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

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by Airavat »

ramana wrote:Jaswant Singh due to his Rajput origins sees the Mughals as one of their own while Kanchan Gupta from Bengal sees Siraj-ud-Daulah as a Mughal foreigner.
The difference is obvious because the Rajput states did not experience direct Mughal rule, were not governed by Mughal law, and their cities and forts were never garrisoned by Mughal troops. Except of course during a war, like in Aurangzeb's invasion of Rajputana in 1679.

However I don't think Jaswant Singh wrote this as a Rajput, but more as a modern day politician.
Kaushal
BRFite
Posts: 442
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: SanFrancisco Bay Area
Contact:

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by Kaushal »

I think Jaswant singh has lost his marbles. why should we indict the entire Rajput community for the lapse in judgement by one man. Maybe there is a method in his madness. He is making tons of money of the book ,everybody and his brother is buying the book in pakistan . But if that is the reason he did it, and if i were a rajput , I would say this would not be a good example to set to other rajputs
ManuT
BRFite
Posts: 595
Joined: 22 Apr 2005 23:50

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by ManuT »

Following this discussion from the first page. Just a few random points I would like to mention.

On INA
1. I think, it has been missed here that many of INA were absorbed in the DSC (Defence Security Corps) under Ministry of Defence. I asked an ol soldier as to how many were accepted in DSC, he said that, most of them were rankers, and as far as he could remember, none were refused i.e. of those who wanted to join.

2. Also, INA became big at the time of trials of which JLN was on the panel of the defence and not the prosecution. Rather than INA, JLN is more guilty of neglecting defence, for which price was paid in 1962. It is from this neglect of IA, it has never really fully recovered.

There is no doubt the INA along with the speeches of Bose over the SW radio (thru Axis powers) did hasten the process of freedom. The Brits realised they could control the flow of information forever. The defeat of the Russians by Japanese (mentioned in the earlier pages of this thread) was censored by the British and was not know right away, the news of it filtered through shipping routes.

The radio was a pre-transistor one, an expensive item in itself, and worked only in non British areas that had 'electricity'. It needed a 'licence' like a gun, (or a token for a bi-cycle) which meant the British knew who all had a radio. (BTW, technically you still needed a TV/radio licence till around 1982 Asiad)

It is in this context that the flow of information has to be understood. With most of the Congress leadership was in jail, ML and Communists had uncontested for them. (Indian Communists had 'joined' the War on the British side after their Russian mai-baaps had told them so). British India on the British side of the WWII (as in WWI), press under censorship because of the War.

Then there was the economic impact of the war (and famine). For the common man, most of the news of INA and Bose's speeches filtered through grapevine, from someone who had heard someone on the radio at a friend's place huddled together. In India, Brits were not trumpeting that they had surrendered Singapore with 40,000 Indian troops.

I think, it now accepted that had INA (and the Japanese) reached at least till plains of Assam, the Empire would have turned turtle in a much more dramatic manner. IMO, the full scope of INA's potential, as a vehicle liberating India, only became clear because of the INA trials.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by svinayak »

Kaushal wrote:I think Jaswant singh has lost his marbles. why should we indict the entire Rajput community for the lapse in judgement by one man. Maybe there is a method in his madness. He is making tons of money of the book ,everybody and his brother is buying the book in pakistan . But if that is the reason he did it, and if i were a rajput , I would say this would not be a good example to set to other rajputs
Do not generalize on all people. He is the only author and he has experience and international diplomacy experience.
He is saying things of people only during the partition period.
surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1464
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by surinder »

UK & the current world powers have been very fond of Partitioning other nations. Among the nations partitioned: Palestine, Vietnam, Korea, Poland, Germany, Middle East, many nations in Africa. This fondness is to break others to make sure that they remain weak & use them to balance each other and reduce their net importance. But this method of enhancing your own power has its limits, and the time for it has now long gone.

x-Posted: Note that UK is unhappy about German reunification. France is too. But knowing they cannot do anything, they suck it up:
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by brihaspati »

ManuT wrote
2. Also, INA became big at the time of trials of which JLN was on the panel of the defence and not the prosecution. Rather than INA, JLN is more guilty of neglecting defence, for which price was paid in 1962. It is from this neglect of IA, it has never really fully recovered.
JLN had initially opposed Bose and the INA openly, in speeches with typical dramatics like "fighting them witha sword" etc. Then when the mood of the country swung in favour of the INA, he swung too. His speeches and public stance became increasingly belligerent so much so that Wavell got concerned. This was the time when JLN's visit to Malay hosted by Mountbatten took place. Ostensibly, riding on the pro-INA rhetoric, JLN was going there to pay homage to the INA martyrs. Mountbatten's hosting somehow coincided with an overnight decision by JLN not to visit the site. From then on JLN's stance changed back to virtual neutrality if not outright hostility.
There is no doubt the INA along with the speeches of Bose over the SW radio (thru Axis powers) did hasten the process of freedom. The Brits realised they could control the flow of information forever. The defeat of the Russians by Japanese (mentioned in the earlier pages of this thread) was censored by the British and was not know right away, the news of it filtered through shipping routes.

The radio was a pre-transistor one, an expensive item in itself, and worked only in non British areas that had 'electricity'. It needed a 'licence' like a gun, (or a token for a bi-cycle) which meant the British knew who all had a radio. (BTW, technically you still needed a TV/radio licence till around 1982 Asiad)
We had two radios. Even in my childhood both worked. They could catch an amazing array of centres which the then most powerful transistor ones couldnt. They had been used during the war to get broadcasts from a variety of countries, including recordings made of Bose's first speeches on wire-spool recorders. This was very much within British India. I know of someone who had actually managed to install a small pedalled generator to power the radio during enforced blackouts.
It is in this context that the flow of information has to be understood. With most of the Congress leadership was in jail, ML and Communists had uncontested for them. (Indian Communists had 'joined' the War on the British side after their Russian mai-baaps had told them so). British India on the British side of the WWII (as in WWI), press under censorship because of the War.
The communists were not that large a force. In Bengal, the armed insurrectionists, and a large section of non-Congress nationalist organizations did not rely on official channels of communications. Bose's communiques were copied and independently distributed. A wide range of underground organizations had been ready to join up with the INA. There were divisions also within the communists over Bose, as most of them had come from armed insurrectionists. The switchover mentioned happened only in jailed communists first. The underground and free communists were with the nationalists. The acceptance of the "People's War" line remained contested throughout the war among various factions of the Marxists.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59799
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by ramana »

ManuT to add to your views:


Mainstream on Remembering Sarat Chandra Bose

Mainstream, Vol XLVII, No 39, September 12, 2009
Remembering Sarat Chandra Bose

Saturday 12 September 2009, by From NC’s Writings

Sometimes, in moments of introspection, one is tempted to ask what could have happened if people in authority had behaved differently, had different views about each other. Even orthodox Marxists have not been able to deny the role of the individual in history, but the reality perhaps is more explicit on this score than they would concede.

Recently I had a strange feeling about how the destiny of our country could have turned out to be very different had those at the helm in the past behaved differently not only collectively but individually towards each other. The occasion for such introspection was provided by an invitation from Dr Sisir Bose, the Executive Director of the Netaji Research Bureau in Calcutta, to participate in a symposium organised in connection with the centenary of the birth of Sarat Chandra Bose, his father and Netaji’s elder brother.

Sarat Babu, as we used to know him in our youth, was a great leader by his own standing, counted in the thirties as one of the big five of the Bengal Congress—a leading member of what was known those days as the nation’s undisputed High Command.

The Netaji Research Bureau is housed in the very building where Subhas Chandra Bose lived throughout his tempestuous career. It was from this house that he had disappeared in 1941 eluding the dragnet of the British sarkar’s police. He escaped to a remote station in Bihar to catch the train to Delhi from where he was picked up by his Communist courier, Bhagat Ram Talwar, to trudge incognito through the difficult terrain around the Khyber Pass to reach Kabul from where he cut through Russia with Soviet clearance en route to Germany for his Azad Hind mission. The car in which he escaped is still preserved and the young man who had driven him to the secret point in Bihar was his nephew, Dr Sisir Bose himself.

Those dramatic scenes of 1940-41 came back to mind as I entered the house after nearly 50 years. I used to visit the place as a young journalist and, more often, the nearby house of Sarat Babu at Woodburn Park.

This time I saw a television documentary produced by Dr Sisir Bose’s son, Sugata, who is working in an American university. The programme, captioned Rebels against the Raj, depicts the story of Subhas Babu’s struggle abroad, first in Germany and then in Japan and the birth of the Indian National Army and its career.

Watching this TV programme—which, incidentally, Doordarshan did not care to pick up—I wondered how history would have been different if the INA had pushed just a little further from the mountains to the plains of Assam and Manipur. The Japanese Army command seemed to have looked upon the operation in purely military terms and did not seem to realise the tremendous political potential in allowing the INA to infiltrate the mountain jungles down to the plains. In a positional war, the British could not perhaps have been vanquished, though it was a touch-and-go situation. The relics of the battle for the Deputy Commissioner’s bungalow at Kohima still bear testimony to this. But the appearance of Netaji and the INA in the plains—even a handful of them—would have led to the collapse of the Raj.

In Sarat Bose’s eventful career there were moments of great significance. He was not just the elder brother of Subhas Bose. He was a leader of great eminence in his own right. True to the tradition set by Deshbandhu Chittaranjan Das of fighting the Raj through constitutional means, Sarat Babu emerged as a great parliamentarian, leading the Congress in the Bengal Assembly in the mid-thirties and forties. At the same time he never spared his resources to help Subhas or for that matter many revolutionaries who were branded by the British as terrorists.

As the Muslim alienation from the Congress became increasingly evident, Sarat Babu tried his best to reverse the trend. In 1941, as the Muslim League Ministry collapsed as a result of internal dissent, he formed a progressive coalition which comprised Fazlul Haq’s Krishak Praja Party, the progressive elements from the Muslim League, Hindu Mahasabha (then coming up under Shyamaprasad Mukherjee), the Scheduled Caste, Anglo-Indian and Indian-Christian groups together with his own following from the Congress which had broken away with Subhas’ exit from the Congress. They commanded a comfortable majority in the Assembly and demanded to be called by the Governor to form the Ministry. This effort at unity was scotched by the British authorities when Sarat Bose was suddenly arrested on December 11, 1941 and detained till the end of the year.

But Sarat Babu’s tireless endeavour for Hindu-Muslim unity could not be suppressed. As he found the national leaders more and more ensnared in Mountbatten’s partition plan, Sarat Babu took the bold initiative of retaining the unity of Bengal even if the country was to be divided into India and Pakistan.

The idea of a united Bengal was not a far-fetched fantasy. The British were watching it. As the British Government’s recently published Transfer of Power volumes disclose, Mountbatten had kept ready two drafts for his famous June 3, 1947 broad-cast.

But that was not to be as the big bosses of the Congress rejected the idea of a united Bengal despite Gandhiji’s disapproval, while Jinnah and Liaqat turned it down.


The ifs and buts of history are no doubt important in assessing our past.

(Mainstream, October 14, 1989)
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25096
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by SSridhar »

Background to and Progress of the Khilafat Movement in India
The Khilafat Movement was the first significant mass movement among the Indian Muslims in the 20th Century.

Among the Muslims, the Khilafat Movement was dominated by the Ali brothers (Mohammed & Shaukat Ali) who graduated from the Aligarh Mohammedan Anglo Oriental College founded by Siir Sayyid Ahmed Khan. The collge itself, which was managed by the Muslim Rajas and Nawabs, was however in the real hands of the Muslim radicals.

The expansion of the European powers into the Balkans in c. 1911 followed by the Italian invasion into Tripoli caused consternation in the minds of the Ali brothers. In April, 1915, the Ali brothers were jailed by the British. As Turkey began to face defeat, the Ali btothers' internment was viewed by the Muslims as the general plight of all Muslims worldwide. In Dec. 1917, the Calcutta Congress gave prime space to the mother of the Ali brothers. Gandhi wrote to Mohammed Ali in jail saying that "In the proper solution of the Mohammedan question lies the realization of Swaraj". Only by Sep. 1919, did the Khilafat Movement began to develop seriously.

By Dec. 1919, the British Government released the Ali brothers. For many Muslims, the treatment of Turkey, the Caliphate, meant interference by the British in the practice of their religion and the Faith. The Quranic injunction in such a case, was either to wage a jihad or migrate (hijra) from such a Dar-ul-Harb to a Dar-ul-Islam. Some Muslims attempted that and tried to flee to Afghanistan, the closest Islamic country. They were turned by the ruler of Afghanistan, Amanuallah, who had just then gained freedom from the British and hence unwilling to antagonize the British so soon thereafter. So, the Islamic ulema decided to join Gandhi as the next best practical alternative as they realized that they could not wage a successful jihad against the powerful British Raj.

However, the Muslim masses were soon disenchanted with the posture of Gandhiji's non-violence as it was not bringing in quick returns. The Ulema began to assert themselves and the Khilafat Movement began to slip into the hands of the clergy from those of the political leaders. By March 1921, the Ali Brothers began to incite Muslim mobs into violence and Gandhiji started dissociating himself from the Movement. The incendiary speeches of the Ali Brothers was a major reason for the Moplahs of Malabar to massacre the Hindus in August 1921. The Ali Brothers were once again arrested in 1921 for asking Muslims not to join the British Indian Army. In March 1922, the British Indian government took up the position of th Indian Muslims vis-a-vis the Turkish Question with the British Government in London. It appears that the British played both sides of the coin. Here, in India, they wanted to break the INC-Muslim bondage completely perhaps while in Constantinople, they played it tough with the Caliphate to break it.

After the British Indian Government's stand on the Turkish question, the factions of the 'Bombay moderates' and the 'Nort Indian (Deobandi) clergy' saw no further point in confronting the British. For example, Hasrat Mohoni urged Muslims to stop agitation against the British eventhough he was a staunch supporter of the INC and Indian Independence and Unity.

Soon, the Khilafat Movement lost all purpose when the Turks themselves abolished the Khalifa in Nov. 1922. In the meanwhile, a faction of the INC which wanted to fight the British Constitutionally through elected representations unlike the rest of the INC which wanted to have a non-coperation movement out in the streets and outside the legislature, had formed a Congress-Khilaftist Swaraj Party under the leadership of CR Das and Motilal Nehru. Their idea was to use the legislature and the Constitution to cause maximum disruptions to the British governance. Some of the well-known Khilafatists like Ansari, Ajmal Khan and Abul Kalam Azad joined the Swarajists. This put Jinnah in a bind because as a Constitutionalist, he vehemently opposed the non-cooperation movement but the Swarajist Party had effectively undermined his own plank.

Of course, some of the Khilafatists at this point, became more communal so as to retain their position. One such person was Dr. Kitchlew of the Punjab. He played a significant role in the communalization of the Punjab. The Ali Brothers also felt unwanted and started supporting Ibn Saud, the Wahhabi King of Saudi Arabia. They started receiving funds from him in return for the support of the Ali Brothers in his attempts to evict the Hashemite Kingdom from Makkah/Madinah. The Ali Brothers supported Ibn Saud in his attempts to merge the Hejaz province with the emerging KSA. However, Ibn Saud's vandalism of the Prophet's tomb in Madinah soon thereafter caused a backlash among the Muslims of India and the Ali Brothers faded into oblivion.
ManuT
BRFite
Posts: 595
Joined: 22 Apr 2005 23:50

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by ManuT »

brihaspati wrote:
We had two radios. Even in my childhood both worked. They could catch an amazing array of centres ...
Well if your family had 2 pre-tansistor radios in 1940s, I guess, your family was connected.

Correct me if I am wrong, but Bose's initial speeches on the radio were from Europe, and that was when his hosts gave him access. I am sure, valve radios were good enough to receive the broadcasts on the SW, (I have seen more thsn one working, also the valve TVs). But it is still quite a world away from today's instant alerts on the blackberry. It it only when Bose reached East that he had slightly better resources and, the broadcasts became more frequent. (How much of the blackouts were for preparing the nation for air raids and how much of it was Brits trying to disrupt people from listening Bose's speeches, difficult to say)

I am sure there more than 1 pedalled generators but, I guess, the trend never caught on. I am sure there were recordings that were there. I am also sure that there were people who printed posters and made phamplets and distributed. But, I doubt it was done and available openly. A lot of it was underground. Because, openly it was 'sedition'. I would imagine even few month old newspaper editorial from abroad with the true extent of British troubles could get arrested on the charges of sedition.

A lot was it was done overlooking one's shoulder. It is not that they could send telegrams from Bengal to New Delhi or Bombay at will, as the text of it would get one arrested. For phamplets the British would try to locate the typesets and try figure out who was printing the material. For messages it was either bi-cycle or the train, a personal courier. Everthing else was risky business.

brihaspati wrote:
The communists were not that large a force. In Bengal, the ...
In which part of the political spectrum will you place Forward Bloc (then and now). The point I am trying to make, Communists/Socialists (since October Revolution), even when small, influenced political thought of Indian leaders. Communists, have always pretended to be real thing, when the money was flowing from Soviet Russia during the War (as the records came out after the collapse of the USSR). Communists amplified ML.
brihaspati wrote: Mountbatten's hosting somehow coincided with an overnight decision by JLN not to visit the site
I am aware of the JLN meeting with Mountbatten in Malay. I don't know, why he did not stop by the INA memorial. It is an unknown-unknown. I would like to believe that perhaps he was swayed more by evidence presented mountbatten on the Axis atrocities (gas chambers were not publicised right away, only later, but still the destruction was all around), than because of his personal rift with Bose or because of blackmail or bribes. MKG met Mussolini during a stopover in Italy, JLN did not. I find, both were correct in their own ways.

Also, during Naval mutiny JLN's arguments to the ratings was along the lines of, freedom is coming, it is nearly there, do not do anything to delay it i.e. allow British to extend their rule. JLN was definitely, influenced by British's treatment of Egypt after they granted dominion status in 1922 and kept it practically under martial law. (You do not want me going on his mistakes, which were plenty, but maybe later)


I will say this, MKG was grossly unfair to Bose, in making him resign from the post of Congress president after he had defeated MKG's nominee. I find, MKG's greivence of 'personal loss' on that account undemocratic.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by Sanku »

brihaspati wrote: The Rajputs had a practice of sending out a younger son to distant safety before impending annihilation so that the "line" and "spirit" continues. Isolated, pockets, in forest and less lucrative areas around Bengal and Bihar hosted some of these groups. If this si true, then they could have an inherent bias against Islamic rule. Theyw ould be more concentrated in the western part.
My ancestors moved to one such area from Dandak arnaya area in MP, roughly around 1400-1600 (difficult to say exactly) of course the new parts are not marginal any more, but the clan history states that they were a group who first cleared the forests in those areas and set up habitation.

I am not sure if they were ever allied to Mughals per se either, although maintaining their lands semi-independently.

We are not "Rajputs" in the traditional sense though -- so I would like to both attest to and expand the above narrative.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by Sanku »

ramana wrote:Thanks Rahul_M. In one sentence the author ties the fall of Sirauddaulah to the exit of the Britsh as a continuum of evacuation of Muslim rule in India.
In his literally weighty tome Jinnah: India - Partition - Independence, Jaswant Singh obviously disagrees with this contention: “It was here in the middle of the 19th century that the symbol of our sovereignty was finally seized and trampled underfoot by British India.” Not everybody mourned that event, just as Hindus in Bengal were not terribly upset when Nawab Siraj-ud-Daulah was given the boot in 1757.
Jaswant Singh due to his Rajput origins sees the Mughals as one of their own while Kanchan Gupta from Bengal sees Siraj-ud-Daulah as a Mughal foreigner. .
With all due respects, the fact that JS puts in the statement and links it historically, seems to suggest to me that the author is actually saying something quite different from a simple statement calling Mughals as their own.

JS has lot of such statements in the book, where he says that communities lived together peacefully and then immediately proceeds to chronicle two-three pages of a few incidents where it broke down.

To me it seems JS is sending two messages, a shallow familiar one, but one which is only a small layer and is weak (while reading the book) while actually piggybacking a far more potent message piggy backing on the first one.

Almost like a virus entering the system by linking itself to a prior know host -- this is a dangerous book.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by Sanku »

brihaspati wrote:What is your full family patronymic?
Well my full family patronymic has evolved over time, and I would be a little hesitant sharing it over forum, it tells (I think) a little too much about me.

But no, no other cultural differences any more (if there were any), its too far old, and now nothing more than a memory. Of course given the perpetual peregrination of some of our clans it is possible that we have turned full circle and returned from where we originally started.

Meanwhile since this is the partition thread, I thought people might be interested in knowing that I grew up in a house which had photographs of folks like Kudhiram Bose in the halls.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59799
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by ramana »

Looks like when the choice was the highway or the lowway INC regularly shunned the highway. Why was this hamartia? They consistently chose things that would increase the differences.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by svinayak »

ramana wrote:Looks like when the choice was the highway or the lowway INC regularly shunned the highway. Why was this hamartia? They consistently chose things that would increase the differences.
Colonized mind and colonized groups show this behaviour.
Last edited by svinayak on 28 Sep 2009 08:52, edited 1 time in total.
RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by RayC »

Surinder Bhra Ji , be careful, last time i tried to bring the weakness of this "core" in letting the founder and supporter of partition movement go unscathched , i got the board warning.
I wonder if you were warned for the content per se. I am not privy to the warning, but I thought it essential to clear the air.

Joggle your memory, could it be the syntax that got you the warning?
RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by RayC »

I don't mind articulating my feelings on the issue, except I do not have the time. If one gets a warning, so be it.


Let me also reiterate that irrespective of your feeling on the issue (and I also don't have the time) that unless you are abusive you cannot get any warning!

That this forum is fair is so evident. Forum Moderators battle it out for different view points even in the 'Open' threads. Failed to see that? Now, which Forum does that
So, just be a wee bit fair!

The Moderators have been requested to the panel not on an 'old boys net'. Most of them are experts in their fields and I reckon they are not totally juvenile,

So may I request that you all don't attribute to yourselves a 'holier than thou' attitude as if you all are purer than the snow of Mount Etna or the Holy Ganges! We also claim that space!

I am a calm man, I have fought for fairness and justice, and I really feel sad when one opines without knowing the facts.

Please desist. You maybe Ma Durga (Goodness over Evil), but give us a break!

I agree with everything you have said beyond this!
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by Sanku »

RayC wrote:You have proof that the US instrument was being controlled by Indians alone?

If so, OK, we at least knew how to use the instrument and do deserve credit.
And the victory in Kargil shows that at least we know how to fire the Bofors gun?

:eek: :shock: :lol:
:rotfl:

Chandrayan was project conceived planned and executed by India, which also happened to have some foreign components.

Frankly Chandrayan's success including finding water is more Indian and deserves more patriotic rah rah than many other efforts by GoI, but lets talk about it in chandrayan thread.
------------

Edited because I realized that your similar statement was cause of much consternation in the Chandryan thread, so now you say it here.

Please RayC. pretty please.

------------

Mods :: Can the discussion around core etc be moved to strategic leadership/scenario thread? It belongs there.
RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by RayC »

Sanku wrote:
And the victory in Kargil shows that at least we know how to fire the Bofors gun?

:eek: :eek: :shock: :lol: :lol:
:rotfl:
Indeed, to people like you!

It is time for me to:

:eek: :eek: :shock: :lol: :lol:
:rotfl:
RayC please visit the Chandryan thread, at the very least read this post
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 31#p745931

Chandrayan was project conceived planned and executed by India, which also happened to have some foreign components.

Frankly Chandrayan's success inlcuding finding water is more Indian and deserves more patriotic rah rah than many other efforts by GoI, but lets talk about it in chandrayan thread.

------------

Mods :: Can the discussion around core etc be moved to strategic leadership/scenario thread? It belongs there.

If we were so great, why take foreign equipment?

We conceived it, we planned it and are you suggesting we are incapable of organising instrument to implement what we planned and conceived?

Why do you wish to scamper to another thread? I only alluded to it since you brought our ultra nationalism that belies the facts.

Let's drop the issue. You go to town painting it red that it is but us, Indians who are the greatest and while think while we can ourselves to do it, we need not ride piggy bank to fame! Too proud as an Indian to require anyone's penumbra to greatness!
RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by RayC »

Sanku wrote:
RayC who says 1857 started with Mangal Pandey? Please sir, your statements on Indian history are so mind boggling that it is difficult to know what to say or where to start!!

Note the two points once more
1) Discussion on 1857 as you say has NOTHING to do with my statements. I wish you would not take the discussion on a tanget. Talking of events in the core hardly means the event decides the definition of the core.
2) Savarkar's views can be easily googled.
You give me the greatest compliment when you state that you cannot understand me. In war (though that is not what is I am doing right now with you, since you are a friend) one should be unfathomable! I am going to quote you to my friends.

If Pandey did not spark the Mutiny or War of Independence, then who did? Educate me.

I have no time for Sarvarkar, though I consider him as a patriot, since he is too radical!
Atri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4152
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 21:07

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by Atri »

RayC,

India's Moon Impactor Probe (MIP) detected the presence of water during its descent on lunar poles. 3 months before M^3..

And savarkar's book is indeed an authoritative take on 1857.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by Sanku »

RayC wrote:
Sanku wrote:
And the victory in Kargil shows that at least we know how to fire the Bofors gun?
Indeed, to people like you!

It is time for me to:
RayC I hope you realize that my statement on Kargil was a rhetorical reply to your statement on Chandryan, both are same ball park.

I can not claim to have fought in Kargil, but my close family members were there, so you will understand I have no wish to run down their efforts.
If we were so great, why take foreign equipment?

We conceived it, we planned it and are you suggesting we are incapable of organising instrument to implement what we planned and conceived?
We had our own instruments too however

I can think of many reasons
1) Cooperation/validation from third party equipment is good (ask Santy :wink: )
2) We were building bonds with NASA, something like Navies exercising together.
3) It is good to give favors to NASA since scientific cooperation is useful and you can get back IOUs

Lets do drop Chandrayan by all means, you brought it up in the first place, I dont know what that example shows here anyway. I dont think it is either a good example of rah rah patriotism in general and if you are talking about me I am well aware of our countries weakness and am no rah rah patriot.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59799
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by ramana »

Please continue discussions on Indian core here:

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... f=1&t=5225

Thanks, ramana
SwamyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16268
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 09:22

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by SwamyG »

I am not sure if this is relevant here. I remember there was a discussion about the role of army before and after partition.

http://pragmatic.nationalinterest.in/20 ... raditions/
Abhi_G
BRFite
Posts: 715
Joined: 13 Aug 2008 21:42

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by Abhi_G »

Two characters need special attention with regard to the partition - Sikandar Hayat Khan of Punjab and Fazlul Haq of Bengal. Their political activities had quite on impact on the incidents pre-dating the partition, although Sikandar Hayat Khan died in 1942. Could these two have been possible allies for INC?
RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by RayC »

SwamyG wrote:I am not sure if this is relevant here. I remember there was a discussion about the role of army before and after partition.

http://pragmatic.nationalinterest.in/20 ... raditions/
Lt Gen Sinha, respected that he is, should be asked has he dropped his caste, which is also an blemish from the past and has no meaning today?

It is easy to pontificate.

The Bugle of Maratha LI has history and he should know that in the same way as his Regt is called FF. How come his Regt did not drop that?

My Regt had the Pillar of Koregaon in its Regt Crest. In Koregaon the Mahars and the British defeated a hugely better equipped and greater strength Maratha Army. The battle was won because of the Mahars. And so it was commemorated in our Crest. However, that was felt to be against India and so the pillar in our crest was change to a Katar (dagger)!

What's the big deal over the Bugle.

When did he write this article? After he was overlooked to be the Chief? Such ignominy does ignite nationalist feelings! He was the Vice Chief, he had the powers to change. Why did he not implement what he writes in this article when he had the authority to change?!
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59799
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by ramana »

The book by Maj. Sarbans Singh, "Battle Honors of Indian Army" talks about battle honors that were considered repugnant and withdrawn. So the crest might have been changed under those viewpoints. Mostly those battles against Indian rulers or states during the East India company phase are in this category.
surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1464
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by surinder »

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?262119

Has Gandhi's Agenda Been Defeated?

Mahatma Gandhi had earlier said that India could be partitioned only over his dead body. The Partition occurred but Gandhi remained alive. He was not afraid of death. Then why did he not redeem his pledge?
Rajinder Puri


PS: Read some of the comments. Looks like BRF kinda folks.
surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1464
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by surinder »

Deleted.
Last edited by surinder on 07 Oct 2009 03:59, edited 1 time in total.
rgsrini
BRFite
Posts: 738
Joined: 17 Sep 2005 18:00

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by rgsrini »

Surinder,
The photos are gut wrenching. However, I don't know if you realize that it is an anti-India site run by Khalistani sympathisers. Take a peek at the forums and also look at the "India" page and compare it to "Pakistan" page.

I think you should remove the link and prevent more traffic to that site.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25096
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by SSridhar »

Undamaged Hindustan

It is an an excellent Op-ed, but in Tamil. Essentially, it blames the overall Congress policy, rather than individuals, of appeasing the Muslims thereby emboldening them to demand secession.
Abhi_G
BRFite
Posts: 715
Joined: 13 Aug 2008 21:42

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by Abhi_G »

X-posted by A_Gupta
Abhi_G wrote:
A look back at some events preceding the partition once again. GoI act 1935 and separate electorates for Muslims seemed to have made a victory of the INC almost impossible in Bengal. That tilted the scales in favour of muslim league and eventually led to the partition. Following is an interesting blog post regarding the distribution of seats. Wonder why the INC refused to go for a coalition with Fazlul Haq like they did with the Khan brothers in NWFP.

http://dipanjanc.blogspot.com


The situation seems to have been in the 1937 elections:

Krishak Praja Party : 36 members
Muslim League : 39 members
Independent Muslims: 43 members of whom 21 joined the Muslim League after the elections.
(This is not mentioned in the excerpts provided here.)
Congress: 54 seats.

Total seats: 250

It would seem to me that the Congress was in no position to form a ministry in Bengal
with the Krishak Praja Party.

The excerpt below:
Quote:
In the elections of 1937 based on the provisions of GOI act of 1935, Congress still emerged as the largest party in the legislative assembly, followed by Muslim League and Krishak-Praja-Party. Bengali Muslim votes were almost evenly split between all-India Muslim League, which in Bengal was the party of upper-class Muslims, and Fazlul Huq's Krishak-Praja-Party (KPP), which was the party of peasants and tenants. Because of the electoral system described above, a coalition system was inevitable. Huq first approached the Congress, but all-India Congress was unwilling to co-operate with any other party in provinces where they did not have absolute majority. That forced Huq to join forces with League to form a coalition ministry, and eventually the focus of KPP-Muslim League coalition shifted from socio-economic reforms to communal issues.
complete fails to mention the 43 Muslim independents. So while ML and KPP had roughly equal Muslim votes, they had less than 2/3rds of the overall Muslim vote between them. Utterly misleading.

But these articles follow the usual trend of blaming the Congress for everything, while assuming that the Muslim parties could have somehow been appeased. The usual story - we Bengalis, Punjabis, Sindhis, whomever were all peace-loving nice folks who could have and would have gotten along even with the unfair allocation of seats under the British that would have been perpetuated in any joint constitutional arrangement agreed to by Jinnah - but for the evil, naive, unstrategic or whatever Gandhi and Nehru.

Bah! Sometimes I wish all these writers were left to the tender mercies of Jinnah, Fazlul Haq and their ilk.
A_Gupta, could you post a link/reference for the above bolded parts? Please post about Fazlul Haq if possible. The wiki article about him is written by BD contributors, so maybe biased. Any independent analysis of Fazlul Haq is possible? What was his role in the riots? Thanks.
surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1464
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by surinder »

X-post from the PUnjab History thread in GDF:

ramana wrote:Those massacres have poisoned the well for a long time making it difficlut to reverse the Partition and maybe that was the goal.

Funny that you mention that. The more I dig into partition saga, a very curious fact emerges: The British realized that for the idea of Pakistan to be firmly grounded, expulsion of Hindus/Sikhs population from Pakistan was a must. Otherwise there was a risk that a 25% Hindu/Sikh in Pakistan---and a bigger percentage in Paki Punjab---would either cause Partition could be undone, or would make Pakistan weak & fragile.

So what they did was they deliberately looked the other way when Partition violence errupted, not making the slightest effort into stopping it---as a matter of fact they put their entire effort, along with military manpower, into transferring the Hindus/Sikhs to India, but not ensuring that they stay in Pakistan. This was a silent, but a deliberate British policy. They had to do this to ensure that Pakistan survives & flourishes & becomes a defacto reality. A huge Hindu/Sikh population in Paki Punjab (especially close to Indian border) would have meant an effective death knell of Pakistan. This I think was understood by them quite clearly.

The sad thing while many Indians instinctively know this, or may be even consciously know this, we have not made this one of the "accepted" fact of our public consciousness. We Hindus/Sikhs on side, and Musliams on the other curse each other for the Partition riots, we forget the real instigator behind this sordid drama.
Jarita
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2649
Joined: 30 Oct 2009 22:27
Location: Andromeda

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by Jarita »

Surinder,
Cannot absolve the other party. My grandparents/aunts tell me that there was always a lot of tension between the communities in Afpak. The Sec crowd tries to make it seem like it was all hunky dory but in fact it was not.
There were ghettos where Hindu/Sikh girls were forbidden to walk into because of abduction/molestation. The fissures were always there.
Infact a few generations prior my ancestors had moved from Afganistan to Pakistan because as population became concentrated it became very difficult for small pockets of Hindu/Sikhs to survive. You see the same with the Kashmir Valley. You see the same in Bangladesh.
I believe that even if the British had tried to keep Hindus/Sikhs in Pakistan, given the whole non-violence spiel and unarmed nature of population, the migration would have occured sometime down the line.
The partition might have given the indics some respite which would not have been possible if India was still whole. I know it is a radical thought but it is akin to protecting a plant while it is growing into a tree.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59799
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by ramana »

Two x-posts from Understanding Punjab thread...

ramana wrote:Punjab partition was grevious blow for it separated historical places forever. Those who agreed did not have an idea of hisotry and culture. They made permanent what could be a temproary loss.

All the early losses were from a era when India wasn't together and was fragmented. There was a chance in modern times to reclaim the lost areas eventually. By agreeing to a Westphalian construct (two states) they gave away the advantages that the masses had restored to the Indian polity. For first time in Indian history the masses were with the elite thanks to the freedom struggle. Those massacres have poisoned the well for a long time making it difficlut to reverse the Partition and maybe that was the goal.
surinder wrote:
ramana wrote:Those massacres have poisoned the well for a long time making it difficlut to reverse the Partition and maybe that was the goal.

Funny that you mention that. The more I dig into partition saga, a very curious fact emerges: The British realized that for the idea of Pakistan to be firmly grounded, expulsion of Hindus/Sikhs population from Pakistan was a must. Otherwise there was a risk that a 25% Hindu/Sikh in Pakistan---and a bigger percentage in Paki Punjab---would either cause Partition could be undone, or would make Pakistan weak & fragile.

So what they did was they deliberately looked the other way when Partition violence errupted, not making the slightest effort into stopping it---as a matter of fact they put their entire effort, along with military manpower, into transferring the Hindus/Sikhs to India, but not ensuring that they stay in Pakistan. This was a silent, but a deliberate British policy. They had to do this to ensure that Pakistan survives & flourishes & becomes a defacto reality. A huge Hindu/Sikh population in Paki Punjab (especially close to Indian border) would have meant an effective death knell of Pakistan. This I think was understood by them quite clearly.

The sad thing while many Indians instinctively know this, or may be even consciously know this, we have not made this one of the "accepted" fact of our public consciousness. We Hindus/Sikhs on side, and Musliams on the other curse each other for the Partition riots, we forget the real instigator behind this sordid drama.
surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1464
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by surinder »

Jarita,

In any part of India, relations between "communities" are usually sensitive & slightly fragile. They require very careful & considerate way of life which keep our life peaceful & productive. In this effort to live with peace & dignity with our neighbours we have succeeded quite well. In fact, outright social breakdown chaos (and an inability to live together) is very rare in India. Given the level of diversity we have, it is indeed remarkable that we manage our relations so well. Is there any nation on the face of earth that has such a variety of sub identities and has managed to live with so little social friction?

Given that we have lead our lives like this for thousands of years, without resorting to anything close to partition is not something to be ignored.

But what happens if the ruler of the land, instead of making efforts to keep this society united, attempts to find every imaginable way to divide & create divisions? If you really want to divide, it does not take long to find things that will shake the earth. It is not that difficult to do: Throw a dead cow here, a dead pig there, write bad about some God/Prophet and you have a full fledged social breakdown at hand. What if a ruler, instead of trying to stop it such efforts, attempts to encourage them? Instead of uniting people, seeks to make them divided & fight each other.

One has to indeed ask, how long have the Mussalmaaans of Punjab been in their faith? Centuries. At least 5-6. Why up until 1920's or 1930's Hindus/Sikhs/Mussalamans could live in peace & prosperity? Why did things suddenly deteriorate so dramatically & so suddenly in the 1930's and onwards? Why can the M's in Malerkotla of Indian Punjab live in peace ever since 1947? Why did the Musaalmaan of Punjab not commit treason & back-stab Ranjit Singh during Sikh-British wars? Why did they not support Pashtuns in Sikh-Pashtoon wars? Why did they not rise up when Ahmed Shah Barelvi gave the call of Jihad at Balakote in NWFP? Why were Punjabi Mussallmaan troops solidly with Ranjit Singh during his conquest of Multan & Afghanistan? Why was Ranjit Singh's foregin minister and chief negotiator with British a Musaalmaan (Faqir brothers)? Why were Punjabi Mussalmaan of Amrtisar staunch visitors to the Golden Temple prior to 1947? Even today, why do Punjabi M's in Pakistaan visit Gurudwaras? Why do Afghan women in Kabul go to Gurudwara there?

Why suddenly in 1930 & 40's our society broke down---to the extent that your neighbor became your killer & rapist overnight? Why did it take 5 centuries to manifest this criminal behaviour? Why hasn't it manifested again in India since 1947?
Last edited by surinder on 21 Nov 2009 04:07, edited 1 time in total.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59799
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by ramana »

Narender Luther a former IAS officer, has a book "Hyderabad" which gives a graphic account of the impact of Partition on Hyderabad state.
Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3801
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by Paul »

Pakistan was the new India per Caroe. Hindus had no place in this country.

After the 1915 period, Sikhs were also turning anto British and were susceptible to COmmunist thought. Hence they had to be cleaned out as well. This could be one reason why SIkhs are blamed for starting the Punjab riots by Anglophiles like Bapsi Sidhwa.

Balochestan and POK are the two most strategic regions for west to retain it;s hold and safeguard it's interests. Balochistan can be retained with it's accessibility. WHat about POK? How will they prevent India from taking over this regions and gain access to the centuries old silk route.

As I said many times before, it is not in the west's interests to see trade flourishing along the silk route.
Jarita
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2649
Joined: 30 Oct 2009 22:27
Location: Andromeda

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by Jarita »

Surinder,
I am surprised that you think we lived in peace and unity for 500 years prior to 1947. For one thing, the population of M's only reached a threshold level 400-500 years ago. Wherever it reached a threshold Hindus and Sikhs had to move out. Populations have not been static.
You are stating a few random instances while I can state thousands that go the other way. For instance, the recent exodus of Kashmiri pandits was not the only one, there have been 7 such exoduses in the last 500 years.
There has been a constant movement eastwards of Hindus/Sikhs with the exception of Ranjit Singhs rule. Also, I would like to know what the population breakdown was in Ranjit Singhs time. I am sure that in Pakjab it was not 75:25 as it was during time of independence. Where such ratios applied, he faced opposition. When the rulars are of a certain ideology and a threshold limit is reached satyanas ho jaata hai.


Punjabi Muslims were visitors to Gurudwaras because they were probably Hindus and Sikhs before they converted. Have you seen their last names. It took a few generations for the new faith to consolidate. And of late, the phenomena is a result of the division Pakistan has been trying to create between Hindus and Sikhs with little to no success.
Last edited by Jarita on 21 Nov 2009 04:15, edited 1 time in total.
Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3801
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by Paul »

This man germinated the poisonous Majlis Itthadul Muslimeen in Hyderabad. To understand the pathetic fall the MOhajirs had from their days of glory in those days. Compare the fall from this guy who led the Indian muslim thought to present MQM head Althaf Hussein who is lamenting partition as a calimity for subcontinental muslims.
Nawab Bahadur Yar Jung: spell-binding orator

Among the young Muslim leaders that got catapulted to the pinnacle of fame and popularity during the late 1930s and the early 1940s, Nawab Bahadur Yar Jung was unique – and among the most distinguished. He belonged to a princely state (Hyderabad, Deccan), yet he rose to prominence as one of Muslim India’s few front rank leaders. He literally herded the somnolent Muslims in the princely states into the surging Muslim political mainstream; he fashioned a political platform for them in the All States’ Muslim League; above all, he helped to cause a measure of interaction and integration between the Muslims of British India and those of the princely India, in respect of their long-term political goals and aspirations. For the first time he articulated eloquently the Muslim grievances in the Indian States; he aggregated and processed their demands; he built up incrementally and assiduously British Indian Muslim interest in their problems and support for their resolution. The most sought after speaker in the Muslim League camp, he was in demand everywhere and all the time. His addresses in Urdu after the close of the All-India Muslim League sessions were listened to with rapt attention as Jinnah’s were in English. And when he died rather suddenly on June 25, 1944, he was widely mourned throughout the subcontinent.

At the time of his death, Bahadur Yar Jung was barely 39 years old. He was born in 1905 in a family of Panni Pathans that had originally come to India along with Ahmad Shah Abdali in the mid-18th century. First settled at Bara Basti in Jaipur state, his forefathers had later migrated to Hyderabad (Deccan) during the time of Sikandar Jah early in the 19th century, and subsequently received honours (with titles and jagirs) for their distinguished services during the Maratha wars. Named Bahadur Khan at birth, Bahadur Yar Jung had little by way of formal schooling. His mother had died when he was hardly seven and his father when he was barely eighteen. The management of the jagir and the clearance of his father’s debts amounting to some five hundred thousand rupees, an astronomical amount at the time, fell upon his young shoulders. But sheer hard work, steely determination and an adroit management of affairs enabled him, finally, to achieve the impossible in barely eight years.

After accomplishment of this initial vexatious task, he felt like offering his immense gratitude to Almighty Allah: he went on Haj. The return journey took him on an extended tour of the Middle East and Afghanistan, marking a significant landmark in his life and career. He came into live contact with the problems and plight of the peoples in the Muslim heartland, his travels helping him to widen his mental horizon, accentuate his interest in the region, and introduce him to some of the leading figures in the Middle East. With accredited leaders such as Mustafa Nahas Pasha (President of Egyptian Wafd), Muhammad Ali Pasha of Egypt, and Al-Haj Emin el-Hussaini (the Grand mufti of Jerusalem), he became well acquainted. And, with them, for several years, he kept up a regular correspondence, diagnosing and discussing the ailments of the Muslim peoples, and exploring the way out of their current predicaments.

Bahadur Yar Jung began his public life in Hyderabad. He founded the Majlis-i-Tabligh-i-Islam in 1927 to counter the Arya Samajists in Hyderabad, enlisted and trained a missionary corps, organized a campaign for Tabligh and converted some five thousand people to Islam. The number of people who turned to Islam through his indirect influence runs to about 20,000. Second, he joined the Khaksar movement and organized it in Hyderabad (Dn.). Third, in the late 1930s, he joined the Majlis-i-Ittihad-ul-Muslimin, becoming its President in 1939, and took upon himself the more difficult task of organizing it at the grass root level. And, finally, in 1939, Bahadur Yar Jung founded the All India States’ Muslim League, after coming in close touch with Jinnah and the Muslim League.

As noted earlier, Bahadur Yar Jung was attracted to the Khaksar movement, founded by Allama Inayatullah Khan Mashriqi, but only for a while. During its most critical phase, in the tragic aftermath of the March 19, 1940, firing in Lahore and the subsequent ban on the organization in the Punjab, Bahadur Yar Jung stood steadfast by it. However, subsequent to a Khaksar’s dastardly attack on Jinnah on July 20, 1943, he realized that, instead of strengthening and bolstering Muslim ranks, Allama Mashriqi’s policies had caused division and dissension among them. He, therefore, left it for good in November, 1943. By the late 1930s, Bahadur Yar Jung had caught the eye of Jinnah, then feverishly engaged in the herculean task of effecting unity among disparate Muslim ranks and organizing Muslims on the Muslim League platform, of evolving a uniform all-India policy for the entire Muslim India, and of making the claim of a pan-Indian Muslim constituency and a ‘third force’ in India’s body politic a fait accompli. But, in view of Jinnah’s inability to speak in Urdu to vast crowds, he needed a leader of impeccable integrity and outstanding ability, who could carry the League message to the remotest corner in the subcontinent. And for this his choice inevitably fell on Bahadur Yar Jung. And superbly apt was the choice became all too evident, before long.

By founding the States’ Muslim League in 1939, his greatest contribution was to get the Muslims of Indian States associated for the first time with the politics and policies of Muslim India and the Muslim League. Besides, the States’ Muslim League fought for the protection of the legitimate rights of the Musalmans in the various states, including their language and culture. If only because of Bahadur Yar Jung’s vigorous efforts and his extensive tours, the States’ Muslim League became popular with the Muslims in the princely states such as the States’ Congress was with the Hindus. And from 1940 onwards the sessions of all India States’ Muslim League came to be held along with the sessions of the Muslim League, after its conclusion.

Although Bahadur Yar Jung was a State subject and as such had no locus standi in the deliberations of the All India Muslim League (which concerned itself with British India), yet he was always there on hand at the League sessions, to explain its viewpoint and, since 1940, to elucidate the Muslim demand for Pakistan. Among his addresses, his December 26, 1943 address, after the conclusion of the last League session at Karachi, is by far the most outstanding. It has often been invoked while discussing the role of Islam in Pakistan. Jinnah was, of course, present on the occasion. Great indeed were the services rendered by Bahadur Yar Jung to the cause of the Muslim League and Pakistan. His was the voice that had inspired millions upon millions to swell the League’s ranks. His were the arguments that had induced thousands of Muslims to vote for the League in most of the bye-elections to Muslim constituencies between 1938 and mid-1944, especially in the four crucial bye-elections that were fought in the Khan Brothers’ dominated West Frontier Province in 1943. This tour of the Frontier he had undertaken after he had read Jinnah’s reply to Sirdar Aurangzeb Khan, who had earlier sent a message of sympathy to Jinnah on the murderous, but luckily, unsuccessful, attack made by a Khaksar on the latter’s life. Therein Jinnah had told the Frontier leader, “Until such time as the League comes out triumphant in the Frontier my wounds would not be healed”.

Bahadur Yar Jung was an extremely persuasive speaker. This first became exceedingly evident when he had to bring the infuriated Khaksars to reason in March 1940. The Khaksars had come in clash with the Punjab Government on March 19, 1940, barely three days before the League’s session was due to meet in Lahore. Provoked by police excesses, the Khaksars had launched upon a sort of civil disobedience movement, with the situation getting worse every day. There were even talks of postponing the session, but Bahadur Yar Jung would not listen to anything of this sort. He took upon himself the task of pacifying the enraged Khaksars and creating a proper climate for the holding of the historic League session where the “Pakistan” resolution was to be adopted.

By all standards, Bahadur Yar Jung was a brilliant orator. The first time he spoke at Aligarh’s famous Strachey Hall, he spoke till 3 a.m., and still the audience showed no sign of restlessness or boredom. At the League’s Allahabad session (1942) when Bahadur Yar Jung appealed for funds, no less than Rs. 125,000 were contributed on the spot. At the next League session at Delhi (1943), he spoke till 4 a.m. and on his appeal for funds, the large contingent of women in the audience gave away all their jewelry amounting to some ten lakh rupees. The Quaid was, of course, hugely overwhelmed by their generous response; but, characterically, insisted upon the jewelry being returned to their owners. But the vexatious problem was: how? No one knew which one belonged to whom. And in Lahore, he alone could have pacified the enraged Khaksars who were in such an extremely agitated mood. Bahadur Yar Jung’s activities and popularity, however, caused alarm to the power brokers in his own native State. Instead of turning to the King’s Kothi (Nizam’s palace), the Muslims had come to look to Mahdavi Manzil (Bahadur Yar Jung’s residence) for both guidance and inspiration. In order, therefore, to curb his activities, the Nizam issued an edict, prohibiting jagirdars from taking part in politics.

In response, Bahadur Yar Jung coolly and characteristically returned his titles and surrendered his jagir. Politics, which paved the way for Muslim empowerment and welfare, meant for him much more than power and belf. Even so, it did mean for him a good deal of hardship, but, again, characteristically, he remained undaunted to the last breath of his all too brief a life. This episode and this posture made him the first Muslim League leader to renounce titles and surrender his jagir for a political cause – a step which other League members would take after the adoption of the ‘Direct Action’ Resolution by the All India Muslim League Council at Bombay on July 29, 1946. Although a very selfless and sincere man himself, Bahadur Yar Jung had quite a few opponents in Hyderabad and elsewhere. During the last years of his life, he was a victim of intrigue and malice; he was also prohibited from making any public speech in Hyderabad itself. He also died in extremely suspicious circumstances: it is widely held that his Huqqo was poisoned. Although the Muslims all over the subcontinent were agitated at these reports, no proper inquiry was held. Nor did the Ittihadul Musslimin demand an inquiry till three years after his death when Syed Qasim Rizvi became its President. “In him, Islam and the Mussalmans have lost one of their staunchest and sincerest workers”, said Jinnah in his condolence message.

His death was, of course, mourned throughout Muslim India, and his absence was acutely felt during the rest of the Pakistan movement, especially during the 1945-46 general elections, when the fate of Muslim India hung in the balance. To keep the memory alive, the first wave of immigrants from Hyderabad (Dn.) after its traumatic fall, were imaginative and committed enough to set up an Academy named after him, in Karachi.—Sharif al Mujahid
Wonder what the grandchildren would say about this now
surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1464
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by surinder »

Jarita,

You can prove me wrong: You can go back in history of the region of Punjab & find examples of breakdown of social relations between M's one hand & H/S on the hand. Of course, prior to 1930's you will not find any instance. If you do, I am of course proven wrong.

Yes, there was enromous prosecution by M rulers, no doubt about that, but at individual level that was simply not the case. Hence when Ranjit took over in 1799, or Banda Singh Bahadur took over in 1709, it never lead to any act of violence on Mussalmaans on the street. Ranjit Singh, from the word go, had Mussallmaans in his army & ruling structure. Something he would not have if there was general societal distrust of "those" of the other faith. Once the Turkic rulers were removed the Punjab, social amity was the norm, not an exception.
Also, I would like to know what the population breakdown was in Ranjit Singhs time. I am sure that in Pakjab it was not 75:25 as it was during time of independence.
Luckily the figures are available. Immediately after defeating the Lahore Kingdom, the British took a census and found out the population ratios. I don't have the exact numbers, but the Mussallmaan's were in the neighborhood of 50-60% in Punjab alone. Hindus 30%, Sikhs 10%. In the entire kindgom (including Kashmir, & NWFP) Mussallmaan figures were even higher. That is not, proportion-wise dramatically different than what prevailed in the pre-Partition Punjab.

As Brihaspati had said somewhere, don't just look at the assassin's hand, also look for the man who sent the assassin. Otherwise we will be locked in the insane game of blaming merely the hand. This is something the assasin's boss really wants anyways, to be invisible.
Post Reply