldiers use to get land in segments of 25 acres (25 acres equals 1 murabba, 1 acre equal 8 kanal 1 kanal equals 5445 square feetl) Vast majority of laborers were muslims working on the crop share pattern aka "Mujare". Crops were cotton, wheat, vegetables and rice. 5 murabbe or 125 acres was for a retiring havaldar and it went up with ranks and bravery. These colonies were first created at the turn of the century and by 1930s, were a major attraction for youth to join british forces. A retiring judge or administrator officers often use to get 10 or 20 murabbe (250 acres to 500 acres) most of the land was slowly getting ready for agriculture and by 1940s these bar colony cities were 80% cultivated. Lyallpur and Montgomery had cotton factories (before Bombay and Surat) supplying all over world JCT (jagatjit cotton mill)s most likely has its roots in these colonies
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9097
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by nachiket »

SBajwa wrote: Cows and buffaloes were a common sight in city streets. Hindus respected the ox because they believed it to be Shivji Maharaj's mount. The cow was, of course, sacred to all Hindus.
Fascinating and bizarre if true. I know of no such belief in Maharashtra about Shivaji Maharaj's mount. Wonder what would make Hindus in Lahore believe that, unless it is some kind of misinterpretation on the writer's part. All of Shivaji's statues everywhere in MH show him on a horse, which makes sense since that is what everyone rode into battle, not oxen.
Post Reply