A look back at the partition

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 30 Aug 2009 23:56

Then if you are in Delhi , do something.

They took no cognisance of my SMS.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 31 Aug 2009 00:21

NDTV will not highlight any opinion that does not conform to its core agenda. I think SwamyG posted a diagram of interconnections between people at the helm of NDTV and similar media outfits and Congress and the Left. If I am wrong about your being the postor, SwamyG, my apologies.

NDTV actually reported on another news item yesterday - about a certain principal of a college in Kashmir claiming that he has been threatened by unidentified gunmen to enforce the burqa on female college students - otherwise both he and the female students who disobey this "order" will face dire consequences. The girls actually expressed the desire on camera that they would prefer to wear the Iranian style "abaya" (a lighter covering of only the hair), as a full burqa can be most uncomfotable in the heat etc.

No discussion on this however in that talk, since that would "hurt" Islamic sentiments.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 31 Aug 2009 00:38

Narayanan-ji,

We did not want to study partition from religious angle because it hijacks the discussion from a rational and logical analysis. But I notice some obvious contradictions in your own posts:

All IMs are as patriotic as other non-Muslim Indians. But even ordinary Muslims migrated to Pakistan from as far as Kerala during partition. Is it because these ordinary Muslims were prosecuted in united India or because they saw Pakistan as the promised land for sub-continental Muslims?

How many Muslims moved from present Pakistan areas to India, because they did not believe in that religious state of Pakistan?

What would have been the scenario if the partition-riots were not happened or were limited to few sporadic incidents? Do you think majority of sub-continental Muslims would have remained in India?

Partition is good for India. It took majority of Islamist-scum out of India. Without partition India would not be a success story that it is today, a secular (?), democratic, and economic regional power. Without Pakistan, there would not be a Benis-dhaga (to my mind, this is sufficient enough reason). Does it mean all Pakistanis are scum? Did they become scum only after they got their own nation?

If without Pakistan and the associated Islamist scare (I am using Islamist so it satisfies some egos) India and its population cannot remain united, whose fault it is? Are you saying that united India is inherently unstable because of its Muslim population or Hindu population?

What about all those Muslims, such as Balochis and Pathans, who voted against ML but were forced to become Pakistanis? What makes our LMU professors to denigrate all Pakistanis for their beliefs and nationality? Are we not insulting all those Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, and Buddhists by calling the entire Pakistan scum and a toilet?

You say others are wrong to include/invite sub-continental Muslims into Indic fold and prefer to have the Islamic-Pakistan so the scum can be pushed out to periphery. At the same time, you would denigrate anyone who questions the same Islamist-identity within India.

Does your incisive mind see Islamism within Indian borders as secular & nationalistic, and the same Islamism without Indian borders as scum?

A confused yahoo.

Yayavar · Post by **Yayavar** » 31 Aug 2009 00:42

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

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

Sathyu's Garam Hawa or even Rushdie's Midnight's children refer to this. My family inspite of all the horror stories they told us often ended with someone saying -- "Per Musalmanon key saath aur bura hua. (It was even worse for the Muslims)." For most Hindu/Sikh Punjabi's came to India but the Muslim families were split across the border much more often. It was sad all around...

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 31 Aug 2009 00:48

My family is also split.

And I am not a Moslem!

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 31 Aug 2009 00:54

ShauryaT wrote:
samuel wrote: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.

IMO

Partition was an elitist solution to an elite problem. The fight was between the pre-British elites (mostly ML) and new elites (INC). The ML-group wanted to push Hindu-India to further south and INC group wanted to push the Islamist-empire from heartland to hinterland. Neither elite-group cared for the ordinary person and understood their attachment to their motherland. This attachment is the reason for widespread riots, atleast on Indian side.

Hitler made Germany a strong nation before he showed his fascist face to the world. I would not equate our post-independent leadership to him but the damage is comparable nevertheless.

We see some powers here show holier-than-thou mentality, saying PM should be above criticism. By that yardstick, all ex-PMs are also above criticism. Then who is responsible for India’s failures? The hindutvavadi-yahoos?

S-ji,

Without partition, there wouldn’t have been many international problems. India would have got UN membership, no wars in 1948, 65, 71, 99. The outcome of 1962 would have been different. There would not have been the many communal riots that were seeded in Partition. More than anything, we would not have the “benis-dhaga” and would not have to worry about the lack of multi-religious representation on BRF (we have had a poll on posters' religion)

I know the “but?” question that you are going to ask. If we were to believe some incisive minds, the united India population would have been nationalistic.

Yayavar · Post by **Yayavar** » 31 Aug 2009 00:58

RayC wrote:My family is also split.

And I am not a Moslem!

Yes, thougham just relating the Punjabi experience I heard as a child. It certainly is subjective to what they went through. The Eastern Pak experience was not as one-sided as the Western afaik.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 31 Aug 2009 01:01

Partition was an elitist solution to an elite problem.

In Jaswant Singh's inimitable words, Pakistan is the ******** child of UP.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 31 Aug 2009 01:05

RayC wrote: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.

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

Media is a tools for the agents of social engineering and this is a perfect example how they mold the public opinion to change a mostly secular society. Media and education are their tools and Indian elite are not even aware of this plan

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 31 Aug 2009 02:10

RamaY:

Honestly, I have no firm opinion on these things as a grand solution, I am just posing questions for others to ponder. I do believe that keeping the 100+million Pakistanis inside India as citizens of a free democratic republic would have been a recipe for either a breakup into myriad warring city-states - or takeover by a monolithic Islamist Caliphate far worse than the Mughal Empire. I find the assumption that India would have struggled on and made it for 60 years as a united free democracy, to be without basis. The unifying forces were very weak compared to the explosive forces at the local level. Even today this is the case. Many parts are willing to strongly reconsider being part of the Indian Union, even after 60 years, and even after seeing what happens to breakaway regions.

The only thing that unites them is the reality of Pakistan (and PRC, but to a much lesser extent). Outside India, one finds that the world bisses on all us equally as "Indians" - or, in very many cases that I have encountered, through the decades and not just in the past 2 years of Economic SuperPowerdom, treats us with great happiness and friendliness and easy respect just because we are Indians. This was beautifully summarized in the unsolicited enthusiasm of the young elevator operator at an American hotel a few years ago:

YOU.. INDIA? I... UZBEKISTAN!!!!!

with the beaming smile no money can ever buy. Imagine what that would have been if the region to our west had been also called part of India!!!

As for the role of the "hindootvadis" vs the INC types, my present feeling is too complex to express here, except in two very complex sentence. One is very Indic nationalist in internal feelings, (and, for instance, to venture into OT but pre-empt needless attacks, I would state that the fundamental idea of the RSS is to integrate all Indians who believe in India, but the ground reality is that a large part of those who rush under the RSS banner are not willing to include anyone except their own cousins and buddies) but the expression of those feelings comes across as very divisive and exclusionist, and thus serves as a repulsive force. The other is fundamentally corrupt and nepotistic and deep inside, is very divisive and exclusionist, but externally manages to come across as the force of national integration. The Minority Establishments have their own agendas.

HOWEVER, there is no future for India except by being OPEN and ACCEPTING of anyone who believes in India first and is willing to put their other distinguishing features second. I group all these into one group _ Indians.

The rest, who put their personal characteristics and tribal/caste/religion/sect/locality-of-origin prejudices above the classification of "Indian", I group together with Pakistanis. So, to put it very firmly, there are very many people who declare themselves to be 600% "Suddh Hindu", whom I group without hesitation along with the zillions who declare themselves to be 600% "Halal Islamic" or 700% "Pure Xtian" or 500% "Pure Jain". All bloody slumburning third-world bigots, IMO.

As for Pakistanis, I would and do respect individuals, and am well-known among those who know me for treating them with kindness and courtesy and concern, but

and "P" on them as a group. The BENIS dhaga is unrestrained and unapologetic in this classification. It shines the light on "Pakistaniyat", wherever that may be displayed, as in the "Darwin Awards" finals.

sanjaychoudhry · Post by **sanjaychoudhry** » 31 Aug 2009 02:16

NDTV is a whore of US, fully paid for by Uncle Sam. It is an anti-national, anti-Hindu propaganda medium, regardles of its liberal airs, sophisticated English accents and news anchors who look like they have just landed in India from New York.

Its discussions are carefully contrived set-ups with the audiences carefully screened for correct views. In one of these NDTV "we the people" discussions, the audiences overwhelmingly voted to hand over Kashmir to Pakistan. It is nothing but a Kangaroo court.

I am surprised some people have taken NDTV seriously because the channel does not even pretend to be neutral. It has gone so far only because Indians are impressed with any fellow Indian who looks Western and speaks English with American accent. Pranoy Roy exploits this.

Don't take NDTV seriously. Use it only for some comic relief and laugh a lot while watching its antics. Let the Yanks waste their money.

CNN-IBN is another "woman of the right hand" of Uncle Sam, and deserves the same treatment by Indians.

This is from Asian Age:

NDTV gave away kashmir to pakistan on live telivision

New Delhi, Aug. 23, 2003: The popular Question Time India produced by NDTV and telecast over BBC on Friday night used a select audience as a representative audience to give the impression that the Kashmiris wanted independence through a plebiscite.

The anchor, Vikram Chandra, repeatedly put leading questions to the small audience, drawn largely from urban Srinagar through special invites, asking them to raise hands on highly sensitive questions ranging from independence to pinpointing the government — India, Pakistan or the leadership in Kashmir — responsible for the trouble in the Valley.

This episode of Question Time India was recorded in Srinagar. The panel was largely outvoted by the belligerent audience with Jammu and Kashmir chief minister Mufti Muhammad Sayeed steering a cautious course, People’s Conference leader Sajjad Lone appearing more as the man in between two opposing sides, BJP state president Dr Nirmal Singh unable to contribute significantly and the Vice-Chancellor of Jammu University, Dr Amitabh Mattoo, not his usual articulate self. In fact, it was left to National Conference leader Omar Abdullah to point out that the audience in the room was not representative of Jammu and Kashmir, and that he had found that those in rural Kashmir were more concerned about their day to day life than about independence per se.

The programme was highly volatile and if it had been produced by the BBC, it would have elicited strong remarks from the government of India. At one stage the anchor, for instance, conducted a spot poll, as has now become the custom in all television talk shows, asking the audience to identify who was responsible for the Kashmir problem. "Is it India," he asked and the entire audience raised its hands. "Is it the leadership of Kashmir," and more than half raised their hands. "Is it Pakistan," and only a handful of persons raised their hands, perhaps just eight, and after looking around most of them lowered their hands.

Mr Omar Abdullah told The Asian Age that these kind of programmes gave the wrong impression, and that obviously there had been no effort to bring a moderate and more representative opinion into the audience. He said that he was not against such snap polls provided the audience was drawn scientifically to constitute a sample representing the entire state and all sections of opinion within. The entire programme gave the impression that there was one, a Kashmir problem; two, it was not created by Pakistan but by India; and three, that plebiscite and independence were the only solutions. It also sought to stress the supposed preoccupation of the Kashmiris with independence with little being said about the other issues affecting the entire state. As Mr Abdullah pointed out, "Even the chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir will not mention Pakistan as a source of the trouble in the Valley for obvious reasons, so how could they have expected the audience to say so?"

Question Time India on Friday, part of a special series, did raise questions about television talk shows where select audiences are asked to vote on issues of national import, with the projection that this somehow represents the general point of view. It is a dangerous trend, particularly when issues like Kashmir, communalism and national integration are being put up for quick votes. Questions like "Those who want independence for Kashmir please raise your hands" legitimise select responses that might or might not reflect the true situation on the ground. As Mr Omar Abdullah said, this can send out a "terrible message," particularly when the programme, as in this particular case, reaches a wide, international audience that includes Pakistan.

Srinagar is not representative of the entire Valley. It might be recalled that the call by the All Parties Hurriyat Conference to boycott the Assembly elections was effective in Srinagar, which registered very low polling. However, areas outside the capital witnessed moderate to heavy polling, with the people making it clear that they wanted a government that was responsive to their needs and aspirations. The villagers defied the threat from the militants and came out to vote, taking active part in election meetings and campaigns in several constituencies despite the continuing terror attacks.

http://india.indymedia.org/en/2003/08/6907.shtml

When you watch NDTV, be clear in your mind that you are actually watching the propaganda of the Church and the US State Deptt. Only the front-end is made up of Americanized "South Asian" Indians. The back-end is in Washington and Vatican. This is the reason why NDTV's programs border on treason, anti-Hinduism and anti-nationalism.

NDTV is another proof that Westernized Leftist Liberals of India (often called Champagne Liberals or Limousine Liberals because of their five-star tastes and foreign trips) are merely White Man's props and owe their money, recognition and fame to White Christians alone. They get their approval not from Indians, but from Americans and British.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 31 Aug 2009 02:30

Thank you Narayanan-ji for the honest reply.

shaardula · Post by **shaardula** » 31 Aug 2009 06:02

dont know where to post it. but if B feels this should be dealt in one of his threads, please do it.

i will not post a synopsis (bcoz every para is a point i want to highlight), but acharya, rama and perhaps N3 should please read this....

Ashis Nandy: Unclaimed Faith. http://www.littlemag.com/faith/ashis.html

Any talk of nonmodern or traditional forms of knowledge in public life arouses the fear that such knowledge might lead to large-scale displacement or uprooting in the world of knowledge, that the familiar world of knowledge might shrink, if not collapse and, in the new world that might come into being, there will be less space for the likes of us.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 31 Aug 2009 06:25

As I understand from my intellectually-lazy 1-minute scan of that article before I go on to see if I can get a secular math simulation to work, Nandy's prescription is to leave it all to the traditional neighborliness of Indians, and scrap all the laws since no one pays any attention to them.

IOW, leave everyone to "know their place in life", i.e., where people born into religions or sub-sects other than ours must eat sitting on the stone outside our house, where jobs and admission to school are awarded based on what caste one is born into, where young people get burned alive for getting married "outside their tribes".

Communal harmony. Ancient. Timeless.

Illegal by the Constitution. Utterly inhuman and uncivilized.

So my Lotus-Eating prescription is to kick the butts of the judges to get the legal system out of its constipated state, make legal remedies accessible to the citizen, and let them know that the law will back them 100% if they abide by the Constitution to protect their own and others' rights. THEN let their natural sense of neighborliness run their lives without interefernce.

As for "Uniform Civil Code", yes of course I support that. And scrapping Article 370 etc. There should be only ONE Constitition, applicable to ALL. Anything else is utterly unacceptable in a modern democracy.

shaardula · Post by **shaardula** » 31 Aug 2009 06:36

narayanan wrote:As I understand from my intellectually-lazy 1-minute scan of that article before I go on to see if I can get a secular math simulation to work, Nandy's prescription is to leave it all to the traditional neighborliness of Indians, and scrap all the laws since no one pays any attention to them.

IOW, leave everyone to "know their place in life", i.e., where people born into religions or sub-sects other than ours must eat sitting on the stone outside our house, where jobs and admission to school are awarded based on what caste one is born into, where young people get burned alive for getting married "outside their tribes".

Communal harmony. Ancient. Timeless.

Illegal by the Constitution. Utterly inhuman and uncivilized.

So my Lotus-Eating prescription is to kick the butts of the judges to get the legal system out of its constipated state, make legal remedies accessible to the citizen, and let them know that the law will back them 100% if they abide by the Constitution to protect their own and others' rights. THEN let their natural sense of neighborliness run their lives without interefernce.

As for "Uniform Civil Code", yes of course I support that. And scrapping Article 370 etc. There should be only ONE Constitition, applicable to ALL. Anything else is utterly unacceptable in a modern democracy.

not really N.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne0rYqP3W14
neighbouliness is not rooted in some romantic notion. it is rooted in hard reality of having to live together and be directly responsible, answerable. you talk to evangelists. they will not talk to you or your concerns. they will hide behind the abstract concept of law and tell you they are not doing anything illegal or unconstitutional. law is different from natural justice. both hindus and muslims dont understand this business of modern law. for different reasons, nevertheless... the basic reason is simple. it is by and large not written a language that is understandable to them nor does it derive from ethics that relate to their experience or sense of fairness.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 31 Aug 2009 06:39

What does it say?

shaardula · Post by **shaardula** » 31 Aug 2009 06:44

i am not denying importance of modern laws. i am saying as ignorant as it is to assume that ancients knew everything and there is some sort of a biss to be achieved by returning to the roots, it is also ignorant to assume that all that is good came after marx and what came after him can answer all questions of all peoples. and i am saying hindus are not necessarily invested or interested in perpetuating old anachronisms.

bottom left is an abbot next in succession to an important monastery. in front is a girl who is wearing the helmet backside front. in the background is a character who could otherwise have come straight out of mayabazaar. who represents what i leave it to the imagination of people.

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 31 Aug 2009 06:53

A short note on Frontier Gandhi. I can imagine how much more the uzbeks would love us, if the frontier's methods reached them.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khan_Abdul_Ghaffar_Khan

Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan (1890 - 20 January 1988) (Pashto/Urdu: خان عبد الغفار خان, Hindi: ख़ान अब्दुल ग़्फ़्फ़ार ख़ान) was a Pashtun political and spiritual leader known for his non-violent opposition to British Rule in India. A lifelong pacifist, a devout Muslim,[1]and a follower of Mahatma Gandhi, he was also known as Badshah Khan (also Bacha Khan, Urdu, Pashto: lit., "King Khan"), and Sarhaddi Gandhi (Urdu, Hindi lit., "Frontier Gandhi").

He was initially encouraged by his family to join the British Indian Army, however the treatment of a British Raj officer towards a native, offended him and a similar family decision for him to study in England was put of after his Mothers intervention.

Having witnessed the repeated failure of revolts against the British Raj, he decided social activism and reform would be more beneficial for Pashtuns. This ultimately led to the formation of the Khudai Khidmatgar movement (servants of God). The movement's success triggered a harsh crackdown against him and his supporters and he was sent into exile. It was at this stage in the late 1920's that he formed an alliance with Gandhi and the Indian National Congress. This alliance was to last till the 1947 partition of India.

After partition, Ghaffar Khan was frequently arrested by the Pakistani government in part because of his association with India and his opposition to authoritarian moves by the government. He spent much of the 1960's and 1970's either in jail or in exile.

In 1985 he was nominated for the Nobel peace prize. In 1987 he became the first person not holding the citizenship of India to be awarded the Bharat Ratna, India's highest civilian award. In 1988 on his passing, he was buried in Jalalabad, despite the heavy fighting at the time, both sides in the Afghan war declared a ceasefire to allow his burial.

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 31 Aug 2009 07:14

Here is a possibility in Sindh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sindhi_people

A number of Sindhi Hindus opted to remain in Sindh even after Partition, because there was no history of conflict between Hindu and Muslim Sindhis. However, when waves of Muslim refugees from India (known as Muhajirs) started to pour into Sindh, violence erupted on the streets. Many Hindu Sindhis were forced to flee Sindh leaving everything behind. [4] Popati Hiranandani, a Sindhi Hindu writes in her autobiography[5] that the local police were complicit in the anti-Hindu violence. After the mass exodus of Hindus, their property was taken over by Mohajirs, making it impossible for them to return. These Hindus were settled in refugee camps in India, and went on to assimilate into the local population, mainly in Western India. The city of Ulhasnagar in Maharashtra, India presently houses a large number of Sindhis which served as a refugee camp for Sindhis who fled from Pakistan.[6]

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 31 Aug 2009 07:19

The Pakis did not murder K.A.G.Khan because he didn't threaten them as much as, say, Nawab Bugti did. He was just a harmless old man preaching nonviolence in the shadows of the Khyber Pass, where a life is worth nothing. As for the Uzbeks, their most recent memory is of the Pakiban lining up people in Mazar-e-Sharif and other towns and mass murdering them. IIRC, General Rashid Dostum of "Container" fame is the incarnation of Uzbekistan's well-founded love for Pakis.

Concepts such as Gandhian NonViolence are as relevant in Pakistan and the NWFP as virginity in a harem. But just think! If not for Partition, these wonderful types would have been co-citizens of India!!!!

Al Haj Baitullah Mehsood, Minister of State for Kufr Affairs.

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 31 Aug 2009 07:35

Well, not really. Had Nehru not pissed Jinnah off in the way he did perhaps, and this is a story emerging in of itself, had our leaders worked on this problem early on, there would've been severe limitations for partition. There already was. There was something behind Jinnah, who was of course consumed by it by the end, that is present in India today too. We still don't know what that is. What was it? This mortal fear of the modern taliban aside, it is easy for me to think how much work the Hindu Mahasabha and yes even the INC could've done if people went about settling in those areas.

I don't see any dominant view in Indian and Hindu leadership wanting partition then. Why would the logic escape them? They did not know how brutal these guys were? On a lower level, at a people to people level, I urge you to think about how Jhulelal brought Sindhis together, or how any number of local pirs and sants were creating a religious subtext that was allowing people to explore spirituality in a way the later mohajirs did not. Left to themselves people sharing space seek ways to find things similar. When polarized, and this is what we avoid here on this thread, there is holocaust.

When was the last time you knew met or saw a brahmin going up to a muslim's house sharing food out of the same thali? The problems are not all one-sided, though there is one, of islamism, we need to talk of directly.

This whole thing about partition being good doesn't fly with me at least, sorry. There were many other possible evolutions.

S

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 31 Aug 2009 07:41

People died during partition because they were killed. They were killed in their own villages and towns. They did not want to leave, nobody suggested that was the wise thing to do early on. They were asked to stay. They were even asked to die. People were killed by people they knew. These killers were funded and influenced in a way that we do not understand or discuss. Can we get to understand the dynamics of that instead of brushing a holocaust under the rug for the apparent good it seems to have done us?

shaardula · Post by **shaardula** » 31 Aug 2009 07:43

S you are making these prescriptions in hindsight after a lot of things have been done. I have been trying to discuss this with B. All that frontier business is secondary. from their point of view, i think getting back dilli was important - after nearly 1000 years there was finally a realistic shot. at that point it was truely a historic opportunity. and they had to choose. you and i are now talking after 17 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_India) have had a reign. there was always a constituency of mughal putras and if dilli was to revert, then these mughalputras had to be given their sandbox to mess up.

why should jinnah or anybody else have been given a shot?

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 31 Aug 2009 07:44

There are some other interesting possibilities. If mass migration had not happened to Sindh, the partition troubles there would not have been so. If we had let the balochis be independent and NWFP merge with Afghan, we would have created natural buffers. And since Kashmir would've been undivided, all that problem is finished. That leaves punjab, which is where the problem was and is. And Bengal. We need to think of these two states and how a solution could've been formed, the rest fall into place.

S

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 31 Aug 2009 07:47

Well Shaardula, so are the people who go on about partition being good!
(and I am not sure the hindsight is 20/20 there). To bring things into focus again, the objective was to understand the dynamics and sequence of how partition happened, and how the human tragedy came about so that we can see where and how it maps to present day India. In so far as we are making judgments about its value to the nation, don't look at me!

PS: Jinnah was the only guy capable of negotiating with the British. Good credentials.
Read up on Aga Khan, another choice, but not representative enough.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 31 Aug 2009 07:49

Sure there were numerous other evolution possibilities, but very very few of them would have looked anything like a powerful, united, modern, forward looking AND free democracy. That path takes some powerful forces to unify and develop a national identity. I don't see those being present, except for the presence of Pakistan as the rakshasa waiting to devour us. What dire external threat would have existed? Instead there would be all sorts of pulls to divide and disintegrate. Maybe a Partition into 4 caste-based nations a la Parasuram? 6 different nations based on religion? 20 different independent Princely States forming a cricket league, plus 6 major Former British Provinces? A Communist Revolution? (Soviet Union and China forming two large nearby examples of Workers' and Farmers' Paradises? ) A multitude of Emirates all along the coasts?

In statistical mechanics, the postulate

All microstates are equally probable

defines the large multitude of possibilities. But then the fact arises that the vast majority of these all belong to one "macrostate" - so that becomes by far the Most Probable MactoState.

Trouble is, this one usually has the GREATEST degree of disorder, not the lowest. So I see no way that a firmly-bound Union of India sharing a common Constitution and citizenship and Armed Forces etc. could have arisen, left to a natural and undisturbed course of events. Look at, say, the BJP or the Communist Pary of India - or even the INC, in the times of Indira Gandhi, to see the divisive tendencies at work. It's a miracle that the place hangs together, and for that we have to thank TSP.

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 31 Aug 2009 08:00

Well, energy and enstrophy cascade in opposite directions and the balance between the two is central to any equilibrated dynamical regime. If we had had an unpartitioned India and there were many other possibilities; let's create an ensemble and shoot them forward to see what a distribution would look like. You would then ask what were events in the world that would've happened any way and that would've been the only observation to constrain this ensemble by.

For example, Imagine that INC went into a rotating presidency with Jinnah taking on a term; imagine that we said to the british we are not going to allow any partitioninng and you can stay on as long as you like. Imagine that Muslims and Hindus talked to one another and not ignored each other till the end, till it was catastrophic.

And why worry about lack of external threats. What might've happened with China and Tibet, well the pakis were offering joint defense, and I don't see how we would not be fighting them. And Afghanistan and the soviet union. What non-alignment would be necessary? It is not difficult to construct an external entity as threat. oh, it would be saudi arabia then or something.

On the other hand, there is a sense that the differences were irreconcilable, yet the claim of Hindustan is over the land that must be resolved. These are our people, muslim or not, and if they wished to not be a part of it, fine hey can go somewhere just not here. The point was to tide sufficient number of muslims over so that the fringe were a true fringe at partition and then we let that dynamic evolve. But no, we did no such thing in my mind.

shaardula · Post by **shaardula** » 31 Aug 2009 08:11

well no S. let me be direct. again i have already told this to B. you assume we had a narrative to do what was required. we didnot. we still dont. if there was a shot at controlling the narrative it was by going through the path we did. this is not hindsight. i think we had tried engaging islamists the old way. that solution is not permanent. why? because there is a critical mass of islam in india. we needed a new narrative. that is what was chosen. a desirable side effect of it has been the long stalled evolution in hindu thought has restarted. dont know about you but i dont think we had it this good in atleast a thousand years. and i am a mysorean by conditioning with barely any carried over memories or guilt or suppression. hindus went into a shell. there is a reason why some things are the way they are. people including big A have said there was only one half of india that prepared to to receive "deeksha".

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 31 Aug 2009 08:12

samuel wrote:Here is a possibility in Sindh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sindhi_people
A number of Sindhi Hindus opted to remain in Sindh even after Partition, because there was no history of conflict between Hindu and Muslim Sindhis. However, when waves of Muslim refugees from India (known as Muhajirs) started to pour into Sindh, violence erupted on the streets. Many Hindu Sindhis were forced to flee Sindh leaving everything behind. [4] Popati Hiranandani, a Sindhi Hindu writes in her autobiography[5] that the local police were complicit in the anti-Hindu violence. After the mass exodus of Hindus, their property was taken over by Mohajirs, making it impossible for them to return. These Hindus were settled in refugee camps in India, and went on to assimilate into the local population, mainly in Western India. The city of Ulhasnagar in Maharashtra, India presently houses a large number of Sindhis which served as a refugee camp for Sindhis who fled from Pakistan.[6]

TSP=The Kore philosophy of UP Islamists. Wonder they took advantage of the "secular' charachter of Kangressi leadership's which mainly came from from the nearby regions.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 31 Aug 2009 08:42

Ashis Nandy has many points worth discussing. I would perhaps be harsher than him on the theory of "secularism" as practised in India - I would characterize this "secularism" as the most intense, paranoid, cover and excuse for a minority to reinvent its extremely non-secular exclusivism. This is a minority completely lost in the world of multiple identities, desperately in need of one, but so insecure and vulnerable that it does not have the courage to identify with any and therefore creates a vacuum in space where it can survive. I have long ago and consistently suggested that this type of "secularism" is the product of that small portion in the elite which were brought up to believe in their superiority by birth from fellow "ordinary" Indians. Thus they could not really identify with the vast majority of their society. This produces insecurity. More so in someone who is at the same time seeking power and authority over that very society. He does not identify with and therefore is not able to mobilize this majority to ensure personal power. Moreover his training to believe the majority "below" him in ability, (as well as rights) makes him unsure about the potential power that such "weak" people can give him. Failing to understand but realizing the brute strength of inaction and introverted strength of the majority and its "non-secular" culture, he therefore becomes paranoid of the "majority" (non- in his sense) culture. He needs to repress it just to that right degree that allows him to use the "majority" for his personal ambitions, but not allow the majority to assert itself independent of him.

I would try to take this discussion in one of the strategic threads as this may get OT. However as for syncretic adjustments made by communities forced to work together without the state intervention (state intervention inevitably halst syncretism and protects religious divides or even sharpens them) there is good work done by Gyanendra Pandey - if anyone is interested. Look for his case studies on Nort Indian cities.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 31 Aug 2009 08:51

shaardulaji,
I would still not see the existing Indian rashtra from the Partition helping this sense of revival that you speak of. Most of the revival has taken place in consciousness only when the "Indian" has moved away from the societal and educational influence of the post-Partition rashtra - in the diaspora, or as educational migrants who return to their homeland after a period of time. The rashtra has produced stauncher versions of the "pseudo-secualrists". So much so that "revivalists" have become confused, and there is a whole lot of shouting going on that they become a "copy" of the "pseudo-secularists" to win elections. I do not underestimate the strength of entrenchment in the post-Partition rashtra of the "pseudo-secularists" and I do not think "revival" has taken off yet. It will, but that lies in the future for some very different and surprising reasons rather than the rashtra creating conditions actively for it.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 31 Aug 2009 08:55

Jaswant Singh in his book quotes Girilal Jain who considered Islam as a totality. Jain wrote - ''The modern mind just cannot comprehend Islam precisely because it is a totality. Islamic society is rooted in the religion of Islam; it is not the other way about. The point needs to be heavily underscored that Islamic society is theocentric not theocratic''

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 31 Aug 2009 10:05

RayC wrote:"The point needs to be heavily underscored that Islamic society is theocentric not theocratic''

I have not yet read the book and I do not know in what context Shri Girilal Jain made the above observation. I am also unable to appreciate the fine difference between theocentric and theocratic. Even assuming that there are differences, IMHO, it will be only a matter of time before a theocentric society becomes theocratic. Such theocentric societies demand secularism when they are in a minority, then decide to secede citing their fears imaginary and real without attempting to resolve them through dialogue (or, if they attempt, place such impossible conditions that it would be meaningless to have a productive dialogue), and once they secede they become theocratic because now they have a brute majority of co-religionists. How much time it takes to become a theocratic state depends upon the catalysts that act on the situation.

In the case of Pakistan, the mistake that is often made is that the personal secular credentials of the Leader is project as though it was his practice of statecraft. It was simply not the case. Unlike the INC whose leaders carried their personal morality and scruples into Independence struggle and governance, Pakistani leaders, especially QeA, understood that they both do not converge at all.

Jinnah joined hands with the Ulema to demand a partition of United India for an Islamic state and later feebly tried to correct the situation through his often-quoted Aug 11, 1947 speech to the Pakistani Parliament. He readily agreed with the ulema to impose Shariah in a free Pakistan to win their support. The letter that Jinnah wrote to the Pir of Manki Sharif, in Naushera of NWFP, in which he said that Shariah will be imposed in Pakistan to manage the affairs of the Muslim Community, was produced in the Constituent Assembly in 1949 to support the Objectives Resolution. While portraying himself as a secularist and a Constitutionalist, Jinnah nevertheless asked only an Islamic clergy, Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani who had apostatised Shias, to raise the flag of Pakistan on Aug. 14, 1947.

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 31 Aug 2009 10:15

samuel wrote:For example, Imagine that INC went into a rotating presidency with Jinnah taking on a term; imagine that we said to the british we are not going to allow any partitioninng and you can stay on as long as you like. Imagine that Muslims and Hindus talked to one another and not ignored each other till the end, till it was catastrophic.

On the other hand, there is a sense that the differences were irreconcilable.

The differences became irreconcilable. Initially Jinnah gave up on the INC because his personal ambitions were thwarted, later he became a powerful voice for the Muslim League but the true architect of the communalization of the Muslim masses and the communal terrorism of the 1930s and 40s, were the UP Muslims led by Liaquat Ali Khan and the Aligarh Muslim University graduates who went from village to village with their communal pamphlets and fiery speeches on martyrdom and the dangers of "Hindu rule".

Jinnah always sacrificed principles for personal ambition. While in the INC he opposed separate electorates for Muslims but had no qualms in getting elected under the same system from the reserved Muslim seat of Bombay in 1910! He correctly read the situation to ally with the British, without whose support there would have been no Pakistan, and gave up all his previous principles on the right to freedom and self-government.

In the end it all boiled down to what kind of India they all wanted. The dreamers Nehru and Gandhi with a united India, all communities living in harmony, the pragmatic Sardar Patel for a strong centre, which would stand firm against fissiparous movements, and Jinnah for a weak centre so that he and his lackeys could lord it out in Muslim-majority provinces.

In an interview with the Cabinet Delegation Jinnah said that throughout her history from the days of Chandra Gupta there had never been any Government of India in the sense of a single Government. The Muslim Moghul Empire had had the largest control but even in those days the Mahrattas and the Rajputs were not under Muslim rule. When the British came they gradually established their rule in a large part of India but, even then, India was only one-third united. The big States and sovereign States were constitutionally and legally already Pakistans.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 31 Aug 2009 10:46

narayanan wrote:
Honestly, I have no firm opinion on these things as a grand solution, I am just posing questions for others to ponder. I do believe that keeping the 100+million Pakistanis inside India as citizens of a free democratic republic would have been a recipe for either a breakup into myriad warring city-states - or takeover by a monolithic Islamist Caliphate far worse than the Mughal Empire. I find the assumption that India would have struggled on and made it for 60 years as a united free democracy, to be without basis.

On what basis do you so strongly believe that if we did not have a partition 100 Million extra population would have wrecked India any more than the current one.

On what basis are the 100 Million who were left out of Indian population the really bad ones?

To me it makes no sense what so ever to say, oh if these were there India would be bad? Can you say what do you have against those 100 million Indians (yes they were Indians in 1947)

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 31 Aug 2009 11:12

Sanku wrote:
On what basis do you so strongly believe that if we did not have a partition 100 Million extra population would have wrecked India any more than the current one.

On what basis are the 100 Million who were left out of Indian population the really bad ones?

To me it makes no sense what so ever to say, oh if these were there India would be bad? Can you say what do you have against those 100 million Indians (yes they were Indians in 1947)

Sanku,

You have been reading the book by JS.

I think he has made it clear as to what was the situation and the psyche that had been built up.

Nobody is bad.

But Religion can, when devilishly used can irrationally build up passions.

Take Gujarat. The Muslim miscreants burnt the train in Godhra. The natural backlash followed and even now people are stoking the embers to again turn it into a fire, so that they get a life! Setelvad Teesta or whatever her name is and that IAS chap who quit 'in protest' (when acutally he landed a more lucrative job) comes to mind.

Lastly, who cares what we lost with the coming of Pakistan? Such odd folks who cannot still find their identity will disintegrate on their own! Have patience and have faith, they will!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 31 Aug 2009 11:26

RayC wrote: Lastly, who cares what we lost with the coming of Pakistan? Such odd folks who cannot still find their identity will disintegrate on their own! Have patience and have faith, they will!

RayC, I am not arguing whether partition was avoidable, in 1947 it was not, the forces were already set into motion before 47 and were never stopped. However partition was avoidable if people had seriously examined ways to avoid it.

It is primarily Nehru's blindness who never thought partition would happen till it happened -- a lot of other Congress leaders kept ringing the warning bells but were ignored. We see this behavior many times again including in 62.

The question is
1) Was it a good thing? I just can not think how -- all that was done to justify partition (what ever problems were sought to be avoided or sidestepped) happened in any case and in a pretty bad manner. All the known problems with partition anyway also happened. So pretty much the worst case denouement.
2) What lessons does it have for modern Indian.

Lastly, the last bit you say is the hope that we nationalists live on, in face of constant mocking and belittling by our own people -- and the fact that the mother will heal again.

Also on faith -- from Anand Math. opening sequence

Deep forest, a person meditates, crying "how long lord, how long must I wait", suddenly another voice in the darkness -- It will come but what are you willing to give in offering -- The yogi says, everything I have, my life. The voice says "life is trivial, can by given by anyone". The Yogi asks -- then what must I give. The voice says "Bhakti (faith)"

We must give faith -- to the Mother -- the whole Maa, not a Khandit statue thereof.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 31 Aug 2009 11:46

Airavat wrote:In the end it all boiled down to what kind of India they all wanted. The dreamers Nehru and Gandhi with a united India, all communities living in harmony, the pragmatic Sardar Patel for a strong centre, which would stand firm against fissiparous movements, and Jinnah for a weak centre so that he and his lackeys could lord it out in Muslim-majority provinces.

I have been reading JS book and he makes it clear (and I posted before) that Jinaah was basically a megalomaniac who would use whatever instruments were available to him to further his cause.

To a great extent Nehru was also very similar with the MAIN difference being that Nehru was also wedded to an ideal (of a USSR like India) however that did not stop him from also dabbling with extreme Muslim groups to win votes. So while far more principled than Jinaah, he was not above real politic either and/or blind to the nature of the tools he used for real politic without understanding their impact.

OTOH Jinaah always understood the tool he used very well. (even the secular tools)

However I do disagree that Gandhi, Nehru and Patel had the same vision for India. Although same in the basics they were quite different in some important aspects
1) Gandhi was okay with a federal structure -- Patel and Nehru were less than okay.
2) Nehru was okay with many compromises to Britain, to an extent Gandhi too -- Patel was not
3) Nehru was a socialist, Patel and Gandhi were not.

Thats why Patel is the archetypical nationalist for BRF like place.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 31 Aug 2009 12:17

Sanku wrote:
RayC wrote: Lastly, who cares what we lost with the coming of Pakistan? Such odd folks who cannot still find their identity will disintegrate on their own! Have patience and have faith, they will!
RayC, I am not arguing whether partition was avoidable, in 1947 it was not, the forces were already set into motion before 47 and were never stopped. However partition was avoidable if people had seriously examined ways to avoid it.

It is primarily Nehru's blindness who never thought partition would happen till it happened -- a lot of other Congress leaders kept ringing the warning bells but were ignored. We see this behavior many times again including in 62.

The question is
1) Was it a good thing? I just can not think how -- all that was done to justify partition (what ever problems were sought to be avoided or sidestepped) happened in any case and in a pretty bad manner. All the known problems with partition anyway also happened. So pretty much the worst case denouement.
2) What lessons does it have for modern Indian.

Lastly, the last bit you say is the hope that we nationalists live on, in face of constant mocking and belittling by our own people -- and the fact that the mother will heal again.

Also on faith -- from Anand Math. opening sequence
Deep forest, a person meditates, crying "how long lord, how long must I wait", suddenly another voice in the darkness -- It will come but what are you willing to give in offering -- The yogi says, everything I have, my life. The voice says "life is trivial, can by given by anyone". The Yogi asks -- then what must I give. The voice says "Bhakti (faith)"
We must give faith -- to the Mother -- the whole Maa, not a Khandit statue thereof.

Sanku,

I have lost everything to Partition.

If there was no Partition, maybe I would have been an idle rich! Great life! Living off the fat of the land!

I have no regrets at the way I have been landed with. Maybe I am better off; I live off my own hard work and earning.

To retrospect is no belittling! It is being pragmatic and not living in the clouds.

Between me and you and Brihaspati (I invoke his name even though he feels that he is Jesus and so his name cannot be invoked in vain). my family history is recorded and written; even in Beveridge's History of Bengal!

My loss because of Partition is immense. More than many, maybe. But I don't care. I am a free man with no baggages of history and that is most important to me!

I have served my Nation as a common man, braved the wars and insurgency and I will say I am a better man than if I were a lolling potbellied idle rich, gassing of Indic gas and Hinduvta to scare the minorities to do Bhagawat that Bhagwat wants!

I have see riots and it is heart wrenching to control it. They are all Indians and yet, we have to do it.

Be in the front-line against the external threat and also the internal threat and you will be a better man beyond all this jingoistic and religion schisms!

Believe it or not, it is a huge mental trauma!

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 31 Aug 2009 12:26

More than Nehru, I would say that it was Rajaji who really wanted Pakistan to be carved. The Madras Legislature even passed a resolution to that effect which the AICC immediately denounced and Rajaji had to quit the INC. Later, Gandhi asked Rajaji to conduct negotiations with Jinnah on the contours of the proposed Pakistan. It was then the fog was getting clearer. This was in c. 1944 after the failure of the Cripps Mission in c. 1942. In fact, Jinnah had predicted that Rajaji would define Pakistan for him and that's exactly how it happened. After the Jinnah-Rajaji discussions had gone some distance, Jinnah said that Rajaji had no mandate to continue the discussion and he wanted direct talks with Gandhi. Rajaji requested Gandhi to pick up the threads and Jinnah & Gandhi had intense discussions on the subject in Bombay for two weeks. At the end of those talks, Jinnah famously referred to the offer of a 'mutilated and moth-eaten' Pakistan. Gandhi refused that he ever discussed vivisection of India at all with Jinnah. Later, Gandhi complained that Rajaji had not understood the reason he asked him to negotiate with Jinnah and had gone too far.