A look back at the partition

[enqyoob]

Now v r getting into the area of "Let's b honest: Was Partition Justified By the Existing Ground Realities?" I think I will sit back with the nilakkadalai and the bottle of rooh afza and watch that discussion. Didn't think the current crop of postors would venture into that aspect, where the Ys dare not venture, but delighted to see some big names go there.

I will just mention in passing that this is one of those reasons that I keep locked away, why I believe the Partition did a lot of good for India, not by any means minimizing the monstrous suffering visited upon millions of innocents.

Those hu have been to the Lincoln Memorial in DupleeCity and have bothered to stop and read carefully, the stuff on the wall on the right side (looking into the Memorial) will recognize the sheer courage needed for a national leader to stand up and say the UnThinkable. Lincoln did. Gandhiji did. Nehru I think did.

It takes very little courage to yell the sentiments that the mob loves. But if u read Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address, u will c some chilling parallels.

OK, thanx very much, now leaving for the FallOut Shelter with the Observation Window.

[Sanku]

And about a million people died creating the septic tank.
But it still stinks in India, the septic tank not far enough?
Or should we have treated the widespread infestation in situ, over a prolonged period of time?
May be part of the problem was treating them like sh*t by us in the first place? Freudian slip?

Actually the whole analogy was so ridiculous that I refused to dignify it by even talking about it, but since now it has been talked about.

Did it appear to the oh so great believers of truth law and justice on BRF that a septic tank is created so that Shit can be thrown outside the house safely at a ---- "regular basis"

After all the house does not pass shit only once?

Perhaps the stink is because we are not using the septic tank but leaving the stuff in the drawing room?

And regularly after sending the shit to the tank it also has to be cleaned with the tank? Also making such tanks near the sources of water is not allowed since some of the stuff leaches right back into the ground into the parts where you dont want it.

Freudian slip indeed I think.

[brihaspati]

Yes "the sheer courage needed for a national leader to stand up and say the UnThinkable".
Lincoln did. What did he do? Went ahead in reuniting what he thought was his nation in face of mounting losses in men and reversals when at some time point even the federal capital was within range of confederate guns.

Gandhiji did. What did he do? He started observing Mounabrata.

Nehru did. What did he do? He gave speeches on how inevitable the division of the nation was - something similar to the necessary pangs of birth for freedom that the feminine nation has to bear - the fathers and uncles of that feminine nation can of course only sympathize.

[enqyoob]

That's the beauty of Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address. Very few have read it, certainly very few Americans let alone tourists.

[RamaY]

Likewise, there are many in India (and a few left on this forum) who advocate / wish for genocide inside India against whomever they think they can get away with murdering and looting. I find that to be something that should be shown absolutely no tolerance, and since there IS a wide world outside BRF where they can go sprout their hatred, I invite them to do so (I mean go), and sometimes help them along.

N3-ji,

I respectfully disagree on the bolded part. I am responding to this comment because you accused me too of this.

It is people like you who are imposing this "genocidal solution" (and throw fascist word along with it) on certain viewpoints and then escaping with equally "intolerant" perspectives and comments. I have pointed this tactic quite a few times on this forum.

[RamaY]

This was dear Abby's 2nd inaugural address.

Fellow-Countrymen:

AT this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.

{Elite think}
On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, urgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.

{Leadership think}
One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

Let the contemplation begin.

[Prem]

Do those million dead and their descendants deserve to know the Truth who laid down the foundation of 47 genocide/ ethnic cleansing ?

[ShauryaT]

Actually the whole analogy was so ridiculous that I refused to dignify it by even talking about it

It was despicable, the way it came out. I typed up a post and did not post it due to the above sentiment. It felt like like someone spitting on my body.

[Sanku]

Do those million dead and their descendants deserve to know the Truth who laid down the foundation of 47 genocide/ ethnic cleansing ?

Not in this India no, at best you will get a JS who will dance around the topic and point but wont say it. Even then he has to attach disclaimers in the beginning and the end to make sure his book does not end up as Lajja.

[Prem]

Do those million dead and their descendants deserve to know the Truth who laid down the foundation of 47 genocide/ ethnic cleansing ?

Not in this India no, at best you will get a JS who will dance around the topic and point but wont say it. Even then he has to attach disclaimers in the beginning and the end to make sure his book does not end up as Lajja.

Then there is nothing to discuss or write except untruth and the discontent will remain under the surface. To settle the issue is to face the truth , no matter how ugly. Jinnha,Jinnites, Kangressi or British,all need to face the ugliness of their karma who played with the lives of many milllions .

[Sanku]

Then there is nothing to discuss or write except untruth and the discontent will remain under the surface. To settle the issue is to face the truth , no matter how ugly. Jinnha,Jinnites, Kangressi or British,all need to face the ugliness of their karma who played with the lives of many milllions .

I do not agree that we have to write untruth only. Not 100% turth != untruth. We can talk about as much as we can. The memories must be kept alive. The lessons must not be forgotten.

[enqyoob]

The part that completely escapes (or is deliberately ignored because it so offends their delicate sentiments) the Majority:

The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

Lincoln was not gloating how the Nation's Integrity had been maintained and "Befitting Replies Had Been Given To All Eventualities". Lincoln stood up and flat out said that the terrible war that devastated his nation was the judgement delivered by ATM for past offenses - with the relatives of all the dead and maimed hearing/reading. He was saying this to those who had just elected him. That's what took courage - and he paid for it a few days later.

As for the genocidal hatred which some postors continue to harbor for many Indian citizens based on some perceived differences and their own superiority - just read the rants above. You'd think they were sent by Jinnah's PR firm. And this is 60 years AFTER Partition. Directed at the citizens who chose to remain Indian - and at their children / grandchildren who have grown up knowing nothing but India as their homeland. Q.E.D. Quaid-e-Duh!

(Now back to the kappalandi kadalai and rooh afza - where r the ppl hu wanted to discuss what might have goaded many to the conclusion that Partition was necessary? That they had ONE chance in a millennium, even if it cost their lives, to make a clean break if they were going to have any chance at a decent life as full citizens? Not going to cede the ground to the ranters, hey? )

[RamaY]

The part that completely escapes (or is deliberately ignored because it so offends their delicate sentiments)

It was duly recognized. It was called Leadership Think.

As for the genocidal hatred which some postors continue to harbor for many Indian citizens based on some perceived differences and their own superiority - just read the rants above. You'd think they were sent by Jinnah's PR firm. And this is 60 years AFTER Partition. Directed at the citizens who chose to remain Indian - and at their children / grandchildren who have grown up knowing nothing but India as their homeland. Q.E.D. Quaid-e-Duh!

Well, the whole media and some political parties accepted LKg-Advani after he praised the same Jinnah and our so-called Nehruvians (or should I say billion Indians) didn't lynch him publicly for saying that.

The last time someone mentioned Quaid-e-Duh in a cocktail party (read the other posts), he was kicked in pants and taken half of his Bharat-Ek-Khoj.

Whoever remained Indian, they remained Indian because they believed in India. Not because they didn't accept QeD or Pakistan.

Self Edited: removed unnecessary comment...

[enqyoob]

Huh?

[samuel]

In contrast to asking whether partition was necessary, I often find myself asking a different question; is partition sufficient?
To that I can only answer that partition has been insufficient to give India stability and growth. Whether it would be "far less" if we had not been partitioned is a moot question. What is not is whether the objectives of partition, stated ostensibly have been met.

Curious also is the fact that with Panditji we find a man capable of getting in your face without any thing to back it up. He asked Jinnah to f*ck off, essentially, and Jinnah helped make partition (with lots of help). Unlike today's wisdom neither Gandhiji nor Nehru wanted partition, they fought it. Had they accepted it as the wise thing to do, India may have had a better preparation for transfer, had less casualties or at least we may have fought knowing what it is we were fighting for. After repeatedly holding to that position and getting in the hole, direct action was enough to shake them up. But did Nehru et al. really think that the ML won't lift a finger and did they actually let direct action happen? Really, they underestimated the ML after year after year of rioting since say 1920. And, so, when it does happen, fold at first sight. Is this an isolated performance? No, see what happened in China. Throw them out is what he pompously said....followed by unkil, bear, please help. This is our chacha for you. He did not have the courage to live within his means and work his way up. Had a great fall indeed.

[enqyoob]

Ah, but why do you think Partition may have been essential?

DID undivided India really treat certain "minorities" as sh1t? Did that ignite Partition? What was the ground reality of social justice in India in 1946?

Also, do you think that the past 60 years would have been turned out anything like this if it had not been for Partition? Would Indian democratic institutions and the determination to avoid sectarian conflict, and the determination to make space for people of all religions, be as powerful if there had been no Partition?

Would the Mughal Empire have been replicated in Dilli within a couple of decades, as the Majority Community went back to what we do best, viz, bicker and back-stab? Without the Pakistani threat, would India have developed so much nationalistic strength? Without Pakistan to contrast against, would India's Secular Constitution have survived?

Or would those who demand "cultural uniformity" etc. have done to India what Serbian arrogance did to Yugoslavia, and Russian arrogance did to the Soviet Union?

Do the guys who rule the Babucracy in India impress you as being terribly committed to social justice and equality - or mainly to promoting their sub-sub-sub-sect/caste and family?

(Back to the popcorn..)

[Prem]

Well, almost every one consider this complete, uncomplete, inevitable or avoidable partition a real sad event . Baki Bolunga to bologe ke bolta hai.

[enqyoob]

Oh, no question that it was sad. So was the American "civil" war. Absolutely nothing to celebrate. But the thread here is to look back at it from 60 years out, and try to analyze it as dispassionately as possible. And I could make a case that India without Partition may not have survived 60 years. Not 20 even.

[Prem]

This does not mean we stop thinking about ways for eradicating TSPIAns and get the land back. Not now , may be in next century of after that . The misison needs to be drilled into our children, so when time come, oppertunity exploited they make their Pitr happy in high heavens. It Cant be over till over with Bakistaniats.

[ShauryaT]

In contrast to asking whether partition was necessary, I often find myself asking a different question; is partition sufficient?

No. it was not sufficient because partition was the wrong solution. It only created a temporary respite but did not do much to cure the underlying causes. If the right conditions are created again, these underlying causes of Islamism and to a degree of external interference, remain quite intact. These causes can, will and have created trouble for India. Partition itself has given rise to new issues such as of unstable neighbors, new enemies, and 1000's killed. So, how was the partition a solution, we have gotten the much feared violence anyways. Making a case that we are better off with the partition, based on known fears is easy.

The thing is those who make this case that we are better off with the partition indirectly spite every muslim citizen of India today, whos ancestors supported the idea of Pakistan too.

[samuel]

Let's look at how partition came about first before we understand its inevitability, its necessity or lack thereof? No one can say how it happened, yet. If we do, we may be able to get a handle on other things. For example, if partition was inevitable then the leaders misread that deeply and did not adequately help prepare society. Why do you suppose that would be. They were asking people to stay. If partition could be avoided, then at least Nehru's attitude itself was a roadblock to that if not a large leadership. This is coming out now.

What would've happened had we not partitioned. I don't know and I don't think that is relevant. But whatever was supposed to have been achieved by it, I don't think has.

For what it's worth, "had we not partitioned" we might have had a china problem sooner or may be not, we might've taken on a UN membership, we may not have had 62 or 65 or 71 or Kargil. The whole Soviet in Afghan would be something else. And it is possible that I might've graduated from Lahore. That course would've brought with it its own challenges to which there are the usual popcorn answers. What I can see is that the progress of this country (I mean in terms of education, economy) would not have stopped and the people who worked up negotiating to succeed would not have stopped. The inevitability of partition only seems that way in the absence of preparation. In the absence of asking the question in 1909, then in 1920, then in 1928, then in 1935 and then in 1942 and then 1946: what must we do to live together well? Who asked that question and if we did not ask that question and find answers other than segregation, why would not the "inevitability of partition" seem like an obvious conclusion. But answer that we must, even today, for this partition question is going to come back. Either as repeated effort to rip india, or through sh*t we accumulate. But I won't engage in that question further because I am not prepared.

PS: Shaurya, thanks for making the point.

[Prem]

IMs have been disappointed with Pakistan for its ideological failure . Momins were supposed to be superior to Kuffar but Pakistaniat has exposed the hoax . We all ackonwledge and accept that Pakistan is Islam and Islam is Pakistan. The failure of Pakistan made in the name of Islam is the failure of Islam itself.

[sanjaykumar]

The madrassa syllogism is

Islam is superior to all
Pakistanis are Muslims
Therefore Pakistanis are not good enough Muslims.

[RayC]

This is what Jaswant Singh writes on Page 5 of his book

How did Islam with ease first become Indian, then struggle to become a geographical supernumerary to it, to this great spread of what was their own 'home'. Far from being the faith of kings, emperors and the rulers of India, for a period of time, it then became the faith of the 'separator', of those that divided the land, expelling itself (notionally) from India....

and relegating such of the faith that remained within India to a life of perpetual self questioning and doubt about their true identity.....

[Sanku]

It sheer lack of intellectual ability which stops people from imagining any other alternative than what exists currently.

No one has yet told us what partition achieved -- yet we are also told that this was the best option, we are also told that any thing else would mean India would have not had the exact 60 year time history. Of course --duh.

We would not have the exact 60 year history and then perhaps 80% of my class mates from eye eye tea would have been India rather than in US and working to make India a super power?

Maybe we would not have to suffer 1000+ deaths by terrorism every year? May be the Kashmiri Hindu's would still be in Kashmir?

Maybe the overall Hindu population of Pakistan area would not be 0.001% and a little more in Bangladesh?

[enqyoob]

The madrassa syllogism is
Islam is superior to all
Pakistanis are Muslims
Therefore Pakistanis are not good enough Muslims.

Ah! As it happens, had I not consigned the email to the trash immediately, I could have produced a grand declaration from one of the resident "Hindu" experts in California, declaring as if there is no room for doubt on the matter, that people of HIS caste are absolutely superior in intellect to all other humans - and all others who claim to have any association with India should do saashtaang pranaam b4 him. EXACTLY the sentiments that are attributed to the madarssas above.

This is the immense weakness of the Indian social structure that Gandhiji spent his life trying to change - and eventually paid with his life trying to persuade through example and reason, those who only understand the jackboot on the teeth and the bullwhip on their backsides. This is the proper analogy with Lincoln. Upon "winning" the war, he told his compatriots the truth as he saw it. They killed him.

The same SuperiorityByBirth arrogance of those who want everyone else to bow to them, makes them genuflect and rush to learn Mandarin and Urdu to grab the good jobs when faced with forces who use violence. I say the same to all such ppl, whether Hindu, Xtian, Buddhist, Jain, Muslim or Marxist: Kiss my musharraf. So would most citizens of a free, modern secular democracy.

So this guy may not be violent, personally. However, the effect of having his sort of blind prejudice and arrogance foisted upon a population of simple people for centuries, would naturally be that one day they bring out the lamppost and the pitchforks.

You can see the same attitude displayed, for instance in the post above. Rather than debate on points, the immediate resort is to how superior one is, etc. etc.

So I submit that in the absence of Partition, not only would "Greater India" have broken into MANY more pieces, the surviving large chunks would be under Islamic rule as Caliphate of Pakistan. You just have to look carefully at the attitudes displayed today by the 'Indian intelligentsia' to see this as inevitable.

Of course I completely agree with Sankuji that people who cannot imagine anything other than the present setup, cannot imagine how this might have evolved in a completely different manner. So let us excuse him from this strenuous exercise. But I posted one way to hep in this, way back in this thread: Look at how the OTHER nations that became independent in Asia and Africa around the same period:

Malaysia, Indonesia, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Afghanistan, Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyka, Zanzibar, Burundi, Rwanda, Somalia, Ethiopia, Chad, Libya, Morocco, Central African Republic, Madagascar, Congo, Sierra Leone, Ghana, Nigeria, Burma, Sri Lanka, Nepal.

How many became functioning secular democracies and have survived so today? Is there some fundamental reason (leaving aside the unquestionable superiority of the certain tribes I mentioned) why Greater Pakistan would have evolved differently?

[ShauryaT]

Sanku: One of the reasons, I asked you if JS was endorsing the 14 point plan that Jinnah proposed is intrinsically I think, India should have adopted a more federal model, than the known and preferred beast at that time the unitary model of the British. Of course, accepting all the 14 points was out of the question, but one way to see the 14 points was that it was a starting maximalist position, meant for negotiation. To what degree were these 14 points debated because most books say that they were not debated at all?

Indian history and culture and geographic realities would favor a federal model very well. One of the major endeavors of the current polity is to move towards this model, where a start has been made through the 73/74th amendments, which deal with the issue of devolution of powers to nagarpalikas and panchayats. The reason the issue interests me is because we inherited a constitution, which was 85% British in origin and the INC was comfortable only with a unitary model. They feared and did not trust the Indian population (hence the charge of a brown sahib). I am convinced and so are a majority of observers of our constitution that it was and is the wrong model for India. It would have charted a different course for India, had we started out on a federal model (with or without partition).

[shaardula]

But I posted one way to hep in this, way back in this thread: Look at how the OTHER nations that became independent in Asia and Africa around the same period:

Malaysia, Indonesia, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Afghanistan, Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyka, Zanzibar, Burundi, Rwanda, Somalia, Ethiopia, Chad, Libya, Morocco, Central African Republic, Madagascar, Congo, Sierra Leone, Ghana, Nigeria, Burma, Sri Lanka, Nepal.

How many became functioning secular democracies and have survived so today? Is there some fundamental reason (leaving aside the unquestionable superiority of the certain tribes I mentioned) why Greater Pakistan would have evolved differently?

My understanding is that the trajectory was decided due to both active and passive reasons, and continues to be guided by similar if not exact reasons. Just like both the hydrodynamic properties of a ship and kapitan's intentions both decide where the ship can reasonably go in the next unit of time. there were two communities. each had similar conditions. their average reaction to british raj was different. their average reactions to the developments of the time was different. i think what happened was while both wanted the british out, the reason and expectation was different. so the split.

after that. why are the trajectories different. for more or less the same reasons. some very crucial and fundamental changes we could make, bcoz our kapitan's had reasonable ambitions, and also bcoz of hydrodynamic properties - in many matters which ultimately turned out to be crucial for us, our power centers were not interested/ powerful enough/motivated enough to perpetuate the status quo or fight the change of course kapitans prescribed. this is not a matter to be ashamed of. for example, people in dilli could declare something on a piece of paper and if the justification is sufficient people didnot/donot react to it. so N a related question is why is this is possible in India? again active and passive reasons.

i think in fields of this complexity, the approach should be that too is true.

kept it deliberately generalized bcoz other the thread will degenerate. please think of the examples yourselves.

in the end, brf-paul et al have pointed out what the long term goal should be and why. brf-sridhar et al constantly provide snap-shots of what exists. the dynamics of all this is explained by brf-b'pati. i think it is reasonable to assume that from where we are to where we want to get to, its going to take a while. i think even my grandchildren will be subject similar issues. in the meanwhile we should try to keep our shirts on.

[SSridhar]

. . . intrinsically I think, India should have adopted a more federal model, than the known and preferred beast at that time the unitary model of the British. Of course, accepting all the 14 points was out of the question, but one way to see the 14 points was that it was a starting maximalist position, meant for negotiation. To what degree were these 14 points debated because most books say that they were not debated at all?

ShauryaT, about the 14-point issue. That was modelled by Jinnah on the US President WoodrowWilson's 14-point formula on the eve of the Armistice of c. 1918, which formed a basis for discussions in the Paris Peace Conference of c. 1919. Empires such as the Hapsburg, Ottoman and the Czar had collapsed by then and in their place ‘homogeneous, ethnic and linguistic nation-states’ had sprung up. That such new homogenous lands cannot be established without forcible migration of population and attendant violence was proven shortly by the rise of Hitler and later in the bisection of India and. Shorter versions of these horrible acts were enacted by the Turks and Greeks. Jinnah’s 14-point plan and his later resort to violence were direct derivatives of the Wilsonian doctrine, though at the time it was announced, he was still being seen as an 'arch compromiser' for Hindu-Muslim unity. Among his fourteen points were the demand for not less than one third representation for Muslims in the central legislature as well as any cabinet (later events were to prove that Jinnah could never be satisfied even when, for example, offered an equal representation along with the INC in the Viceroy's Executive Council in c. 1945), continuation of separate electorates for Muslims, requirement of three-fourths of Muslims supporting any Bill for it to be passed in Legislature even if it had majority support otherwise, and communal quota for Civil Services jobs. These were not only rejected by the Congress, which was unsurprising, but also by the Muslim League. We have to also remember that the fear of centrifugal forces breaking up India was quite real in the early days (heck, we are even worried about this even today) and a strong central government was probably felt as a much needed bulwark.

As for the debate of these 14 points, it is my understanding that they were debated, not as a catalogue of demands in totality. Jinnah had made most of these points at various times in various meetings before (especialy his Delhi Muslim Proposals of c. 1927) and these had been debated. Four of the points were Aga Khan's. Therefore, Jinnah's 14-points were not unique and were not made public for the first time in c. 1929. Some of the Muslim League reactions were worth noting: Aga Khan refused to take any note of them, Fazl-i-Husain said it was 'old wine in a new bottle' which had already soured.

[Sanku]

Sanku: One of the reasons, I asked you if JS was endorsing the 14 point plan that Jinnah proposed is intrinsically I think, India should have adopted a more federal model, than the known and preferred beast at that time the unitary model of the British.

Well the federated solution was discussed many times between 1928 to 1937, according to JS, Jinaah and the Muslim League kept trying for a federated solution and Nehru kept rejecting it.

MKG was apparently amenable to the idea.

Of course the exact federated solution would also be matter of discussion but Nehru kept rejecting it out of hand -- but please note his motivations for the unitary model came NOT from the British Unitary model but the Soviet Unitary model.

All in All we owe the current model substantially to JLN who pushed through this vision even at the dissint of many others.

It IS to be noted though that JLN did get a lot of support from the newer generations in this, even folks like Bhagat Singh had similar ideas and motivations.

So was federated solution ever discussed -- yes and no depending on who you ask -- it is true for the Nehru Congress post 30s this was never an option and was never discussed with the British while nation formation too so to say.

Yet in the overall political space this was always discussed.

But note the reasons that Muslim League wanted a 14 point solution was different from what you say here. For Muslim league it was more of a complicated way of ensuring that Muslims had a 2x population benefit where Muslims where in Majority and no such extra benefits to Hindus were they were in minority + an method to avoid consolidation of Hindu power in the center.

Coming to Jinaah he had different agenda altogether from ML too, he went along with ML but was trying for position at National level and hence was undercutting federalism for some things while giving in to ML for others.

So it was games within games and everyone was playing their own position while claiming something else -- and Jinaah's position was the trader of options.
He doesnt seem to have a core ideology, the one that he had died a very very long time ago and was doomed from the start (Secular politics run only by highly educated upper crust Indians on the basis of constitution methods under the existing setup)

---

PS> Posted independent of SSridhars post.

[brihaspati]

Ah,
it would be good to get to know the causal relationship which has apparently been established in history between Lincoln's second inaugural speech and JWB's potshot on behalf of the "American nation". Any authentic rsearch ref?

"Malaysia, Indonesia, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Afghanistan, Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyka, Zanzibar, Burundi, Rwanda, Somalia, Ethiopia, Chad, Libya, Morocco, Central African Republic, Madagascar, Congo, Sierra Leone, Ghana, Nigeria, Burma, Sri Lanka, Nepal."

Nepal became independent in the same period? I thought it was always "independent". Technically there were territorial disputes with the Tibetans and the EIC, but the solid support given in the 1857 crisis, sealed the "friendship". Formally I think all disputes were settled through the 1923 acknowledgement by the British.

Excluding Nepal, other countries in the list have one obvious difference with India - they did not have the "Hindu" as the majority population. Even in Nepal, the "democratic" process seems only to have been delayed as expected by the presence of "monarchy", but not stalled or subverted completely as in countries which fell under the Abrahamic dominance one way or the other and did not have any strong surviving pre-Abrahamic culture of their own.

If there were no "backstabbers" who would go even against his own community, which happens to be the majority, as within the "Hindu", how could "secularism" of the "Nehruvian" variety flourish? Before lambasting the "exclusivists" of the "Hindu" perhaps we should spare a thought that it is the "despised" category of "Hindu" that provided the backstabbers on whose basis the merry dance and shouts of "secularism" and "democracy" can be given now. It is the plurality and readiness to experiment with alternate forms provided by the "Hindu" philosophical upbringing that provided the excuses for a certain section to justify their personal power and greed.

Lambasting the "exlusivists" only of the "Hindu" for precipitating the Partition or suppress criticism of the Partition, actually is an excluisivist tactic itself - where alternate voices are sought to be deleted. Where would this training of criticizing the critics of Partition come from, if the "exclusivist" among the "Hindu" did not provide it?

[samuel]

FYI the 14 points are cited on this thread a little earlier, perhaps on page 9. What's most interesting is the Nehru document that was supposed to be the rebuttal and the eventual 1935 structure. That dynamic reveals more about the process than anything I've read.

S

[samuel]

I wonder if partition was a good idea then, why it is not a good idea now as forces for it are strong. We would save a lot of money and lives in Kashmir, and once the far NE EJizes, well if they don't feel any love for India, why hold on to them like a leech, no? If going then go, what my father goes and we can always trade with them. Intellectually speaking, of course. Oh some will want to stay back to carry on the mission for the rest of the country, just as the deobandis promised then, ok, no problem. We'll stick together for a 20 or 30 more years and then revisit based on love or something.

We are one nation under what, exactly? A constitution we mostly cut and largely pasted? If that is the implicit question of greater pakistan as we name ourselves, lets have a go.

[Sanku]

The only difference which says that we will not have a partition again is because there is a Indian Majoritain democracy in place.

Yes, there can be conditions under which the mandate is stolen and Indian people back stabbed (SeS comes to mind) but compared to British overlordship that is the only difference.

The other MAJOR difference is the composition of Armed forces and the ethnic groups it represents in India today and before 1947 (thats why Sachar is so loved by people)

Actually any major geo-pol event is usually setup 20 years in advance at least. Then all that is left is the actual show of cards. The stage is set when the cards are dealt.

Thats why we have to be careful and can not wait till a nuke explodes to figure out whether the deterrence worked or not.

[samuel]

Quite right.
We could not prevent partition, we did not have the means to stop it or the preparation to avoid it. We managed since, but if we have the strength, we have built back the strength, we need to undo it. We will be able to, if we overcome the differences that formed the rationale for partition; they are present today in India and overcoming them remains a work in progress. How we overcome them is of course a discussion for another thread. Was partition good for us. With my experience and having been immersed in the holocaust it brought, I say no. At the least, if we had cared so much for the human cost and peace, we must've stalled till a peaceful transition could be made. But that is moot now, too.

[enqyoob]

Point is, having a Pakistan to remind us of what happens to India unless Indians show some sense of national integrity, is crucial to maintaining that integrity. If it weren't for the bloody events of 1947 and the abomination that it left, India would have blundered on for a few years, the Pathans would have done their thing, the Afghans would have come down all the way to the Indus for periodic mass-murdering raids, the iranians would be buggering the Balochis/Sindhis, the Northeast would have done its thing, Tamil Eelam would have gone its way and declared themselves to be "Little ()it of Great Britian" (as Sri Lanka tried to do in the 1960s), and Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh would be going at each other like Serbia and Bosnia, just like Greater Hyderabad and Kalinga. The Emperor of Dilli would be trying to murder the Caliph of Lahore and vice versa. Sikkim, Assam and Nepal would be part of the Hong Shin Autonomous Region of PRC, and the Emperor of Bengal would be basking in the presence of the US 7th Fleet at the permanent base up the Hooghly and trying to steal the goats of the Sultan of Chittagong. And the Maharaja of Kochi would be deploying his elephant army against that of the Samoothiri of Kozhikode and the Chaktravarthi of Thiruvithamkoor.

Come to think of it, Jammu-Kashmir under the able rule of the Hari Singh Dogra dynasty would have been a separate, independent nation, probably also turned by now into the Jong-Shin-Askai Chin Autonomous Region of PRC.

Greater Pakistan would be way ahead of Somalia in the Starvation Index.

But since there is a Lesser Pakistan to remind us, there is no call to further split the nation at all. People are reminded that the world thinks of us all as "Injuns". In fact most British lawmakers still can't understand that Hindus are not Muslims (read Jeffrey Archer's books where "Miss Vijaya Patel" is a Muslim. We strive to distinguish ourselves from terrorist bigot slum of Pakistan by pointing out that we are a secular democracy where all are free to follow their ways of life and worship, despite the presence of a bunch of yahoos who wet-dream of "homogeneous Indic Belief Systems" (translation: Everyone do saashtaaang-pranaaam to me based on my Exalted Birth) and think they can enslave everyone else and get the good Babu jobs under the Commies if they learn Mandarin.

[sanjaykumar]

Point is, having a Pakistan to remind us of what happens to India unless Indians show some sense of national integrity, is crucial to maintaining that integrity.


Of course Pakistanis are useful idiots (not in Lenin's sense). That is why some believe Jinnah is the father of the nation (India).

[Sanku]

Point is, having a Pakistan to remind us of what happens to India unless Indians show some sense of national integrity,.

You and JLN have about the same belief in Indian people, that if not for their obvious greatness all Indians would have fallen to pieces.

Surprisingly JLN was the biggest culprit in making even the current nation weak.

What do we deduce.

We on other hand think that a united India would have worked out just as well as undivided one, better.

The % of population which is actually responsible for keeping India together was roughly the same in divided and undivided India.

I can only feel very sorry for you if you think that just by creating a line on paper you have the great gift of deciding where the right people are.

I am sure Radcliff was gifted with the same amount of intelligence as yours (next to divine that is) who drew a random line on the map and decided what was right inside and outside.

[RayC]

I saw the programme on We the People on NDTV today.

The issue was of religious symbols in Institutions and its validity in a secular democracy.

There was this issue of a Moslem girl who was not allowed in the College because she insisted on wearing the hijab as it was her fundamental right and her religion dictated it so.

Except for Gen Afsar Karim (a Moslem IA officer, if I may add) and Rahul Singh, the appeared to be a consensus that it was wrong of the college to prevent this girl from the college.

True, that the Koran has injunctions that a women should cover her bosom etc. But the Koran also directs that no woman should go out without a male member of the family.

Am I to understand that while she studies in college, there should also be an accompanying male member in her class?

I wonder how Burkher Dutt fails to check her facts?

The media is causing further divisions in our already divided society thanks to the Parition.

If there was not the Partition, in my opinion, things would have been worse.

Good riddance to bad rubbish!

[Prem]

Sir,
NDTV programme is the proof that rubbish stil exist and lot of rsistance to make India russbish free.