A look back at the partition

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by Sanku »

RayC wrote: 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!
RayC, it is typically Indian to subsume your pain and loss and carry on towards better Karma. And I credit you for being a typical Dharmic in that (please dont mind, for me its the highest possible honor I can give)

However this is not about one RayC. This is about the sum of all RayCs, including those who didn't make it. It is also about all the secular muslims who were left to rot in Bangladesh and Pakistan and murdered and humiliated in many ways.

It is about the nation as a whole, past present and future.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by Sanku »

SSridhar wrote:More than Nehru, I would say that it was Rajaji who really wanted Pakistan to be carved.
No no you misunderstand my post

Nehru did NOT want Pakistan -- he was for united India till the very end -- however he was responsible for what came to pass.

Neither did Rajaji want Pakistan, he took this position only after it was clear that it was going to happen anyway.

Only the ML wanted Pakistan, not even the Hindu Maha sabha.
RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by RayC »

Sanku wrote:
RayC wrote: 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!
RayC, it is typically Indian to subsume your pain and loss and carry on towards better Karma. And I credit you for being a typical Dharmic in that (please dont mind, for me its the highest possible honor I can give)

However this is not about one RayC. This is about the sum of all RayCs, including those who didn't make it. It is also about all the secular muslims who were left to rot in Bangladesh and Pakistan and murdered and humiliated in many ways.

It is about the nation as a whole, past present and future.
I rather be an Indian to subsume your pain and loss and carry on towards better Karma. That is the religious ethos of my ancestors!

To fume and fret is useless since we have no power to change history. If we did, we would as we did for Bangladesh!

Can we change the situation?If we can and if it is feasible, count me on in the vanguard!
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by Sanku »

RayC wrote: Can we change the situation?If we can and if it is feasible, count me on in the vanguard!
Thank you RayC, I some how always knew that. This is the very "collection around a core led by a suitable leader once conditions crystalize" is what Brih. keeps talking of all the while (much to your irritation I think)
RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by RayC »

Sanku wrote:
RayC wrote: Can we change the situation?If we can and if it is feasible, count me on in the vanguard!
Thank you RayC, I some how always knew that. This is the very "collection around a core led by a suitable leader once conditions crystalize" is what Brih. keeps talking of all the while (much to your irritation I think)
Brihaspati may be a great person. So be it.

My weakness is because of my professional upbringing.

Less of talk and more of action!

I have seen enough of wild dreams of capturing POK and making it India. A bountiful idea. I endorse it!

But those who know the terrain and the capabilities know how far that is feasible!

Desires and reality are strange bedfellows!!

More so, for those who are not executing but egging on with grandiose ideas!

Since you are better people than I, change the Constitution and achieve your goal! I would applaud your effort!

Or else, cool it!
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by Sanku »

RayC wrote:
Since you are better people than I, change the Constitution and achieve your goal! I would applaud your effort!

Or else, cool it!
No RayC, some dishes are cooked on slow boil. As you advised me, be patient :)
RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by RayC »

I am patient.

But the milk has boiled over.

Should I let it burn?
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by Sanku »

RayC wrote:I am patient.

But the milk has boiled over.

Should I let it burn?
No RayC the milk has not boiled over, not yet.
RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by RayC »

Sanku wrote:
RayC wrote:I am patient.

But the milk has boiled over.

Should I let it burn?
No RayC the milk has not boiled over, not yet.
You are fortunate not to have realised it.

We have...with our live, if you don't mind.

But then, what's so big about our life, right?

I agree that the taxpayer pays.

We are all such mercenaries and scoundrels with no thought of our Nation, right?
samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by samuel »

Hi Sridhar,
Can you say more about the discussions between Rajaji and Jinnah?
S
Rahul Mehta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2577
Joined: 22 Nov 2001 12:31
Location: Ahmedabad, India --- Bring JurySys in India
Contact:

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by Rahul Mehta »

I have seen enough of wild dreams of capturing POK and making it India. A bountiful idea. I endorse it! But those who know the terrain and the capabilities know how far that is feasible!

Desires and reality are strange bedfellows!!
It is possible AFTER

1. We split Pak into 5 parts : Pakjab, PoK, Baluch, Sindh, NWFP etc
2. Entice soldiers in each part to kill soldiers/people of other parts
3. The PoKians will squeal and will ask India for help
4. Later make PoK part of India.

To achieve this, we need to reduce corruption, impose wealth tax, impose inheritance tax, use the money to make our Military 10 times stronger than what it is now and then start helping every anti-Paki force in Pakistan so that whole Pakistan burns and then divides into 5 parts.

=====
RayC wrote:My weakness is because of my professional upbringing.

Less of talk and more of action!
So what action do you suggest, against any problem in India?

If possible, start with two importantest problem namely poverty and corruption in IPS, juges. Or take any important problem in top 10.

What "action" do you suggest?
Rahul Mehta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2577
Joined: 22 Nov 2001 12:31
Location: Ahmedabad, India --- Bring JurySys in India
Contact:

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by Rahul Mehta »

RayC wrote:Since you are better people than I, change the Constitution and achieve your goal! I would applaud your effort!
I am no fan of existing Constitution.

But to improve India, NO change in Constitution is needed.

Putting other way, given ANY problem of India, such as poverty, corruption etc, there exists a 100% legal solution that needs no change in existing Constitution.

Now, I am not against any proposed change in Constitution. I am only saying that none is needed.
enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by enqyoob »

Ah! I love the bold-faced demands!

Sankudemand:
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)


er... on the basis of counting with my fingers?? Today, with some 10% Muslim population, the politics of UP and Gujarat and to a certain extent Maharashtra, and West Bengal, are very heavily dominated by the need to win the Vote Bank of the Muslim population. Many here assume, rightly or wrongly, that the majority of the Muslim population tend to vote heavily for candidates who espouse Muslim causes, much more than, say, for advancing Hindu causes.

So what would be the situation if the very heavily Muslim-majority constituencies of West Poonjab, Sindh, NWFP, Swat, Waziristan and Gilgit-Baltistan, and East Bengal, were all part of the same nation as the rest of India, in, say, 1950s or 1960s? What would the Lok Sabha seat distributions have been? What would have happened to the power centers of India then? Would Shariah and Jeziya have been far behind? To see the answer, see the evolution of democracy in Pakistan since 1947.

Now, look at all the other nations that gained independence around that time, and had Muslim majority populations. How did they evolve?

If you can't make reasonable estimates of what would have happened to Greater Pakistan beyond say 2 elections, well... I can't help you, sorry.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by Sanku »

narayanan wrote: er... on the basis of counting with my fingers?? Today, with some 10% Muslim population, the politics of UP and Gujarat and to a certain extent Maharashtra, and West Bengal, are very heavily dominated by the need to win the Vote Bank of the Muslim population.
Ah ha... so finally the cat is out of the bag eh... Hmmm so basically the problem with 100 Million was that they were Muslims? But In pakistan they are bad in India they are good by some magic formula you applied.?
So what would be the situation if the very heavily Muslim-majority constituencies of West Poonjab, Sindh, NWFP, Swat, Waziristan and Gilgit-Baltistan, and East Bengal, were all part of the same nation as the rest of India, in, say, 1950s or 1960s?
Dont strain yourself too hard to think of these answers N, just look up the distribution of seats in 1937 elections. :mrgreen:
BTW do you know the Islamists were afraid of the exact same bogey you raised in the reverse way

Maybe just maybe, if there was such a large Muslim population in India they would have been fragmented politically, short of a idea of Pakistan. (You know past elections before 1947 bear that out)

Now, look at all the other nations that gained independence around that time, and had Muslim majority populations. How did they evolve?
Hmm so for a equal right and equal treatment onlee person talking about Muslim majorities as being the chief reason.
If you can't make reasonable estimates of what would have happened to Greater Pakistan beyond say 2 elections, well... I can't help you, sorry.
You know N perhaps a small part has escaped you between India and Pakistan -- err the constitution :mrgreen:

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

So N we started with the fact that Partition has not solved anything, since all the factors that created partition exist in India today. We may have been better off with Pakistan inside and we would still be able to manage the demographics. You jumped in hyperventilating that we are being bad to IMs and the IMs are good and we were genocidal maniacs. And now you come back and bring the Muslim theory.

Pretty soon India will have the same % of Muslims as that before partition. So according to you.....

Comes right royal coming from somebody taking the lofty "Oh these guys who dont want partition just want genocide onlee"

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

I always knew you will come to the "Muslim" population issue. I just wanted to lead you there of your free will.

Thank you for obliging me.
:mrgreen:
samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by samuel »

Is too many muslims why partition was good? What are we going to do then with all the muslims now, including Pak + BD, and you think our borders will really stop "the septic-tank from backing up into the house"

Shaardula, I understand, I think, what you re saying. We have lived with Muslims for centuries. If all that did not make partition a foregone conclusion in advance then
a) We did not understand the muslims.
b) Our leadership was incompetent and intransigent. It was also inflexible.
c) We were scared of what islamists would do to us.
d) We needed to come out of our shell and we could not have prospered with all that jihad hanging over our heads.
e) We did no work in bringing the communities together.
f) Somethings were working in communities.
g) These were our people.

Some of these points can be rebutted with facts, others are a matter of opinion. I'll start with ones I can, but we will have to rewind into history and replay the action, slowly. I'll start the clock at 1906 and we'll stop at 1947. That's 41 years and if we spend a week a year, we will be done within a year. How about we just do that and at the end of the day, the only thing I promise is I will go for the truth whatever it is.

What is not possible to do is to use the present state as both the control run and the ideal run. That makes no sense.

S
Last edited by samuel on 31 Aug 2009 20:41, edited 1 time in total.
RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by RamaY »

Continuing on my "Elite solution to an elitist problem" line of thought (and I observe that Devaguru-ji and others has expressed similar thoughts in different contexts and threads)

ML's compromise strategy was to have Islamist bases on both sides of (perceived) Hindu India with most of Muslim population staying back on Gangic-belt, offering a possible transit route when needed. The short-term goal was to have self-ruling bases that can enable the Islamist-emirate to gain enough strength (natural resources) before they can try to regain what is considered to be the Mughal kingdom. This is the reason for their continual war against India. If the objective of Pakistan was to create a jannat for sub-continental muslims, there wouldn’t have been BD-land and state-sponsored terrorism against India. The goal is to re-conquer Hindustan and reconnect ME with ASEAN. (Now compare this with US/NATO axis of power and USSR/PRC axis of power graphs shown in strategy threads, and we can see the reason behind western support for Islamic ideology, besides the energy resources)

INC’s compromise strategy was to push the Islamist core to the hinterland and keep it that way until the Indic core gains sufficient strength to take on the Islamist ideology and elite face-on. What we do not know for sure is whether the INC leadership ever envisioned to win against Islamism and organize a controlled de-partition. Very limited insight is offered into this aspect of Indian leadership for both external and internal audience. One can only speculate what would be an average Pakistani’s response, if public knowledge of a clear Indic thought leadership and objective is available, especially when the average Pakistani suffers the reality of Islamist-life day in and day out.

JS’s book, IMHO (I didn’t read the book), is asking this very question. That is why RSS understands the context of the book and doesn’t have any issue with it. Jinnah and JLN are inconsequential in the context of Bharatiya national interests. They played their roles given the realities that they have had.

Unfortunately both INC and BJP are more interested in winning internal audience (that is what gets them into power) than leading India in the international context. That is why all their moves, good and bad, are directed to influence/manipulate internal audience only. They seldom make a strategic move to influence an external entity to benefit Indian interests.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35018
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by chetak »

narayanan wrote:Ah! I love the bold-faced demands!

Sankudemand:
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)


er... on the basis of counting with my fingers?? Today, with some 10% Muslim population, the politics of UP and Gujarat and to a certain extent Maharashtra, and West Bengal, are very heavily dominated by the need to win the Vote Bank of the Muslim population. Many here assume, rightly or wrongly, that the majority of the Muslim population tend to vote heavily for candidates who espouse Muslim causes, much more than, say, for advancing Hindu causes.

So what would be the situation if the very heavily Muslim-majority constituencies of West Poonjab, Sindh, NWFP, Swat, Waziristan and Gilgit-Baltistan, and East Bengal, were all part of the same nation as the rest of India, in, say, 1950s or 1960s? What would the Lok Sabha seat distributions have been? What would have happened to the power centers of India then? Would Shariah and Jeziya have been far behind? To see the answer, see the evolution of democracy in Pakistan since 1947.

Now, look at all the other nations that gained independence around that time, and had Muslim majority populations. How did they evolve?

If you can't make reasonable estimates of what would have happened to Greater Pakistan beyond say 2 elections, well... I can't help you, sorry.

Partition if not in 1947, would definitely and inevitably have taken place but with more violence and mayhem for the Hindu population.

The hordes would have been better led and their "leaders" would have cherry picked very much more of the Hindu landmass than that the country lost in 1947.

We seem to have lost sight of the fact that by the time the british arrived in India, the muslims had already lost control over a vast area of the Hindustan that they originally controlled. The Marathas the Sikhs and others had already wrested much of the territory from them.

The british took over large parts of the country from these guys and not from the muslims.

The muslims were not the rulers when the british entered the scene.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by brihaspati »

RayC wrote
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!
RayC - a request, please dont declare my "feelings" on my behalf. You are misusing the context in which my original request was made. Your family history is yours - and then there are other family histories too. Some may not even boast about them even if there are things to boast about. What will it take to make you understand that you are needlessly making me a personal target, and I am simply not interested in sparring with you? You only know personal denigration using a lot of sarcastic epithets - but beyond that all your words have to fall back on your personal status or family.

I only provide counterarguments to non-personal items that you post if I feel that you are deliberately or non-deliberately avoiding/ignoring/misrepresenting something. I do not post direct attacks on you as a person to give weight to my points. May I request you to leave off personally attacking me and contribute in a non-personal way?

Can we strctly restrict ourselves to "looking back" at Partition here on this thread ? "looking forward" or de-partitioning and related issues can be discussed on the strategic threads?
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by brihaspati »

chetakji,
the significant fact is indeed that the British took over mostly from "Hindus". So the possibility arises, that left to itself, without allowing British interventionist strategies to continue - that the trajectory of development of India need not be the unadulterated disaster that is projected now on the "Bharatyia" if the Partition did not take place.
surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1464
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by surinder »

The Sikh kingdom had an overwhelming Musliem majority. Excluding Frontier & J&K, the British census revealed something like 55-60% islamiec population (30-40% Hindus, 10% Sikhs). If you add NWFP, J&K, the Musilem population was much larger. Ultimately the demise of the empire came from reasons other than Mussalmaan population. So larger numbers can be controlled & integrated successfully, as the Sikh experience shows.
samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by samuel »

1906

Let me start with a context setting article that appears in
The Oddest thing...

You read in it the native affinity of British to a part of India in contrast to the other.
shravan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2212
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 00:08

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by shravan »

surinder wrote:So larger numbers can be controlled & integrated successfully, as the Sikh experience shows.
Is it possible to control such large numbers in Democracy ?
surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1464
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by surinder »

Yes, of course. But it needs an extremely energetic, dynamic, awakened core.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by brihaspati »

samuelji,
Maybe the clock should be rewinded to the first "revivalist" movements of both Hindus and Muslims in the areas with substantial Muslim populations. In the west, two places immediatley come to mind - where members from the Brahmo Samaj and others inspired by them started certain lines of "revivalism" - Sind and Punjab. In Punjab I think this was based on Navin Ch. Roy. Followed by the radical movement and split from the Barhmo line by Agnihotri. The Sadhu brothers of Sind also took inspiration from Brahmo Samaj, and they had much more initimate contacts with both the Brahmos in Calcutta as well conacts with Ramakrishna Paramhansa.

More important than the attempts at revival by these initiatives, what is crucial is the reaction from the Muslim communities to these initiatives and especially the tactical mistakes of the Arya Samaj. The Brahmo Samaj also appears to have lost ground becuase they failed to "prevent" conversions into Islam mainly based on financial incentives that seems to have started at this period by Islamists. The Allama Iqbal - type reaction that developed used the Arya Samaj as the excuse. There is also a curious evidence that at this period there was also a split between the Sikhs and the Arya Samajis even though they has shared platforms initially. This is typically represented as revival of the pure Sikh Panth as elucidated by the Gurus to retrieve Sikh Panth from adulteration by "Hindu" practices and beliefs as introduced by the "Mohantas" and the various "casteist" practises etc (or the incidence of "sati" by the wives and attendants of Maharaj Ranjit Singhji).

But all this actually can be seen as also a different ball-game altogether. The need for all these revivalists to function in these areas - to redefine and reconstruct of the "purer" froms of their faiths - Islamists, Siikhs, and "Hindus" - shows that substantial syncretism was going on. The British role in encouraging these revivalist movements - direct or indirect, to prevent the syncretism going on needs to be explored. This was the foundation of the Islamic separatism in the Punjab.
samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by samuel »

Here, another article, a response to the "The Problem of India" article I posted earlier (Acharya, did you get pdf of that, as you requested. I posted link on an earlier page).

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-fr ... 946797D6CF

This article says that there is a huge gulf between Hindus and Muslims. It sounds like duh. But it was written in 1906.

The questions that arise is what work was done between 1906 and 1947 to bridge this gap and if that seemed impossible to accomplish, how did we plan in advance on going separate ways, or how did we plan on holding on to the lands of Bharath. Just how, in this path between choosing freedom and being united did we end up killing a million of our own.

Let's believe in the hypothesis that partition itself was a last minute, unavoidable, thing that just kinda sorta happened and that we can count our blessings, now many years later, because it at least led to a Hindu revival at least. Let's test that hypothesis then.

S
samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by samuel »

Brihaspatiji,

I am still learning of all this. All these articles I dig up, none of them are on my disk and none are action replay. I search and read and put them up. So, if you think we need to get back, should we start at 1850?

I chose 06 because there was the first clear sign there of Muslims seeking a separate representation, but may be I should pursue what you are suggesting.
surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1464
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by surinder »

B, It is interesting that you mention that the replay should begin much earlier. The replay will have to start at the point where British realized that Religion is perhaps the most important source of Indian world-view. So the Britishers must have concluded, naturally, that to control India they needed to control religion in India. So in the petri-dish of India they began the idea of controlling & manipulating religion. Not all their efferts lead to desired paths, but as good experimentalists they modified their strategies as they went along the experiments and added & accumulated their learning on Indian faiths. The focus of the game, needless to say, was the propagation of their empire & self-interest. They had to focus intensely on this approach because they never had (nor hoped to have) sufficient number of Britishers to impose their writ on their force of arms only; they had to understand and exploit every single crevice & countour of Indian identity & world view to use Indians against Indians to propagate their rule. This exploitation was not a choice, it was the essence of their survival.
samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by samuel »

And, surinder, as Acharya has said here, they studied us really really well.
Set the clock, 1828 -- precursor of Brahmo Samaj or just before 1857?
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by brihaspati »

Samuelji,
Here is web intro that condenses a lot of indicators about Sindhi context:
http://www.freesindh.org/sindhstory/Fro ... o_RSS.html
surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1464
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by surinder »

S, different times for different regions of our country. The British got hold of the Punjab & J&K etc. aftr 1850 (the last Sikh-British war). They had been closely studying Sikhs & Sikhism 50 years prior to that. But physical control of the Punjab came in 1850. So for west, that is the date. I can provide some pointers from that region. For Bengal, the date will have to earlier because they had physical possession earlier. But when did the idea strike them that they oughta use religion to control the people is something I don't know. Maybe they learned about this after they took Bengal. But in the Punjab, they got to the task immediately, which means that their understanding was already formed by 1850.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by brihaspati »

http://www.wichaar.com/news/319/ARTICLE ... 01-09.html
Here is an interesting summary from the "other side" :
The Punjab gave birth to many revivalist movements, principally Brahmo Samaj and Arya Samaj amongst Hindus, Singh Sabhas amongst Sikhs and the Khilafat movement amongst Muslims. More than pro-British Punjabi aristocrats, these reformist movements put into play the political dynamics of Lahore which had implications for the rest of the Punjab and pushed the province in the direction it ultimately went. From the Arya and Brahmo Samaj, Dayanand and Agnihotri were the most notable personages while Giani Ditt Singh was a prime mover of the Singh Sabhas and Muslim revivalist movements found their voice in Allama Mohammad Iqbal and Maulana Zafar Ali Khan.
[...]
The Brahmo Samaj was founded in Lahore in 1861 by Navin Chandra Roy. It was popular amongst the upper class, better educated segments of Hindus. The most prominent Brahmo Samaji in Punjab was the well-known educationist, Sardar Dayal Singh, who founded the college in Lahore named after him. The most intriguing Brahmo leader was Shiv Narayan Agnihotri, a brilliant engineering student who, after being introduced to Vedanta philosophy, left his education and joined the Government High School, Lahore, as a drawing teacher.

Pandit Agnihotri joined Lahore’s Brahmo Samaj in 1873 and quickly became a major figure in the organization. He was a prolific writer of Urdu, Hindi and English. He became an honorary missionary in 1875 and eventually took a modified form of sanyas in 1882. As a full time practitioner of religion he left the post of drawing master but retained his married life. By 1886 after friction developed within the organization, he resigned from the Lahore Brahmo Samaj and established his own sect, Dev Samaj (Divine Society). He started deviating from Brahmo doctrines and its rationalist approach.

However, Pandit Agnihotri’s continued to preach the lifting of caste restraints and he also said that there was no bar on intercaste marriages or shared dining. Pandit Agnihotri proposed a restructuring of the role of women and opposed child marriages: he proscribed that boys must be at least 20 and girls 16 at the time of the marriage. He also rejected excessive dowry or exclusion of women from any field of life. He made widows’ marriage acceptable and married a widow himself. In his code of conduct honesty in public and private life was essential and bribery, lying, stealing, cheating, gambling, consumption of liquor and drugs, adultery and polygamy were absolutely prohibited. After Pandit Agnihotri’s death, the Dev Samaj faded away.

Before the Brahmo Samaj movement could take hold in the Punjab, another reformist movement, Arya Samaj, made its way to the province. The founder of the movement, Swami Dayanand, a Gujrati, perfected his message in Lahore. He was also against casteism, rituals and idol worship. He preached strict monotheism, which he claimed was the essential message of the Vedas. His message found fertile soil among Punjabi Hindus of all classes. Arya Samaj was established in Lahore in 1877 and in due course most prominent Hindu political or business leaders, including Lala Lajpat Rai, were attached to the Arya Samaj in one way or another.

In Lahore, Mahatma Hans Raj was the major moving force behind the spread of the Arya Samaj movement. Dayanand Anglo-Vedic College, Lahore, and hundreds of other educational institutions established by the Arya Samaj were instrumental in preaching its gospel. Having been educated at these Arya Samaj educational institutions, most Punjabi Hindu professionals and businessmen adhered to its ideals. The Arya Samaj unequivocally condemned idolatry, animal sacrifice, ancestor worship, priest craft, the caste system, the sati or burning of widows, inequality of women, untouchability and child marriages, on the grounds that all these lacked Vedic sanction.

On the one hand Arya Samaj was a reformist movement, on the other it was very aggressive in preaching its doctrine, alienating other communities and ultimately creating unbridgeable hostilities. Its founder Dayanand and his followers preached that only the Vedas were divine scriptures and the holy books of other religions were invalid. Therefore, the only option for people of other religions was to convert to Hinduism if they wanted to achieve salvation. [...]
In the Punjab’s political economy Arya Samaj represented the interests of Hindu urban middle classes versus the rural Muslim and Sikh peasantry. Muslim inhabitants of urban areas, though in a majority, were oppressed artisans and workers. Most probably, a clash of class interests led to irreconcilable socio-political contradictions and, ultimately, ended in a partition of the Punjab. Of course there were other geopolitical circumstances behind the partition but a fundamental reason was the uneven economic structure.

Sikhs who joined Arya Samaj had to leave it soon because Dayanand himself ridiculed the Sikh gurus. It is said that when Dayanand addressed a public rally in Lahore, the stage secretary was a Sikh, Giani Ditt Singh. But, when Dayanand ridiculed the Sikh scriptures, Giani Ditt Singh and other Sikhs left Arya Samaj and began to work on the process that culminated in the formation of the Singh Sabha.

Sikhism was being threatened from within and from without. The Mahants (Hindu priests) had taken over the holiest Sikh places and reintroduced Hindu practices that the Gurus had vehemently rejected. Casteism and idol worship had been brought back to Gurdwaras where they had been missing for decades. Idols were placed even in Amritsar’s Golden Temple. The caste system and untouchability had so penetrated Sikh practices that a scholar like Giani Ditt Singh had to leave his Gurdwara when krah prasad (halwa) was going to be served.

The Sikh religion’s degeneration into Hindu practices had started during Ranjit Singh’s rule when many opportunistic influential families had converted to Sikhism. When Ranjit Singh died, seven women, two of his wives and five dasis, joined him on the funeral pyre and were burned to death. Thus, even sati had been brought back to Sikhism which was absolutely rejected by the Gurus. Therefore, the Singh Sabhas were formed to eliminate these degenerate Hindu influences and to rehabilitate the religion that the Gurus had preached.

Sikhs were also threatened by Christian missionaries. Many Sikhs were converting to Christianity and the situation was so bad that Giani Ditt Singh reported in his Khalsa newspaper that “An English newspaper writes that the Christian faith is making rapid progress and makes the prophecy that within the next twenty-five years, one-third of the Majha area will be Christian. The Malwa will follow suit…”
[...]
Their[Muslim's] main problems were related to the general backwardness caused by their economic deprivations and occupations as peasants, artisans or workers. Most of them had converted to Islam from lower castes but their economic status had not changed even during Muslim rule spanning some eight hundred years. Therefore, they were always oppressed by Muslim feudal and urban Hindu elites – Unionist Party of Punjab was a typical example of an alliance between Hindu elites and Muslim feudals – before and during (and perhaps even after) the British Raj. Muslim workers and artisans were never represented in government or businesses in a thousand years.
[NOTE: Interesting - he is saying that Muslims were not represented in Muslim regimes]

The absence of a large enlightened urban middle class among the Muslims of Punjab was one reasons they never found a way to address their fundamental problem of economic and social deprivation. Mian Muhammad Shafi and Nawab Fateh Ali Khan Qazilbash were leading Muslim aristocrats of Lahore. The former was well educated and enlightened while the latter was a traditionalist appendix of the British Raj. Mian Fazal-i-Hussain represented the liberal Muslims but he was not a people’s representative. However, none of the established Muslim political figures was interested in or competent enough to address the issues facing the masses.

Allama Mohammad Iqbal, departing from feudal politics, preached uplift of the Muslim masses but his ideas were embedded in a religious ethos. He recognized and understood the dark forces (mullahs, pirs etc) enslaving the Punjabi Muslim mind but he could not find a solution other than reviving the original spirit of religion. Similarly, Maulana Zafar Ali Khan, powerful writer and fiery speaker, fought polemical wars against anti-Muslim forces but he was not the kind of ideologue who could lead the oppressed Muslims of the Punjab. Therefore, the Punjabi Muslim masses looked outwards to Iran or Turkey for their salvation and got involved in Muslim revivalist movements. To some extent, this tradition still recurs time and again because the Punjabi middle class is still in the process of maturing.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by brihaspati »

Surinder,
the Brahmo Samaj was strongly influenced by European philosophies as well as Christianity. Rammohan's early experiences with his own society and his business dealings or contracts with the British probably made him look at the British interventions as a wlecome opportunity to reform what he saw as "evil" in his society. The British could have encouraged the movement indirectly or at least not come down heavily on. Which in itself speaks volumes about how the British saw it. The first forays into faith reconstructions appear to have happened at the hands of Brahmo Samajis into both Punjab and Sindh at the high point of Empire consolidation the mid-latter half of 19th century.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by Sanku »

samuel wrote:1906

Let me start with a context setting article that appears in
The Oddest thing...

You read in it the native affinity of British to a part of India in contrast to the other.
This was the finest ode to hinduism ever written, "the Hindu mind does not accept that truth and false hood are opposites, says that something can be and can not be at the same time"

These guys understood us all right. May have hated us, but they did understand us.
samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by samuel »

In fact, when I read it, I chuckled and felt oddly (despite the article) pretty good about myself!
enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by enqyoob »

I always knew you will come to the "Muslim" population issue. I just wanted to lead you there of your free will.
Ah! I knew you would fall into that too.

Note that I am referring to the Muslim population of a nation that did NOT believe in a unified India, and had never been Indian citizens.

Today India has a Muslim population that fully participates in the democratic process as Indian citizens. They are as patriotic, and in most cases more patriotic than, say, some tribes with which I am familiar, and they have 60 years' worth of babies born in Free India, as Indian citizens. There is NO basis for saying that they are less Indians than some dummy scrambling to learn Mandarin in Chennai, or working for "THE HINDU" in Chennai.

This is the huge difference which, clearly, you do not see. Can't help you there: see previous post on classification between Indians and septic-tank contents, and place urself appropriately. :mrgreen: Cheers.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14222
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by svinayak »

narayanan wrote:
Today India has a Muslim population that fully participates in the democratic process as Indian citizens. They are as patriotic, and in most cases more patriotic than, say, some tribes with which I am familiar, and they have 60 years' worth of babies born in Free India, as Indian citizens. There is NO basis for saying that they are less Indians than some dummy scrambling to learn Mandarin in Chennai, or working for "THE HINDU" in Chennai.
The question is about the outside muslims, wahabis, salafis in the middle east who are all around the India/world and the Indian muslims joining these outfits and their Islamists cause. Pakistan becoming a hatred filled state was never in the imagination of the leadership of India during partition and even now. JS wrote the book to address this. This future relationship of Indian Muslims with Pakistan Muslim is the key to the future of India
samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by samuel »

brihaspati wrote:Samuelji,
Here is web intro that condenses a lot of indicators about Sindhi context:
http://www.freesindh.org/sindhstory/Fro ... o_RSS.html
What an interesting read this article is. It's amazing to read these interconnections sprout.
It reinforces in me that the "only" cases we really needed to pay attention to in hindsight are Punjab and Bengal and that too in light of the barelvi/deobandi influence. What was the role of the Aga Khan behind Jinnah et al.?
S
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21234
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by Prem »

narayanan wrote:
I always knew you will come to the "Muslim" population issue. I just wanted to lead you there of your free will.
Ah! I knew you would fall into that too.

Note that I am referring to the Muslim population of a nation that did NOT believe in a unified India, and had never been Indian citizens.

Today India has a Muslim population that fully participates in the democratic process as Indian citizens. They are as patriotic, and in most cases more patriotic than, say, some tribes with which I am familiar, and they have 60 years' worth of babies born in Free India, as Indian citizens. There is NO basis for saying that they are less Indians than some dummy scrambling to learn Mandarin in Chennai, or working for "THE HINDU" in Chennai.

This is the huge difference which, clearly, you do not see. Can't help you there: see previous post on classification between Indians and septic-tank contents, and place urself appropriately. :mrgreen: Cheers.
N3 do u agree that these pre 47 UP/Bihari etc Muslims supporters of Pakistani Movement cannot be considred Indian and these are the same people who created the circumstances for the death of million plus people thus guilty of genocidal charge. And Finally these very Islamist people got away unharmed while many innocents others suffered with the loss of life, liberty and property.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14222
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by svinayak »

surinder wrote:S, different times for different regions of our country. The British got hold of the Punjab & J&K etc. aftr 1850 (the last Sikh-British war). They had been closely studying Sikhs & Sikhism 50 years prior to that. But physical control of the Punjab came in 1850. So for west, that is the date. I can provide some pointers from that region. For Bengal, the date will have to earlier because they had physical possession earlier. But when did the idea strike them that they oughta use religion to control the people is something I don't know. Maybe they learned about this after they took Bengal. But in the Punjab, they got to the task immediately, which means that their understanding was already formed by 1850.
This is good analysis. 1857 showed them that if Muslims and Hindus come together they can defeat and kick out the British. Giving favors to one set of group against another set of groups changed the social dynamics of the Indian society. Till that time this change in the fortune of one community in this large scale had not happened. Even during Mughal rule there was small scale change in the status with patronage of the Zamindari system by the durbar. Muslims rule was based on keeping the Hindus poor who will then come over to them for help.

British racism increased after 1857. British sensed the change in the social outlook between people and they could manipulate the behaviour with this process and put one community against the other. Each community will compare and come to the British asking for favors and protection against the other community. Syed Khan setup the AMU based on this perceived injustice and seeing the Hindus becoming prosperous. Hunter wrote his book during that period to gain support for the Indian Muslims after 1857.

British officials found that they could change the behavior of Hindus against the Muslims and behaviour of Muslims against the Hindus.

The Indian Musalmans by W W Hunter
The Muslims of British India By Peter Hardy
Separatism Among Indian Muslims: The Politics of the United Provinces ... By Francis Robinson




http://books.google.com/books?id=tlQOAA ... er&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=RDw4AA ... q=&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=QS7Fmi ... q=&f=false
Last edited by svinayak on 01 Sep 2009 03:41, edited 1 time in total.
surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1464
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Re: A look back at the partition

Post by surinder »

samuel wrote:
brihaspati wrote:Samuelji,
Here is web intro that condenses a lot of indicators about Sindhi context:
http://www.freesindh.org/sindhstory/Fro ... o_RSS.html
What an interesting read this article is. It's amazing to read these interconnections sprout.
It reinforces in me that the "only" cases we really needed to pay attention to in hindsight are Punjab and Bengal and that too in light of the barelvi/deobandi influence. What was the role of the Aga Khan behind Jinnah et al.?
S
Very interesting article. The article mentions the figure I know of: Sadhu T. L. Vaswani. He was the first teacher of a prominent Sikh saint Saint Isher Singh Ji Maharaj, of Rara Sahib. Sadhu ji was the one to teach him & encourage him to read & memorize Sikh prayers, when Sadhu T.L. Vaswani was in Patiala. (Sant Isher Singh was the inspiritation to Sant Waryam Singh, whose center near Chandigarh is doing amazing work.) Very interlinked world we have here.
Post Reply