Discussion on Jaswant Singh's book on Jinnah

Sarma · Post by **Sarma** » 21 Aug 2009 21:16

I've bottled myself up on this topic for too long now. So, let me crawl out of the woodwork and say a few things here, in as cogent a manner as possible given all the thoughts swirling in my mind. A couple of things up front. In order to get a comprehensive picture on events before partition, the best thing to do would be to get as close to the original and unadulterated sources as possible. Please note that I do not say "events leading to partition" in the previous sentence, but just "events before partition." The reason for this wording is that after extensive reading on the partition issue, I do not believe, as many "historians" and "authors" make out, that any particular event or sequence of events, any particular personality or a group of actors have the power or the force to alter the inexorable march of history. It is only in this sense, and in none other, that one cannot put the onus for partition on Jinnah. That is to say, it would be some other Abdul in place of Jinnah, if not Jinnah himself. Dr. Ambedkar says it best, and I paraphrase here, in his book Pakistan or Partition: "The demand for Muslim nation is not something new that has arisen in the last few decades (referring to the 1900s). It has always been there as an undercurrent. It first manifested itself as the need to form a separate and parochial organization, namely the Muslim League. Then, the undercurrent took the form of the demand for safeguards. Subsequently, it morphed into reservations in the legislative bodies and the executive. But, this too was insufficient, and hence the demand for effective representation, a euphemism for disproportionate representation for Muslims, i.e. 33.33% when their population was only 23% of the overall population. But, this effective representation too fell short when the Muslim leaders realized that they would still be in minority. Then came the demand for parity, but that too wasn't the final solution that the Muslims were seeking. Only late in the game did it dawn upon them that what they were after, all these years, was a separate state where they can rule the roost."

I provided the above historical context so that we can all stop blaming Nehru ji, and Gandhiji and all the "Congresswallahs" for partition. Believe me, I am a dyed-in-the-wool Knickerwallah and Kamalwallah. But, after a careful reading of the original sources to the extent possible, I've realized that blaming our own leaders Nehru and Gandhi for the partition is the worst thing we can do as Indians. These people have served our nation to the best of their capabilities selflessly and tirelessly. The most cliched and uninformed thing we can say about Nehru, in particular, is that he wanted to become the PM, and his career ambition came in the way of settling with Jinnah. An emphatic No. Only a shallow and superficial reader of history can reach this conclusion.

A very important point to keep in mind when researching partition is that one has to take the entire context of an event into consideration. Jaswant did not do this, in spite of all the effort he claims he put in. If it took him five years of research to write this book, then I am sorry to say that all the talk of him being a cerebral and thinking politician is just hot air that blew up right in his face. In this sense, he is not different from the "scholar" who tried to exculpate Jinnah's crimes, Ayesha Jalal, who too writes a fawning book on Jinnah. We do not need JS to write an identical thesis.

Advani made a very telling comment today regarding JS's contention that Patel banned RSS and given this how can BJP consider him their Hero? Again, an imcomplete reading of the situation by JS that I alluded to in the above paragraph. Advani replied that while Patel banned RSS under Nehru's pressure (Patel had to under the collective responsibility of the cabinet), he did write a letter subsequently to Nehru stating that there is not a shred of evidence to condemn RSS. Anyway, what Patel thinks of RSS is irrelevant to Patel's role during partition, which was a yeomen effort to unite the country. JS is simply throwing a curveball here without any substance.

A few things regarding the 1937 UP elections, which everybody cites as being the breaking point. This is yet another example of incomplete and selective reading of the events of that period. After the 1937 elections, Nehru, Rajendra Prasad and important Nationalist Muslims in Congress were dead set against any power sharing with ML to begin with. What is to be noted here is that it was not "Nehru's intransigence" that somehow ruined the coming together of these two parties. It was obvious to everyone in Congress that any alliance, of the sort that we see today, would be a slap in the face of the Congress Muslims, for Congress would lose all right to be called a Pan-India Nationalist party. However, Prasad, Pant (prospective UP PM) and Azad persuaded Nehru to nod to an effort they were going to make. Nehru agreed to this in spite of it being distasteful.

A note here. Prior to the 1937 elections, Congress had roped in Jamat-e-Islami-e-Hind and other Mulsim parties like the Ahrars. These Muslim parties had to accept Congress discipline, could not have religious veto and could not have separate parliamentary boards. Muslim League was offered conditions by Azad and others mentioned above in which, ML did not have to accept Congress discipline or oath, but had to dissolve their parliamentary board, and did not have religious veto. These very conditions were imposed by Azad, and it is surprising that he should blame Nehru's so-called intransigence much later in 1950s. In fact, MJ Akbar, who writes extensively about this event in his biography of Nehru, says that Azad had become feeble and was having trouble to remember incidents by the time he wrote his book. Keeping the later assertion aside, one cannot simply blame Nehru for the failure of 1937 talks. It was the combined Congress leadership that felt that Muslim League's insistence on religious veto, and on not accepting collective responsibility made any coalition impossible. Further, even before the 1937 elections and during the subsequent Bundelkhand bye-elections, Jinnah had used Islam as a rallying cry. Jinnah also poured invective on Congress's "Muslim Contact" program as if Muslims were his and his alone. Regarding dissolution of Muslim League Parliamentary Board in UP, it is to be note that Congress had already dissolved its own board, and so nothing new was being demanded from ML.

The other thing JS points out, again incompletely, is that Nehru made bombastic statements like "Only Congress and British are the two parties in India." Nehru said nothing of that sort. All he said in a long speech was that British and Nationalism (represented by Congress) are the two parties. Nehru is right about this, for no other body in India could truly claim to represent pan-India nationalism. Jinnah found this offensive because he had already said in his Presidential Address to ML 1936 Annual session that there were four parties in India: British, Hindus represented by Congress, Muslims and Princes. Obviously, nationalism did not count among his parties. So, when Nehru said Nationalism is the second party, and naturally only Congress can lay claim to this platform, Jinnah found the right excuse to jump on Nehru.

Last point, regarding 1946 CMP. The less said about the Mission Plan, the better it is. This is clearly a plan for the complete balkanization of India, with the British holding the key. This plan by the British clearly fits into their overall post-Independence plans that Narendra Singh Sarila talks about. We should be grateful to Nehru, first, and then Patel that they saw through this diabolical plan and rejected it.

Nehru, in spite of his flaws and who is not flawed, was a true Indian, a true patriot, and a true nationalist. To say that he accepted partition to save his PM seat is an oversimplification of the gravest kind, and represents a grave insult to one of India's finest sons. I will not stand for this nonsense, in spite of my Sangh background.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 21 Aug 2009 21:29

Sarma wrote:
Nehru, in spite of his flaws and who is not flawed, was a true Indian, a true patriot, and a true nationalist. To say that he accepted partition to save his PM seat is an oversimplification of the gravest kind, and represents a grave insult to one of India's finest sons. I will not stand for this nonsense, in spite of my Sangh background.

Is this a good response to Brihaspathiji? Bji any comments

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 21 Aug 2009 21:35

Sarma-garu,
could I request you to put a list of references together and post, if that is not an imposition and at your convenience, so that I (and perhaps others) can get the clarity you have. You've articulated your case really well.

S

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 21 Aug 2009 21:37

RajeshA wrote:
Jaswant Singh is reminding Jinnah's children, that just like Jinnah was a great man without having had a lineage from the Prophet, Arabs, Turks, Persians, ithiyadi, so too they too can be great without having to declare that they all are descendants of the Arabs, Turks, and Persians. They can be great being what they are, as descendants of Hindus.

This is very important and should be highlighted. Great post

Pakistan has nothing to with nations of India.
but it has something to do with the muslims of India. Muslims are a seperate nation from Hindus as our Quaid has said.

Thousands of people who migrated into Pakistan during its inception like my foreparents certainly have something to do with Pakistan!
Yes, geographically, they were in present day India, but they were Pakistani in spirit, heart, soul everything. no wonder they left their cities for this great Nation we have

what does pakistan have to do with the muslims of india? i'm a muslim and i would choose india over pak anyday, despite everything that we've been through.
why? because pak isnt much better at treating its own people either.
all i meant to say was that the ideology of Pakistan was also meant to liberate muslims in India from hindu unjust rule.
but Molana Abul Kalam Azad had to come in and destroy the main base Pakistan was being built on.

The people who made it from India to Pakistan in partition have 99% literacy rate today, that just partly shows who benefitted who didnt.

Im sorry if my thoughts are disturbing to you.
You can love India as much as you want. I have nothing againstit

You can see that they were looking at the main base of pakistan which was in UP and Molana Abul Kalam Azad was supposed to defect from congress to ML so that the entire UP clan would also revolt in revolution and become Pakistan in 1947.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Aug 2009 22:11

BBC psy-ops:

Soutik Biswas: Why the Hindu rightwing loves Mr Jinnah

Sarma · Post by **Sarma** » 21 Aug 2009 22:22

Samuel garu:

I got my references from Sadna Gupta's most wonderful site: http://www.geocities.com/sadna_gupta/index.html

I then dug up most of the references cited in the above website and tried to get a comprehensive and non-ideological view, while adopting an "innocent until proven guilty" policy. I didn't approach this issue with a preconceived notion about the horribly cliched notion of Nehru.

Thanks
Sarma

PS: BTW, I forgot to say in my original post that it is not a response to any particular poster here, but just a view that I gained through extensive reading over the years.

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 21 Aug 2009 22:27

Sarma garu,

That was a good post in spite of over simplification of Nehru role which I beleive is a complex one.

Sarma · Post by **Sarma** » 21 Aug 2009 22:32

Muppalla garu: Just so I understand your post; I wasn't trying to oversimplify Nehru's role. I was trying to make a point that most people oversimplify his role to two or three events or one or two statements. JS has done exactly that and has done a great harm to the Indian society.

Thank you
Sarma

AbhishekD · Post by **AbhishekD** » 21 Aug 2009 22:41

Sarma,

All that you are talking about is before 1939. What happened after that? Why did Congress party accept Indian Partition based on religion. If Congress party and Nehru believed that their were only Nationalism and British in India then how did Pakistan come in the picture. Why did Nehru, Patel and MKG accept India's partition.

I am sure that congress people did not have the determination to stand-up and oppose such a diabolical plan and such a vicious turn of events. There is no force of history to justify such a diabolical plan. Muslim League got all its plans through due to British acceptance. In independent India the virile fundamentalist islam could be tamed, today with pakistan that fundamentalist islam has a free reign and eating into Indian Muslims also.

Congress party failed when it came to standing up against communalism. No argument can make Indians accept that partition was inevitable. It was the failure of congress leaders that led to the partition of India. There is no point in demonising something that has already consumed you.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Aug 2009 22:56

Balbir Punj, the BJP MP and commentator writes in Pioneer, 21 August 2009

Jinnah is not relevant

Balbir K Punj

Who was responsible for the creation of Pakistan? Could partition have been avoided? Was it merely the result of Britain’s attempt to divide India before leaving so that it could have elbow room in the sub-continent by playing India and Pakistan against each other?

Mr Jaswant Singh’s book on the subject reached the top of the charts even before its official release because he added much zing to the controversy over who was responsible for partition. According to the book Jinnah — India, Partition and Independence — Mohammed Ali Jinnah was not actually seeking Pakistan but a certain ‘space’ for Muslims which the Congress, more specifically Jawaharlal Nehru, was adamant on denying. Thus, Jinnah was ‘forced’ to seek partition.

This hypothesis is a red-herring, for, it seeks to deflect the focus from the real sinners of partition. In fact, neither the Congress nor Jinnah was responsible for partition. Nehru and others did fail to understand the challenge of Muslim separatism. The British, of course, played a mischievous role and the Communists provided the Muslim League with all the intellectual arguments it needed to press for partition.

The seeds of vivisection of India were sown long before the arrival of either Jinnah or Nehru on the Indian political scene. The real culprit was the Muslim psyche, which lived in the ‘glorious’ past when the Islamic sword ruled India. The prospect of living as equals with kafirs in independent India was unacceptable to Muslims. Jinnah, a leader without any mass following till the 1930s, was an instant hit with Muslims after he started articulating their separatist demands.

Speaking in Meerut on March 16, 1888, over a year before Jawaharlal Nehru was born, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, founder of Aligarh Muslim University, had espoused the two-nation theory. He had asked, “Is it possible that two nations — the Mohammedans and the Hindus — could sit on the same throne and remain equal in power? Most certainly not. It is necessary that one of the two should conquer the other.”

Sir Syed’s line of thinking came to strongly influence the Muslim community in the following years. On October 1, 1906, the Aga Khan led a Muslim delegation in Shimla that met Viceroy Lord Minto with two main demands: Muslims should be represented only by Muslims in all ‘democratic’ institutions and such representation should be in excess of their numerical strength.

BR Ambedkar in Pakistan or the Partition of India termed this development as “the beginning of the British Government’s policy of giving favourable treatment to the Muslims” and “to wean them away from the Congress and to create a breach and disunity between the Hindus and the Mussalmans”.

Two months later, in December 1906, the Muslim League was formed in Dhaka. And in 1908, after his return from England, Muhammad Iqbal wrote a poem Tarane-i-Milli, the first line of which reads: Chino-Arab hamara, Hindustan ho hamara, Muslim hain hum, Watan hai Saara Jahan hamara (China and Arabia are ours, Hindustan is ours; we are Muslims and the whole world is ours).

In his presidential address at the All India Muslim League session at Allahabad on December 29, 1930, Iqbal demanded a ‘Muslim India’ within India. Rahmat Ali, a student at Cambridge University where Iqbal had also studied, coined the name ‘Pakistan’ to encapsulate Iqbal’s idea, and pamphlets explaining the idea of Pakistan were distributed among the delegates of the Round Table Conference in London in 1931-32. So the two-nation paradigm took just 40 odd years to develop into a solid proposal and another 17 to become a reality in 1947.

During this period, the bulk of the Hindus opted for the Congress. Muslims, in turn, opted for Jinnah, and not even five per cent of the people remained with Mahatma Gandhi. The fact that the Muslim masses did not follow Maulana Azad, a deeply religious Muslim, and supported Jinnah, who was not a practising Muslim, is itself instructive of the influence of Sir Syed’s two-nation theory.

In all historic evaluation of the events that led to partition, one must take into account the differing perceptions of the majority of Hindus and that of the majority of Muslims to the concept of independent India. Surely, Mr Jaswant Singh’s treatise on Jinnah is bound to raise many a storm in India, but these are likely to be academic in nature.

But the situation on the other side of the border is different. Over the last 62 years, India has fought separatist militancy and survived as a secular democracy. Governments, both at the Centre and in the States, have come and gone in response to freely expressed popular will, without any bloodshed. This is not the case in Pakistan. It is battling for survival against a backlash of Muslim orthodoxy, in spite of the fact that Pakistan is a declared Islamic republic. The orthodoxy in Pakistan believes that the country is still not Islamic enough.

Ever since its birth on August 14, 1947, Pakistan has made ‘hate India’ the only theme of its existence. After realising over four wars that India cannot be defeated, it has resorted to using terrorism to divide India and destroy its economy. Neither terrorism nor promoting divisive forces, however, has shaken the Indian edifice.

Those who believe that Jinnah was secular have a lot to explain regarding Pakistan’s India-specific focus. Ashley Tellis, a Yale University expert on Pakistan, had pointed out last January that India’s achievement in becoming a peaceful, prosperous, multi-ethnic and secular democracy remains an affront to the Lashkar-e-Tayyeba’s vision of a universal Islamist caliphate begotten through tableegh or preaching and jihad.

The debate about Jinnah’s legacy is irrelevant for India. Instead of debating Jinnah’s ‘secular credentials’, we must seek to properly evaluate the threat to our secular democracy from the resurgent Islamic orthodoxy in Jinnah’s Pakistan, of which Al Qaeda, the LeT, etc, are only symptoms.

([email protected])

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 21 Aug 2009 23:01

Sama garu,

I read JS's first book completely. He has a very clear point about partion as a trecheory happened due to the leadership of that time. His point is very simple. Take any where in the world where a country is split has one of two:
1) a referundum
2) an agreement after a big war/ civil war

In India's case none of such things happened and just 4 or 5 INC leaders and one British MOLE (Jinnah) and the British decided that let us divide in a certain way. Did anyone even bothered or thought of taking referundum in each of those villages which way they want to go?

JS had his nanaji's village on the otherside and his paternal house is on this side. There is a pain that he and his type of folks are holding. Now they are becoming old and I guess they are venting out in one way or otherway.

Truth is what needs to be explored. We cannot just say that Nehru did becasue of compulsions etc. They may not have given time and thought through everything. It is very difficult for me to understand as I am not even from that region not belonging to that generation.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 21 Aug 2009 23:03

I am personally of the view that Partition was beneficial stop-gap measure of 80 years or so. It allowed the Indian Civilizational Core to regenerate after many centuries of continual pressure. You often have to cut off the parts of the plant that are rotting, to save the plant. Had India solved the other issues like Kashmir, Tibet, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Chittagong, we would have been in a far far better position? C'est la vie! $hit happens!

In another generation or so, Indian Civilization would again be strong enough to reclaim all that is lost.

faraz · Post by **faraz** » 21 Aug 2009 23:08

I have not read this book but I heard Karan Thapar's interview with Jaswant Singh. I am attaching those two parts over here:

http://ibnlive.in.com/videos/99321/08_2 ... swant.html

http://ibnlive.in.com/videos/99323/gand ... swant.html

It is great that he has been expelled ! He was too open-minded to fight a zealot enemy hell-bent on destroying India .

He talks of pain in the eyes of Muslims. Could not he see the pain in the eyes of the common man ?

He says that Jinnah was not anti-Hindu. If Jinnah was not anti-Hindu, then Ariel Sharon is not anti-Arabs.

It is the old Indian habit for blaming themselves for mistakes of others. We do too much of introspections.

I am not sure who amongst the BJP has read this book but the decision to expel him was well thought of.

Sarma · Post by **Sarma** » 21 Aug 2009 23:09

Muppalla garu: 1946 elections of India were a referendum, even if not explicitly called that.

Ramana garu, Thanks for the Balbir Punj article. It seems to mirror what I am saying, pardon any credit-grabbing on my part.

Abhishek D: I've already said that I am not trying to convince anybody. I can write an equally long thesis on post-1939 events too. But, that will have to wait.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 21 Aug 2009 23:11

Sarma ji,

considering that you joined in 1970, there are very few posts of yours here. Why have you held back your knowledge from us for so long?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 21 Aug 2009 23:21

Muppalla wrote:Sama garu,

I read JS's first book completely. He has a very clear point about partion as a trecheory happened due to the leadership of that time. His point is very simple. Take any where in the world where a country is split has one of two:
1) a referundum
2) an agreement after a big war/ civil war

Usually a protracted civil war is done before partition takes place in most nations.

In India's case none of such things happened and just 4 or 5 INC leaders and one British MOLE (Jinnah) and the British decided that let us divide in a certain way. Did anyone even bothered or thought of taking referundum in each of those villages which way they want to go?

This was discussed before in BR.
The only thing is the list of people mentioned above - Jinnah and Churchill were secretly in communication which the INC and other Indians including Muslims did not know in 1947.
This became public only after 50 years after partition.
What would the leaders have done - Nehru and Patel (and INC )if they knew that Jinnah was secretly in talks with Chruchill during the negotiation for the India Independence act.

JS had his nanaji's village on the otherside and his paternal house is on this side. There is a pain that he and his type of folks are holding. Now they are becoming old and I guess they are venting out in one way or otherway.

There is some truth here. But they have to try and bring the debate properly so that they know clearly why the partition happened so that new generations in their family know that this is how it happened.

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 21 Aug 2009 23:23

Sarma wrote:Muppalla garu: 1946 elections of India were a referendum, even if not explicitly called that.

For such a huge decision for which the repercussions are even today with Uncle and Aunty playing with our live, don't you think it is needed more that 1946 elections?

Just for imagination - If INC leaders asked for referundum village- by-village and say some villages wanted to be with India rather than pakistan then we would have islands of Indias inside pakistan and we would have placed our military in those islands today. The islands of Pakistan inside India would not have survived due to sheer size of India.

RajeshA ji, Sarma is there since very long time. The count will go dow if the threads that you contributer are pruned and none are archived.

Sarma · Post by **Sarma** » 21 Aug 2009 23:27

Rajeshji: Thanks. It may be (heck, it is) presumptuous of me to say that I have wrestled with this issue far more than most people leading a normal, comfortable life would. My background was partly responsible for this. It is only recently, after more than a few years of research and study, that I have come to certain conclusions about partition. And, one of them is to realize that partition is, first and foremost, the result of pre-independence Muslim exclusivism. This is an essential bottomline. Only after this, can one do the usual buck-passing regarding Congress leaders.

If one were to believe Jinnah, it would mean that while he could say and do stuff that was most injurious to the entire Indian society, nobody else was to say anything or do anything that would assert a larger nationalistic viewpoint. Even a pipsqueak here, a slip of tongue there, a wrong step here and a mishap there were reasons enough for Jinnah to tear up the society. Ultimately, he was the worst mass-murderer India has ever seen, being responsible directly for the killing of a million Indians.

Masaru · Post by **Masaru** » 21 Aug 2009 23:34

ramana wrote:Balbir Punj, the BJP MP and commentator writes in Pioneer, 21 August 2009

Jinnah is not relevant

Balbir K Punj

([email protected])

The article by Balbir Punj and the views articulated by Sarma garu IMHO captures the real issues that the then cong. leadership faced while agreeing to partition.

The people (like JS), who are out to crucify JLN for his ambition and for not accommodating Jinnah as the PM of the non-partitioned country are conveniently overlooking the fact, what kind of future the akhand bharat would have faced under Jinnah's stewardship. The political trajectory of Bakistan has taken since 1948 would be a good pointer. Jinnah may not have been a rabid hater of Hindus, for that matter even the British (except for the missionary types) didn't have any particular hatred towards Hindus either .

What both British and Jinnah did was to exploit the Muslim psyche which cannot allow it to be in any other state other than as rulers over infidels. When Jinnah gave out the call for direct action there were thousands (mostly illiterates who most likely didn't know the political implications of the call) who were clear about their religious obligations to kill and plunder the infidels like their 'glorious' ancestors did for thousands of years. This is exactly the same motivation which feeds the illiterate perpetrators of 26/11, who are willing to be used to serve the political purposes of their handlers. Jinnah IMHO was a just a older version of the same handlers. JLN, MKG, and SVP all were fighting against this centrifugal tendency using techniques which they thought were most effective, appeasement, accommodation, coercion etc. etc. .

The ultimate blame for the partition lies with the psyche of a large group of people with superiority complex claiming descent from arabs, turks and persians who thought sharing power with infidels even in a democratic setup is against the teachings of the book/prophet who they dearly love. IMHO partition was a good thing in the long run for the future of the country. Some times a quick though bloody surgery is a better treatment for cancer than a long debilitating chemotherapy. The sad part is that the surgery wasn't perfect and the cancer is metastasizing all over, and for this JLN should be appropriated the blame that he deserves.

Sarma · Post by **Sarma** » 22 Aug 2009 00:02

One comment on the "inevitability of partition." I think this phrase is a red-herring, whether one uses it to support or denounce Congress leaders on the issue of partition.

The real question is: what were the choices offered by our then-masters, the British? There were only two options: (1) A "united" Federal India with a vacuous, emaciated, and non-existent, for all practical purposes, Central Government; or (2) A partitioned India with a moth-eaten Pakistan. Our leaders, including Nehru, Patel and others opted for the second option, for the first option was simply diabolical.

If either option was not acceptable to the two parties that mattered, the British threatened to leave without a coordinated handing of power to a successor state, which meant that the Princely states, as per their Treaties of Paramountcy with the British Crown, would become independent. The Princely states would be free to do what they wanted. The British were not obligated to press on the States to join a Indian or Pakistani union.

The other thing floated was Congress should've egged on the IA to dispel Muslim Leaguers and Partitionists. This is simply impossible. If you read Ambedkar's "Pakistan or Partition", he refers to govt statistics that show that during the World War II, 45% of Indian infantry was Muslim and from Punjab. No way these Muslim soldiers and their Muslim officers would fight against co-religionists. The result would be a war between Hindu IA and Muslim IA, which the Congress leaders wanted to avoid. Yes, they are guilty of this.

Abhi_G · Post by **Abhi_G** » 22 Aug 2009 00:06

olorin wrote:
Jinnah may not have been a rabid hater of Hindus, for that matter even the British (except for the missionary types) didn't have any particular hatred towards Hindus either .

Olorin babu, your assertion about less hatred of brits towards Hindus is not correct. Leave aside the missionaries. According to Sarila's book, time and again, british diplomats use the "brahminical" and "hindu" backgrounds of leaders with disdain and mockery. The former is a pet word to denounce India even today. In interactions with US ambassadors, time and again, the Hindu backgrounds of Indian leaders are negatively portrayed. IMHO, these assertions were not harmless, but they were meant to create the deepest harm to our society and also show the deep resentment and hatred for the Hindu in the brit psyche. There is a rational behind that as well. Any method is justified by the abrahamic invader as long as it destroys and maims the indigeneous culture of the invaded nation.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 22 Aug 2009 00:10

ramana wrote:Jaswant Singh's book on Jinnah is the primary that will result in the Peaceful Implosion of Pakistan (PIP). It will have its own secondary effects beyond BJP etc.

Poor Pakis, JS and others are too intellectual to Paki Awam . He is adding more confusuion to already confused Pakilogs looking for the sperm donor forefathers. Onlee intriguing factor is that there is lot of bakground manouvering going on to manage Pakistan. Pakistan as we know wont be there within a decade. Future will tell who and which player gets what part of Pakistan. Poor Jinna must be turning in his grave and longing for Chota peg to handle his gloom. JS is old and has taken his parting shot at the adversaries.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 22 Aug 2009 00:11

“history teaches us that we rarely learn from history.”

so created histroy our man jasso mithaiwala with this book.

Just you wait and see the TSP elite will soon re start the history by propagating the story that Jaswant book was ghost written by RAW authors to create divisions in TSPakistan ( as if they dont have enough divisions of their own making).

I am not sure if this will create any new Divisions (since pak has enough divisions to send accross yellow sea), but right now divisions have been created in BJP.

It is all natural in life how do living things grow (even at cellular level)?
Mitosis and Meiosis

SO with this book Jasoo will grow in stature, right now he is glowing, then will come gloating ( I bailed out LKg but he banned me

).

Singh might even displace incompetent Krishna or Toor as Foreign minister. Just like AIG executives are in Federal govt advising how to run busines, no?

Its all fun and games for the politicians, because even Sindenefil cant strenghthen their front end or back end.

But do read my lips if not posts. Jasoo will soon be Congress leader. It serves us right.

Jai Hind

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Aug 2009 00:16

I guess you didnt read the exceprts. JS main charge is against JLN and that INC cant accept. He has doen the impossible like the proverbial tailor who killed seven with one blow: Praise the enemy, p*ss of both BJP and INC, confuse the RAPE, and attract Commie support!

IOW there is some truth at the core.

Sarma · Post by **Sarma** » 22 Aug 2009 00:22

JS also did one other unpardonable thing: He tried to soften-up Jinnah, who in the end-game was responsible for mass murder. In doing so, he has done, IMO, much harm to the Indian society.

munna · Post by **munna** » 22 Aug 2009 00:29

Sarma wrote:JS also did one other unpardonable thing: He tried to soften-up Jinnah, who in the end-game was responsible for mass murder. In doing so, he has done, IMO, much harm to the Indian society.

Advani is the intellectually dishonest guy! He attempted his "Jinnah be praised" acrobatics in Karachi first and after that BJP/RSS lost any right to selectively target other leaders.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 22 Aug 2009 00:50

Sarma,
Any reading of history has to not just explain subset of data, but the entire data set. It must also explain what happened, but also explain what did not happen.

Gandhi & JLN & others first and foremost gave up the option to use force to get indian violence. The abjurance of force killed off most of their options in the start. Their only option then remained essentially a long drawn out negotiation process with the British---that is why any reading of India's independence movement looks like a long laundry list of negotiations & accords. This let the British with most of the options on the table, and the INC with very little. If the British forced a certain issue a certain, there was practically little the INC could do. Contrast this with Bose & Bhagat Singh approach, which does not involve begging & negotiatiing over subtle points of some aggreement, but a bold fight.

Secondly, the INC blamed ML of taking on the representation of all the M's of the subcontinent, it is like the pot calling the kettle black, because the INC had itself taken on the mantle of representing entire India. INC did not for allow for alternate parties & movements to grow. In fact, it colluded with the British in stifling patriotic Indians whose actions it did not like. Absence of diversity of approaches to dealing with the British left INC as a weakling to be manipulated as and when the British saought to do. So when the British forced the issue of partition, INC was left with little play given that it had cut off its own hands and put a Kulharee to its own feets in the decades before.

Thirdly, INC leadership was in the dictatorial hands of MKG & JLN. They did not allow a younger more vibrant generation to take over. By the time 1946 came over and it looked like there would be a partion, MKG & JLN were nearing 70's: they were tired and exhausted; they did not have a fight left in them.

Fourthly, in any fight your ability to win depends on your stamina, stength, and ability to take/give punishment. When a 50,000 year old nation is divided and people asked to leave a place where they have lived since dawn of civilization, then there should have been a fight in proportion to the calamity being thrust on them. Look at the American civil war. It was war in which about 10% of the US population peished fighting against a partition. They had been living in this land a mere couple of centuries. How long did that fight go on? What was the intensity of that fight to preserve the union? But the INC leaders basically resisted for less than a year or so and then hopelessly gave up. When direct action day came, they crumbled like a cookie. That is too short a fight for a nation that has been a nation for so long. That is not bravery, that is not courage, and that is not patriotism.

Fifth, MKG's bizzarre and random leadership thrust this problem on the nation. He supported the two world wars. He never went on a fast-till-death fast against partition; he could have, if he rhetoric on his ideals is to be beleived. He stopped quit India movment mid way. His was disinterest in any mutiny in the IA. If the British had been ejected before 1945 or so (in the 20's or 30's even) there was not enough time for them to play this dirty game. MKG's meandering confusing approach provided the fertile ground for the Brits to play.

Sixth, most debators on partition point to lack of options. But there were many options that should have been tried. General uprising, a mass uprising would have thrown British power before its mischief could have played out. They INC would argue that the only options were the options that the British gave them. That is a weak looser's argument. You create options, not beleive that the only option is the one my opponent offers me.

Lastly, the leaders did the most poor job of comminicating with their countrymen. They did not have a clue that partition was coming, so did not warn their countrymen. They aggreed to independence *before* Radcliffe line was announced and cleared up. This left people in many places unsure of whether they were in Pakistan or India when Independence came. INC need not have let that happen. The so-called leaders had little to say to the refugees who came pouring in from Pakistan. Gandhiji was advice that you should have stayed their and let the M's kill & raape you. That is a joke, not an advice. Both JLN & MKG were writers, who wrote books in english. None bothered to write and document what really happened when 1/3 of India became foreign. Neither of them apologized for poor leadership, nor offered any analysis, nor gave away any details. There is something dishonest about this silence.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 22 Aug 2009 01:10

MisraP wrote:
Jinnah may not have been a rabid hater of Hindus, for that matter even the British (except for the missionary types) didn't have any particular hatred towards Hindus either .

British Imperial power knows geo-politics and balance of power.
Jinnah clearly did not knows geo-politics but he admitted that he got moth eaten Pakistan.
Jinnah knew which political power understood geo-politics. He latched on that power. It was very simple for Jinnah

hasmukh · Post by **hasmukh** » 22 Aug 2009 01:23

It's difficult to understand why jaswant or for that matter anyone can admire Jinnah. Maybe they are Hindu self haters. It will do them good to visit amritsar where I grew up and talk to thousand of refugees and their children about the partition as these old fellows have experienced true face of kafir haters. Tears have not yet dried up in their eyes and then visit WAGAH border and see how mohtarmas and nanhey jihadis singing pakistan ka matlab kya ,hans ke liyah pakistan , lad ke legeein hindustan only to be asked to stop by the "1 = 10 kafir" pakistani guards. Meanwhile most of the refugees squarely blamed gandhi and nehru too with the common refrain that we trusted them with our lives and they betrayed us. "APNI LIDEERIYAN WASTEY SAANO BARBAD KARTA" loosely translated means that to acquire power they sacrificed us. The place was hotbed of jansangh even though congress won MP seat well into 90's decade before BJP finally took over. Coming back to Jinnah he was as a lota politician as any a politician with many flip flops dotting his life and thus I believe true inspiration for lota leaders like advani, jaswant, ram bilas paswan etc. At best you can call him a devil genius like hitler and at worst you can call him what refugees address him as which unfortunately is unprintable.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 22 Aug 2009 01:24

Sarma wrote:
The other thing floated was Congress should've egged on the IA to dispel Muslim Leaguers and Partitionists. This is simply impossible. If you read Ambedkar's "Pakistan or Partition", he refers to govt statistics that show that during the World War II, 45% of Indian infantry was Muslim and from Punjab. No way these Muslim soldiers and their Muslim officers would fight against co-religionists. The result would be a war between Hindu IA and Muslim IA, which the Congress leaders wanted to avoid. Yes, they are guilty of this.

Tinker in his book India and Pakistan: A Political Analysis - Please read it online says that Muslim League and Jinnah knew about the Muslim officers inside the British Indian army and their support to Jinnah and his demands.
This is one of the reason for Jinnah to evoke Direct action day in 1946 and his unbending demand and defiance of the INC. People credit him for his courage for facing INC congress and other leaders. The secret was the support from not just the Muslim league in the UP belt but the Muslim army officers in the BIA.

The secret talks among the Muslim officers in BIA, Muslim league, Jinnah and then with British govt and Churchill is a real conspiracy which the Congress leaders and Hindus are mostly unaware of even to this day.

Sarma · Post by **Sarma** » 22 Aug 2009 01:25

Surinder:

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I agree with the gist of what you're saying, but hey what is a discussion without a quibble.

It must also explain what happened, but also explain what did not happen.

This is the most difficult part. I didn't want to get into it in my earlier post, for here, it is open more to conjecture and inference than hard facts.

Gandhi & JLN & others first and foremost gave up the option to use force to get indian violence. The abjurance of force killed off most of their options in the start. Their only option then remained essentially a long drawn out negotiation process with the British---that is why any reading of India's independence movement looks like a long laundry list of negotiations & accords. This let the British with most of the options on the table, and the INC with very little. If the British forced a certain issue a certain, there was practically little the INC could do. Contrast this with Bose & Bhagat Singh approach, which does not involve begging & negotiatiing over subtle points of some aggreement, but a bold fight.

Sorry Surinder, this is quite simplistic. You cannot fault Congress for holding a certain ideology, that of achieving independence through peaceful means. They never said that you cannot hold a different ideology, but you'll have to do it outside of Congress platform. The other views/parties have failed to capture the imagination of large mass of common Indians, for whatever reason.

Secondly, the INC blamed ML of taking on the representation of all the M's of the subcontinent, it is like the pot calling the kettle black, because the INC had itself taken on the mantle of representing entire India.

You make a very thought-provoking point here.

Thirdly, INC leadership was in the dictatorial hands of MKG & JLN. They did not allow a younger more vibrant generation to take over. By the time 1946 came over and it looked like there would be a partion, MKG & JLN were nearing 70's: they were tired and exhausted; they did not have a fight left in them.

This is more like your view than a historical fact. I would like to see some references on this. BTW, JN was 57 in 47.

Fourthly, in any fight your ability to win depends on your stamina, stength, and ability to take/give punishment. When a 50,000 year old nation is divided and people asked to leave a place where they have lived since dawn of civilization, then there should have been a fight in proportion to the calamity being thrust on them. Look at the American civil war. It was war in which about 10% of the US population peished fighting against a partition. They had been living in this land a mere couple of centuries. How long did that fight go on? What was the intensity of that fight to preserve the union? But the INC leaders basically resisted for less than a year or so and then hopelessly gave up. When direct action day came, they crumbled like a cookie. That is too short a fight for a nation that has been a nation for so long. That is not bravery, that is not courage, and that is not patriotism.

Yes, this is exactly what I used to think before. But, I am a bit less emotional about it after my reading.

Fifth, MKG's bizzarre and random leadership thrust this problem on the nation. He supported the two world wars. He never went on a fast-till-death fast against partition; he could have, if he rhetoric on his ideals is to be beleived. He stopped quit India movment mid way. His was disinterest in any mutiny in the IA. If the British had been ejected before 1945 or so (in the 20's or 30's even) there was not enough time for them to play this dirty game. MKG's meandering confusing approach provided the fertile ground for the Brits to play.

Subjective viewpoint. Like I said before, this is nitpicking on one or two statements or incidents.

Sixth, most debators on partition point to lack of options. But there were many options that should have been tried. General uprising, a mass uprising would have thrown British power before its mischief could have played out. They INC would argue that the only options were the options that the British gave them. That is a weak looser's argument. You create options, not beleive that the only option is the one my opponent offers me.

Subjective what if. You are saying they should have done something more or different. I can't quibble with that.

Lastly, the leaders did the most poor job of comminicating with their countrymen. They did not have a clue that partition was coming, so did not warn their countrymen. They aggreed to independence *before* Radcliffe line was announced and cleared up. This left people in many places unsure of whether they were in Pakistan or India when Independence came. INC need not have let that happen. The so-called leaders had little to say to the refugees who came pouring in from Pakistan. Gandhiji was advice that you should have stayed their and let the M's kill & raape you. That is a joke, not an advice. Both JLN & MKG were writers, who wrote books in english. None bothered to write and document what really happened when 1/3 of India became foreign. Neither of them apologized for poor leadership, nor offered any analysis, nor gave away any details. There is something dishonest about this silence.

This may be true, but I wouldn't attribute it to dishonesty.

My intention as I have already said a few time is not to support Congress, but to study and know what happened. While a lot more or lot different could've happened, it didn't. In my study, I didn't commit myself to the latter. Now, I may have to.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 22 Aug 2009 01:35

Sarma wrote: This may be true, but I wouldn't attribute it to dishonesty.

My intention as I have already said a few time is not to support Congress, but to study and know what happened. While a lot more or lot different could've happened, it didn't. In my study, I didn't commit myself to the latter. Now, I may have to.

Sarma,
So are you saying Bhagat Singh never captured public imagination? You should also possibly explore what lead to Bose's resignation from the congress - remember he defeated Gandhi's candidate.

and then even though Patel had the majority support in CWC, Gandhi selected Nehru.

and you are saying only Gandhi and Nehru caught public imagination, even though the actual ground root support has been swayed by somebody else many times, but were defeated by the politics and guilt-rapes of these two guys.

munna · Post by **munna** » 22 Aug 2009 01:36

hahahehe wrote: "APNI LIDEERIYAN WASTEY SAANO BARBAD KARTA" loosely translated means that to acquire power they sacrificed us

Even i grew up listening to the same, as people had initially thought nay believed that Gandhiji will never let them be harmed and that there will be no division. Majority of divided people felt betrayed by Gandhi's U-turn and did not listen to his counsel when the riots were at their zenith. Gandhi dared not influence punjabis and they anyways did not listen to him. Period

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 22 Aug 2009 01:41

Admins who is this hahehe who needs moksha?

Congress has the culture of co opting hence JS is eminently suited for their purpose,remember how CPI CPM ML all were co opted sometime or the other?

Heck even Netaji who was expelled from Congress was co opted after his death, because he brought votes and was dead to be any threat to any congresswallahs.

So jasso will be at home in Congress, congress is nothing but a weed it grows roots any where, hence their immortality or immorality.

Seriously Folks I am writing a book

Sonia Gandhi the father of nation, India.
How the british were defeated in India and liberation to Indian msses when they were in Hybernation. The transformation of a nation from hybernation to Hypernation ending in Cybernation.

It will cover all aspects from cover to cover.

Only IPO please (IPO, International Postam Orders, no checks, no balances ,no visa)

Meanwhile Librarians all over the world are conducting emergency meeting to classify the new book of Jasso mithaiwala,

They seem to be divided at seams
Should it be genere

Fiction
Friction
Archeaology
Biography
Adult fantasy
Adult Fiction
Jouvenile fiction
Erotica
Erratica
Commisions
Note state of Gujarat has it classified as Erratica.

Please help the Librarians rearing to go.

PS my inside sources tell me that Jaswant was very ably assisted by Indologist Sharva Shree Stephen Cohen, who has access to lots of moolah (kaaranam)

BijuShet · Post by **BijuShet** » 22 Aug 2009 01:46

surinder wrote:Sarma,
Any reading of history has to not just explain subset of data, but the entire data set. It must also explain what happened, but also explain what did not happen.
...
Thirdly, INC leadership was in the dictatorial hands of MKG & JLN. They did not allow a younger more vibrant generation to take over. By the time 1946 came over and it looked like there would be a partion, MKG & JLN were nearing 70's: they were tired and exhausted; they did not have a fight left in them.
...

Minor correction Surinderji J L Nehru was born in 14 November 1889 so he was 57 in 1946.

Edited later: I see Sarmaji has already pointed out this minor error.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 22 Aug 2009 01:46

surinder wrote:
Fourthly, in any fight your ability to win depends on your stamina, stength, and ability to take/give punishment. When a 50,000 year old nation is divided and people asked to leave a place where they have lived since dawn of civilization, then there should have been a fight in proportion to the calamity being thrust on them. Look at the American civil war. It was war in which about 10% of the US population peished fighting against a partition. They had been living in this land a mere couple of centuries. How long did that fight go on? What was the intensity of that fight to preserve the union? But the INC leaders basically resisted for less than a year or so and then hopelessly gave up. When direct action day came, they crumbled like a cookie. That is too short a fight for a nation that has been a nation for so long. That is not bravery, that is not courage, and that is not patriotism.

This is a fundamental question which will be asked for generations about INC leaders at independence.

Lastly, the leaders did the most poor job of comminicating with their countrymen. They did not have a clue that partition was coming, so did not warn their countrymen. They aggreed to independence *before* Radcliffe line was announced and cleared up. This left people in many places unsure of whether they were in Pakistan or India when Independence came. INC need not have let that happen. The so-called leaders had little to say to the refugees who came pouring in from Pakistan. Gandhiji was advice that you should have stayed their and let the M's kill & raape you. That is a joke, not an advice. Both JLN & MKG were writers, who wrote books in english. None bothered to write and document what really happened when 1/3 of India became foreign. Neither of them apologized for poor leadership, nor offered any analysis, nor gave away any details. There is something dishonest about this silence.

Somebody said that the partition violence was so much that the generation which witnessed it just kept quite to ease the pain. I dont beleive this.

I beleive that some leaders of the INC were paid of by the British and other parties who supported the partition in not pushing for change after 1947. Pakistan was a project of diverse people from UP Muslims, Punjab Muslims, Muslim League, Sindhis, Kashmiri Mirpuris etc who formed and alliance and got funded by rich Indian muslims and approached British to make it viable. British got the money and made sure that the fertile land of the Indus would all be within Pakistan and hoped that Kashmir also will eventually fall into Pakistan to create a complete source for a agrarian economy and prosparity

Remember Pakistan was still not a republic until 1958 and they never had a constitution. The capitol was still Karachi and it was interim government. Only the Muslim parties and Maududi forced the issue of Islamic Pakistan into the constituent assembly seeing the deadlock in the govt formation.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 22 Aug 2009 01:48

Sarna, Thanks for being a good sport in this arguments. This is merely time pass as the past is past and cannot be changed. I will say a few things and hang up my holster:

Sorry Surinder, this is quite simplistic. You cannot fault Congress for holding a certain ideology, that of achieving independence through peaceful means. They never said that you cannot hold a different ideology, but you'll have to do it outside of Congress platform. The other views/parties have failed to capture the imagination of large mass of common Indians, for whatever reason.

INC not only killed alternative ideologies within INC, but also vowed to fight them outside of party too. I have no problem if it was the former only, but they colluded with the British in fighting patriotic Indians is unpardonable. MKG & JLN talked in double-forked toungue on the Bhagat Singh, RajGuru Sukhdev case. Most opposing Bhagat Singh, but when sensing that he had captured the imagination of the people, meekly issuing statements of partial support. They and the British were in aggreement on Bhagat Singh. (as a matter of fact, Jinnah was a supporter of Bhagat Singh & if I am not mistaken even represented him.) With Bose they played dirty politics---kicking him out when he won the elections. Then washing their hands off off him and supporting the British IA in liquidating the INA. In fact, it was Bose who got the first sliver of Indian territory independence (much before the Aug 15, 1947)--the Andaman islands. The INC even to this ridicules him. Udham Singh, who killed Michael Dyer, was similarly castigated by INC. His remains brought to India in 60's, i think. Were it not for the fact that the movements of Bose etc. had cought the public's imagination, INC would not even given the few small cursory supportive statements.

BTW, JN was 57 in 47.

JLN was pushing 60, MKG pushing 70. Not exactly young chickens, but then preparing younger leaders is part of the job of a leader, precisely for the reasons we see in the partition drama.

This may be true, but I wouldn't attribute it to dishonesty.

When an otherwise locquacious person suddenly clams up, this raises the question that something is fishy.

PS: JLN was sleeping with Edwina MOuntbatten. This is classic COI (conflict of interest). You are having an affair with a party you are supposed to be negotiating. I find it deeply disturbing, it is not just a personal failing.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 22 Aug 2009 01:49

MG was 20 yrs elder to him hence MG was born in 1869. Just before civil war in US....
We celebrated his Centenary in 1969. Now we are killing him again

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 22 Aug 2009 02:00

munna wrote:
hahahehe wrote: "APNI LIDEERIYAN WASTEY SAANO BARBAD KARTA" loosely translated means that to acquire power they sacrificed us
Even i grew up listening to the same, as people had initially thought nay believed that Gandhiji will never let them be harmed and that there will be no division. Majority of divided people felt betrayed by Gandhi's U-turn and did not listen to his counsel when the riots were at their zenith. Gandhi dared not influence punjabis and they anyways did not listen to him. Period

Actually I grew up also listening to the same. Most Punjabis felt that the mahatma & JLN had both deeply betrayed them. For in the end, the common Punjabis (leaderless) did what they could on their own, with no input or even a whiff of support from the so-called leaders. Nor was their suffering at loosing their lands & hearth given much prominence in the INC narrative (probably they realize that the Punjabi's anguish is a reminder of their failure.)

The statement by HeHeHeHaHa just reminds us how deeply out of touch with reality the Indian leadership was.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 22 Aug 2009 02:19

No advance was paid, I am almost done with it.