A look back at the partition

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 01 Sep 2009 23:47

Surinder Sir,
Again go back to Bose and Bhagat's treatment by G &N. Suspicion arises naturally that these 2 could not be at ease with the spirit of B and B and advantage them if people of Bengal and Punjab get broken and loose the same spirit to fight post 47 Kangressi shenanigans.Nehru barely escaped the beating in Ambarsar while visiting refugge camps. There were Kesri flags all over India after Independence , this must have frightened our secular saints thus the natural urge to replace three Bose,Bhagat and BandeMatram with 3 Bapuu ke Bandars still playing second fiddle to Indian National interests as felt in the the anguish of Ramana's post about adhoc nature of dealing with national issues.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 01 Sep 2009 23:50

surinder wrote:
If we take an even further step and imagine 1947 INC leadership uncompromising patriots whose concern for India submerged any other concern, then perhaps the most logical thing for them to do was to go to the Punjabi Villages & collect the Sikhs & Hindus issue a general call for uprising. The Khalsa spirit could have been easily roused. The Khalsa (of course w/i "Hindu" support) could have wrecked any ML + Brutish plans in the Punjab.

How can this happen since the British interest is paramount here.
British may have some blackmail card over the INC in 1947. One story was Netaji Bose who was still alive and British could have projected Bose as an alternative leader to JLN threatening him and INC. British still held many card outside India including close relationship with the 500 Princes and other important people. Menon handled most of the threats and Sardar took care of anybody who opposed the Union.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 01 Sep 2009 23:53

Are the papers regarding Netaji's death still classified and Acharya sir ,could Netaji stop the partition as he commanded the loyalty all the major communities in India?.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 01 Sep 2009 23:57

Prem wrote:Are the papers regarding Netaji's death still classified and Acharya sir ,could Netaji stop the partition as he commanded the loyalty all the major communities in India?.

If Bose could get the Muslim officer in the BIA to show allegiance to the INA there would be no Pakistan. British made sure that INA was disbanded and never to be heard of. Read the INA history thread

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 01 Sep 2009 23:58

While I am with all on the issue of our leaders of that time and their follies to land us in this situation, yet, having been in a position to take awfully difficult decision that means life and death (in war and CI), I will confess that it is damned awfully agonising and difficult and complicated to take that decision! It works sometimes and sometimes it does not! When it does not, you are up a gum tree!

As they say - Victory has many fathers, defeat is an orphan!

On hindsight, one can always rip up those who took the decisions.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 02 Sep 2009 00:11

Ramanna, it is surely happening now, as it has been happening since 1947. (It is no longer INC, the INC mentality is now synonymous with Indian mentality.) One of the basic characteristic of human behaviour is that if something has worked for a man once, he will try it again. If the Partitioon type of hoodwinking has worked, it is a sure bet that they would try it again.

The story takes one of the following terms: Indian "leaders" present a different face to the outsiders than what they present to Indians themselves: Typically their behaviour to outsiders is of a soft, peace-seaking, flexible person; the Indinas they present a picture of a stubborn fighter for Indian causes. MMS is a classic case: His statements in UK about Brutish rule contrast with his Jingoism in parliament. He does not repeat his Brutes-were-good in India. His dealings with USA on nuclear issue, contrast his flexibility with the Amerkhans with his statements in parliament showing an unbending stance. Contrast again his posture at S-e-S, quickly followed by the braggadacio in the Parliament. This is what the INC leaders like JLN & MKG did---presented themselves as unbending freedom fighters to Indians, but weak in dealings with ML or Brutish rule.

When facts cannot be hidden or obfuscated the approach is to wrap the defeat/capitulation/failure as a higher, almost religious, principle. This is what JLN did with 1962 defeat, claiming that Aksai Chin did not even have a blade of grass to grow. Implying, that it was not worth the loss of human life to preserve. Parallel this to Partition, which they would present as a necessity to save lives & stave off a bigger catastrophe.

Ultimately, a lot of dealings & negotiations with foreign entities happens in secret environment. People trust the government to take care of its interests, knowing that they cannot know the full details. Many of the negotiations leave no paper trail. Lot of it is in tone of the voice, body language, winks & implications. For a governence that is dishonest, it leaves a lot of room to fool its own people. Similar to the 1947 sell out, the Indan govt. (for instance) will continue to not let them know about PRC incursions and land-grab. Nor did they let the Indian peoople know that GOI provided supplies to the PLA for the conquest of Tibet.

We can sometimes get lucky that secrets come out. N. S. Sarila brought out the real story of Partition, only 50 years later. JLN & MKG did not reveal what really happened. Claude Arpi revealed the story of GOI supplying PLA. But most of the time, we will never find out the secret hand-shakes, the winks, the implied phrases. We have to indirectly infer the underlying facts from reconstructed events, looking for clues in subtle acts and subtle slips of toungues, or even subtle silences. From these we attempt to construct a plausible theory, and not accept official events which often demean our intelligence.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 02 Sep 2009 00:16

RayC wrote:While I am with all on the issue of our leaders of that time and their follies to land us in this situation, yet, having been in a position to take awfully difficult decision that means life and death (in war and CI), I will confess that it is damned awfully agonising and difficult and complicated to take that decision! It works sometimes and sometimes it does not! When it does not, you are up a gum tree!

As they say - Victory has many fathers, defeat is an orphan!

On hindsight, one can always rip up those who took the decisions.

True, but not entirely. No one said the decision are easy, but note that there is no compulsion to become a leader if you don't have it in you to lead & take those decisions. No one then forces you to cover up the fu(k ups and lie later on. Someone who is truly conflicted will give different signals than someone who is a sham.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 02 Sep 2009 00:17

Acharya wrote: If Bose could get the Muslim officer in the BIA to show allegiance to the INA there would be no Pakistan. British made sure that INA was disbanded and never to be heard of. Read the INA history thread

This is a moral question.

If one takes an oath for the Govt, whatever he be, then it must be loyal.After all, he joined with what he knew is right.

INA switched sides. I will not debate reasons since that would be contentious!

The credo is Namak, Naam, Nishan.

Let us look at a hypothetical situation. If the Army was divided into party loyalties, then the Congress supporters would have refused to allow Kargil to be won since it would be as that Muslim MP of Congress said - Kargil is a BJP war!

With all due regards to the ultra nationalists, let me assure you that the armed forces are also nationalists. To wit, we are beyond religion, community, language and other divides. We are true to the Naam, Namak and Nishan inspite of our personal beliefs!

It is an unwritten practice that if we are not true to Naam, Namak and Nishan and are free to be pursue our individual patriotism, then the discipline that makes us die for the nation would be flawed since all could be freewheeling.

There is no doubt that the INA played a great role in the Independence, but then the concept of Naam, Namak and Nishan

I don't say that one accepts this concept, but then such organisations that can create turmoil if it is freewheeling as the armed forces, in my opinion, should not be tinkered with just to assuage sentiments!

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 02 Sep 2009 00:19

Acharya wrote:[If Bose could get the Muslim officer in the BIA to show allegiance to the INA there would be no Pakistan. British made sure that INA was disbanded and never to be heard of. Read the INA history thread

The very fact that Bose could command such intense loyaltly and generate such intense love in M's (including Punjabi M's) is ample proof that Partition was not inevitable.

Not just the Brutish rulers, even after they left they left they extracted a promise from JLN to not accomodate the INA, which JLN dutifully complied with. He continued to fear the Brutes, even after they supposedly left.

I am not aware that MKG went on a hunger-strike to accomodate them.

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

RayC Sahib,

Would it then be OK, by your logic, to try every single Indian military person for treason on August 16 1947 for they were the instruments of Brutish power to enslave their fellow Indians. If there is any army that had to be disbanded, it would seem that BIA should have been that entity.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 02 Sep 2009 00:23

surinder wrote:
RayC wrote:While I am with all on the issue of our leaders of that time and their follies to land us in this situation, yet, having been in a position to take awfully difficult decision that means life and death (in war and CI), I will confess that it is damned awfully agonising and difficult and complicated to take that decision! It works sometimes and sometimes it does not! When it does not, you are up a gum tree!

As they say - Victory has many fathers, defeat is an orphan!

On hindsight, one can always rip up those who took the decisions.
True, but not entirely. No one said the decision are easy, but note that there is no compulsion to become a leader if you don't have it in you to lead & take those decisions. No one then forces you to cover up the fu(k ups and lie later on. Someone who is truly conflicted will give different signals than someone who is a sham.

What you say is theoretical.

Leaders have to have no sentiment, no heart and instead be robots?

Am I to understand that no one has conflict in decision making even in his domestic field and is picture perfect?

Let us not talk of ideals. There is no ShangriLa!

God has still not tread on Earth!

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 02 Sep 2009 00:25

surinder wrote:RayC Sahib,

Would it then be OK, by your logic, to try every single Indian military person for treason on August 16 1947 for they were the instruments of Brutish power to enslave their fellow Indians. If there is any army that had to be disbanded, it would seem that BIA should have been that entity.

Indeed, it should have been done, if the leaders wanted it.

Just like it was done in Iraq.

Nothing wrong.

Iraq is now shining!

And the current IA is in the pits!

To me, Namak, Namm, Nishan what made me forget all the inequalities that I faced while in the Army! My country, men and the greatness of the IA is what made me get going!!

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 02 Sep 2009 00:27

surinder wrote:
The story takes one of the following terms: Indian "leaders" present a different face to the outsiders than what they present to Indians themselves: Typically their behaviour to outsiders is of a soft, peace-seaking, flexible person; the Indinas they present a picture of a stubborn fighter for Indian causes.

Ultimately, a lot of dealings & negotiations with foreign entities happens in secret environment. People trust the government to take care of its interests, knowing that they cannot know the full details. Many of the negotiations leave no paper trail.

The ruling elite is usually co-opted by the global power elite so that global stability is maintained. Even Stalin worked for the western interest even after WWII.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 02 Sep 2009 00:39

The very fact that Bose could command such intense loyaltly and generate such intense love in M's (including Punjabi M's) is ample proof that Partition was not inevitable.

The tolerance to pain and deprivation can affect the human mind.

And at the same time, I would not hesitate that there were many who were fed up to the gills of the British and yet had joined since it was a profession that gave respect in the village!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Sep 2009 02:46

Take a look at this x-post...

SSridhar wrote:Another book on J&K
Review by Praveen Swami
JAMMU AND KASHMIR, THE COLD WAR AND THE WEST
D.N. Panigrahi;
Routledge, 912 Tolstoy House, 15-17 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi-110017. Rs. 595.

Western support for Pakistan, Panigrahi shows, played a key role in shaping the India-Pakistan contestation on Jammu and Kashmir. The military and diplomatic assistance to Pakistan, his argument suggests, sustained its long-running offensive to take control of the State.

Formulation of policy

The author’s account locates the formulation of the United States’ and the United Kingdom’s policy on J&K in the context of their evolving post-World War II strategic concerns in West Asia.

British civil servant Olaf Caroe, who had served for many years in the North-West Frontier Province, Punjab, and the United Provinces, saw the new state of Pakistan as a key asset in the defence of West Asia’s oil resources. Caroe, whose ideas carried a lot of weight not only with Britain’s policy establishment but also with the Pentagon, believed the region’s oil could best be protected from the northern rim — that is, Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Pakistan — rather than through control of the Suez.

Echoes of these ideas figured in a 1949 address by Field Marshal Archibald Percival Wavell, commander of the British forces in West Asia during World War II and the penultimate viceroy of India. “The next great struggle for world power,” Wavell argued, in an address whose ideological relevance is evident even today, “if it takes place, may well be for the control of these oil reserves. It may centre on Western Asia, the Persian Gulf, the approaches to India both on the north-west and on the north-east. This may be the battleground both of the material struggle for oil and air-bases, and of the spiritual struggle of at least three great creeds — Christianity, Islam, [and] Communism — and of the political theories of democracy and totalitarianism.”

Pro-Pakistan stand

Ideas like these, as well as the British hopes of salvaging their Palestine-battered reputation among Muslims, Panigrahi argues, drove the U.K. to adopt a pro-Pakistan position on Jammu and Kashmir.

Back in 1935, Britain had leased the Gilgit Agency from the princely State, in a strategic response to the Soviet Union’s occupation of parts of Xinjiang. The lease ended after India’s Independence. But instead of handing Gilgit back to J&K, local troops led by British officer Major W.A. Brown annexed the province for Pakistan. Major Brown was rewarded both by the British government and Pakistan for his enterprise.

From the outset, Panigrahi shows, Britain supported Pakistan’s case that it was in no way involved in the 1947 assault on J&K it now administers — a myth the Pakistani commentators, including Major-General Akbar Khan who commanded the assault, have long laid to rest.

Military aid

For its part, the post-World War II policy establishment in the U.S. saw India and Pakistan in stark Cold War terms. Much to Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s alarm, the U.S. committed itself early to military aid for Pakistan, in return for stationing its personnel at Babader airbase outside Peshawar. In June, 1953, Dulles told the National Security Council of the United States that Pakistan was the “one country that has [the] moral courage to do its part [in] resisting communism.” By 1955, Pakistan had become a part of the South East Asia Treaty Organisation.

Foreign policy commentator Walter Lippman discussed the issue with Dulles. “The only Asians who can fight,” Dulles insisted, “are the Pakistanis. That’s why we need them in the Alliance. We could never get along without the Gurkhas.”

Lippman responded that the Gurkhas were neither Pakistani nor Muslim. “No matter,” he recorded Dulles as saying, before launching into a protracted lecture on the benefits of the United States’ military relationship with Pakistan.

Indian policy-makers today confront many of the same pressures they did five decades ago — this time, without the support of the erstwhile Soviet Union to ward off the West.

All bolding my comments.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 02 Sep 2009 02:55

surinder wrote:RayC Sahib,

Would it then be OK, by your logic, to try every single Indian military person for treason on August 16 1947 for they were the instruments of Brutish power to enslave their fellow Indians. If there is any army that had to be disbanded, it would seem that BIA should have been that entity.

Why blame the Indian Army? Weren't they just following orders of the Empire that created them in the first place?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 02 Sep 2009 02:56

As long as there was a British Governor general at the head of government, with the top military command almost entirely British with oath of loyalty to the Crown - directly or indirectly, no military orders could effectively be given to the "IA" that would go against British plans. Technically speaking, the oath of loyalty for ordinary soldiers would also remain thorny.

However transference of loyalty by soldiers on field to a provisional government was not unknown to the British. The question then becomes the legitimacy of the provisional government, and ultimately the legitimacy question is decided by who "wins" militarily. Because the British won they tried the INA as renegade. However the INA soldiers were on a oath to a provisional government of Free India. It then becomes a matter of perception. The Italian soldiers on field mostly transferred their loyalty to a "provisional" government dominated by various shades of "Partisans" when Mussolini was captured and hung - this government obviously was not elected through any electoral process but its legitimacy was "natural" because it went against an enemy of the Allied forces.

Had a provisional government of the Republic of India declared itself to be in supreme authority and sovereignty over the territory of British India, and ordered all "IA" members to report for duty under command of this government, then would come the test of "namaak". Probably it had to be done very very quietly, but would have needed at least some in the seniormost among "Indian" and non-British command level - with a night time round up of all British officers for their "own safety", while the Governor General was away enjoying his holiday at Shimla, and under the excuse of dealing with the emergency situation arising out of the volence erupting Punjab. And to forestall any wavering about "namaak" take the public into confidence immediately and mobilize for political action - making any soldier that refused to transfer his oath to the new government a proper "renegade".

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 02 Sep 2009 03:38

brihaspati wrote:Had a provisional government of the Republic of India declared itself to be in supreme authority and sovereignty over the territory of British India, and ordered all "IA" members to report for duty under command of this government, then would come the test of "namaak". Probably it had to be done very very quietly, but would have needed at least some in the seniormost among "Indian" and non-British command level - with a night time round up of all British officers for their "own safety", while the Governor General was away enjoying his holiday at Shimla, and under the excuse of dealing with the emergency situation arising out of the volence erupting Punjab. And to forestall any wavering about "namaak" take the public into confidence immediately and mobilize for political action - making any soldier that refused to transfer his oath to the new government a proper "renegade".

And that would have written a different chapter of India. We then be having BRF meets in Lahore, Kasur, Karachi & Peshwar.

The captured British soldiers & officers, along with the Governal General would have been repatriated after negotiations to the Americans & the British in Diego Garcia.

Yayavar · Post by **Yayavar** » 02 Sep 2009 04:00

Acharya wrote:
viv wrote:

Yes, though after the war the British were broke, had to be rescued (Marshall Plan) - so could not really pay enough. As a result the other 500plus independent states got integrated into the modern Bharat. Small mercies!!
British could pay for small groups and individuals but could not pay the debt for the soldiers on hire $15B

Acharyaji, I was being sarcastic onlee....our leaders might have failed at getting a result we so fervently hope for (or some do not), but that does not mean we impute other base reasons for their failings (in our eyes).

A Gandhi or Patel or Nehru or Ambedkar were looking to beyond political independence - to social upliftment , to a free society in addition to freedom ....they made mistakes, they missed out in some places; but they did deliver. It is a disservice to state they were 'paid off'. What/how can you substantiate ?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 02 Sep 2009 04:04

RayC wrote:
This is a moral question.

If one takes an oath for the Govt, whatever he be, then it must be loyal.After all, he joined with what he knew is right.

INA switched sides. I will not debate reasons since that would be contentious!

The credo is Namak, Naam, Nishan.

It is an unwritten practice that if we are not true to Naam, Namak and Nishan and are free to be pursue our individual patriotism, then the discipline that makes us die for the nation would be flawed since all could be freewheeling.

There is no doubt that the INA played a great role in the Independence, but then the concept of Naam, Namak and Nishan

There is no need to be ultra sensitive on this. Most of the leaders during that time had switched allegiance between Colonial and the revolutionary/nationalist groups. Many elite to the common man had at various time worked for the British against the Indian cause, against the cause of the nation and the freedom and against the cause of the fellow human beings.

So this Partition was supposed to be done in orderly manner and without too much disruption in the govt. But the violence leashed on the common man and the army being not present created a dilemma. It is possible the govt wanted to avoid civil war between the two factions of the army with different allegiance to fight out like the street violence in Punjab and Bengal. So they allowed the partition of the army but did not allow the army
to help the common man in the streets of Punjab and Bengal.

Abhi_G · Post by **Abhi_G** » 02 Sep 2009 04:07

A rebelion in the military ranks had been tried many times before INA which was the culmination of what happened much before. These were the various efforts made by significant individuals in Bengal and Punjab but they were neutralized by insiders who collaborated with the British.

Ghadar Party & Hindu German Conspiracy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu%E2%8 ... Conspiracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghadar_Party

Bagha Jatin (Jatindranath Mukherjee)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagha_Jatin

Rashbehari Bose:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rash_Behari_Bose

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 02 Sep 2009 04:13

surinder,
it would have been a difficult thing to pull off. The Indian side of admin, the MI, would all have lept a close watch on the political leaders - and many of the hangers on buzzing around the triumvirate were most likley to have been on the payroll of British intellligence. But technically speaking there would have been a host of problems with declaring the "takeover" as a n illegitimate coup. At the critical juncture I mentioned, they could all doo it under the excuse of an emergency and extremely volatile situation where the safety of Indians irrespective of faith were put up as the main concern. All the important ML leaders should have been rounded up and placed under safe custody. Shoot at site imposed. Immediate formation of an indigenous security contingent on a voluntary enlistment call to shore up manpower. This would also have kept pressure on the BIA if it wavered. Also use political mobilizations in unrest against British officers blaming them for Punjab violence to justify taking British officers in safe custody. Appoint Indian officers to acting command replacing the British officers. But the time window was short - they probably had to act within a day and night or two.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 02 Sep 2009 04:19

viv wrote:
A Gandhi or Patel or Nehru or Ambedkar were looking to beyond political independence - to social upliftment , to a free society in addition to freedom ....they made mistakes, they missed out in some places; but they did deliver. It is a disservice to state they were 'paid off'. What/how can you substantiate ?

Some groups have been doing research for the last 10-20 years. British have not released all the archives from that period.
There is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence to support that many top decision makers were paid or given favors to accommodate the British interest during the partition. Remember the British were there for 200 years. Lot of families profited by the British Empire and they carried it even after 1947.

Nawab of Bhopal tried by buying his independence. He transferred his wealth to Pakistan.
Hyd Nizam also tried it by paying money. He could not transfer his property and now it is GOI state property.
Junagadh also tried his luck.
Kashmir Maharaja was really in a fix since he was at the crossroad.

The 'Freedom at Midnight' was a business transaction with British owing a lot of money transferred power to reduce their debt. Liaquat and Awadh kingdom and all the Muslim Royalty from the old era got their money back in the form of Pakistan. It was a free for all with the many Princely states making secret negotiations with the British. Menon and Patel put an end to horse trading.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 02 Sep 2009 04:32

B,
This type of action requires a daring Chutzpah spirit. If we had that spirit, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. And I aggree, this would have to be carried out in massive numbers, and carried out very quickly, probably a day or two, before anyone has time to act.

Did the British have this Chutzpah? I am pained to say that they did. Maj. Brown did that in Gilgit/Baltistan. Realizing that by the rule of game established by the British themselves, the Maharajah of J&K could choose India or TSP. He chose India, which the British did not want. So Maj. Brown takes over, kills all the Hindus/Sikhs/Dogras and raises TSP flag. These are actions that crouching tigers do, not sleeping elephans.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 02 Sep 2009 04:33

Abhi_G wrote
A rebelion in the military ranks had been tried many times before INA which was the culmination of what happened much before. These were the various efforts made by significant individuals in Bengal and Punjab but they were neutralized by insiders who collaborated with the British.

This time around the British themselves were uncertain about the loyalty of the Indian portion of the BIA. Whcih meant their own MI had substantial reasons to believe that in case of real conflict of interests, the Indian officers and soldier could take up a position against the British command. The British pride over their military capabilities would not allow them to construct a "myth" of Indian-disloyalty to justify their wthdrawal from India. If they actually admitted this, it was most likely to be true.

"The Indian Army in India is not obeying the British officers. We have recruited our workers for the war; they have been demobilised after the war. They are required to repair the factories damaged by Hitler’s bombers. Moreover, they want to join their kith and kin after five and a half years of separation. Their kith and kin also want to join them. In these conditions if we have to rule India for a long time, we have to keep a permanent British army for a long time in a vast country of four hundred millions. We have no such army….” Sir Stafford Cripps, intervening in the debate on the motion to grant Indian Indepence in the British House of Commons in 1947, quoted in ‘The Freedom Struggle and the Dravidian Movement’ by P.Ramamurti, Orient Longman, 1987.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 02 Sep 2009 04:40

B, your quote from 1947 is in a public forums of the British Parliament. This means MKG & JLN & INC knew about it. They could have seized this opportunity as a pressure point on the Brutish. Why did they not?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 02 Sep 2009 04:47

Surinder, I simply do not know what was passing through their minds. The more I delved into the "Partition" the more murkier it became. You can see signs of "buddhibhrangsha" everywhere - it simply makes me wonder at their capability of leadership. I know, that I am making this comment with the benfit of hindsight. But still certain situations require a certain minimum of "pratyutpannamatitwa" - a quickness and presence of mind - which simply was not there. Was it because simply they were so much rooted to their own regional horizons and they were built up to the national figures they became by the emergent media and not because of their real cpabilities as tested in crises? It just deepens the mystery!

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 02 Sep 2009 05:20

surinder wrote:B, your quote from 1947 is in a public forums of the British Parliament. This means MKG & JLN & INC knew about it. They could have seized this opportunity as a pressure point on the Brutish. Why did they not?

British had several cards with them which they did not show it to INC and other prominant leaders.

British had talks with the Princes of the 500 Princely states. They could make deals separately to blackmail the INC and outcome of the freedom
British had secret talks with the ML and Royal Muslim elite families.
British had the UN which could recognize any smaller state which would declare independence - Hyd Nizam tried this
British had the whereabouts of Bose who could be brought back and even British could instigate a civil war.
British had hoped that civil strife would engulf vast portion of country and would take UK help. This was blackmail which was always in the back of the INC leadership.

Geopolitical changes were happening across the world.
Natural enemies: the United States and the Soviet Union in the Cold War ...
By Robert C. Grogin

http://www.historycentral.com/dates/1946.html

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for- ... 4/1947.htm

On Dec. 31, 1946, President Truman declared an end to the period of World War II hostilities. Early in 1947 the British said they could not support the Greek government after March 31. Many diplomats feared that the Soviet Union would then spread its power throughout the Middle East. President Truman met the problem by asking Congress for 400 million dollars to aid Greece and Turkey. Congress appropriated the money. This policy of aid, popularly known as the Truman Doctrine, was an American challenge to Soviet ambitions throughout the world.

In 1947, Sovietâ€American tensions developed along the â€œnorthern tierâ€ of the Mediterranean and culminated in the Truman Doctrine. The Soviet Union, recently rebuffed in Iran, seemed determined to stage a Communist takeover in Greece and wrest the Dardenelles Straitsâ€”connecting the Black Sea with the Mediterraneanâ€”from Turkey. Although it is doubtful that the Soviets were either directly involved in the Greek troubles or actually prepared to take military action against Turkey, the perception of danger distorted reality. The Truman administration feared that the Soviets sought access to the Persian Gulf, the Mediterranean, and ultimately the entire Middle East. Soviet hegemony in this oilâ€rich region could promote the collapse of Western Europe.

Doctrine enunciated by U.S. President Harry S Truman in a speech to Congress on March 12, 1947, proclaiming a U.S. commitment to aid noncommunist countries to resist expansion by the Soviet Union. Truman, announcing this plan to contain communism, declared that American policy was "to help free peoples to maintain their free institutions and their national integrity against aggressive movements that seek to impose upon them totalitarian regimes." He asked Congress for $400 million to defend Greece and Turkey from Soviet aggression. Congress approved the request in May 1947, signaling a departure from the former policy of noninvolvement in European affairs.

The 12 March 1947 announcement of the Truman Doctrine marked the beginning of a new, aggressive American posture toward the Soviet Union. The administration of President Harry S. Truman abandoned efforts to accommodate the Soviet Union, which had emerged as America's principal rival after World War II. Now the two superpowers engaged in the Cold War. The doctrine called on Congress to approve $400 million in military assistance for Greece, which was fighting communist insurgents, and neighboring Turkey... believed to be threatened by Soviet subversion. The doctrine was formulated after Britain indicated it no longer had the wherewithal to support the royalist Greek government. But during the previous year, the Truman administration had grown increasingly suspicious of Soviet intentions as the nations of Eastern Europe disappeared behind what the former British prime minister Winston Churchill had termed the "iron curtain."

The Truman Doctrine's critical role in the formulation of the U.S. policies of Soviet containment and European recovery which, built on a national consensus, remained in place until the collapse of the U.S.S.R. and the end of the Cold War;

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 02 Sep 2009 05:54

May Allah send more Paki to Britain. Its onlee 62 year since we got rid of Buritishers. Looking forward,the Indic core need to be moved away from Ganga Jamuni influence and shifted to deep south otherwise it will never gain strength to right the wrongs.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Sep 2009 07:15

We should also examine the first Cabinet and see how they reacted to both the Partition and the J&K attack.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 02 Sep 2009 10:16

Prem, fear not, brother. The law of Karma cannot be erased. We are all caught in the web of it. No individual, society, religion, or nation is immune to it. India is not, nor is Great Brutain either. Everyone which rises, and commits atrocities has to answer.

Ask yourself, where are the Mongols? They were once he terror of the world, the only power on Earth to have conquered Russia in winter. They are surviving as slaves of USSR & China.

Where is Afghanistan today? It was once the terror---Afghans used to descend at will every winter and take all the gold, women & men from India. Now their own country has collapsed. In the last 25 years it has been bombed to stone age by two super powers. It has the world's largest population of invalids, largest number of mine fields, and till recently largest number of refugees; it has no roads, no universities, no banks, no economy. What it all the islaaamic conquests loot give it? It is a mere proxy of the Punjabi Pakis, a depraved group. What indignity, to be a enslaved by Pakis. Time moves.

Look at the Arabs now. They are the laughing stock of the world. They have the world's most needed commodity, but cannot build anything of worth in their sorry lands. They used to kill Jews & other kaafirs at will, but now tremble at the mere mention of Israel. Allah has been more merciful to the Kaafirs than to the momins.

UK has already declined, not has the sun set on the empire, it barely rises in UK itself. Scotland is drifting away; were it not for the EU, it would have seceded formally. Wales is sliding away, as they too have discovered their Welsh language & have formed their parliament. The shell of "United" is basically English. Pakis will take over very many parts of it. If not pakis, Arabs, N. Africans etc. will eat it alive. You and me may not see it in our life times, but our children will. In our parents generation, they never even contemplate that England could decline. God's hand may be slow, and may be unseen, but it surely comes. The good God in His infinite wisdom created Germans and their enormous military machine, which bombed the shit of of UK. It basically rendered this world greatest superpower to shreds & debris; reduced it to penury & destroyed its empire for good. (Germans were the real reason we got Independence, by the way.)

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Sep 2009 10:29

Prem wrote:May Allah send more Paki to Britain. Its onlee 62 year since we got rid of Buritishers. Looking forward,the Indic core need to be moved away from Ganga Jamuni influence and shifted to deep south otherwise it will never gain strength to right the wrongs.

I think that Al Britain will embrace Islam in order to assume leadership of Ummah and retain influence. That is the only way for them to regain their earlier dominance. Blunt plan is working in reverse.

sanjaychoudhry · Post by **sanjaychoudhry** » 02 Sep 2009 10:54

The Indian Army in India is not obeying the British officers.

This was the real reason for British withdrawl from India. Netaji's INA was responsible for this.

I was reading Sarila's book on independence. He cites many instances where Indian soldiers shot british officers in the back while fighting INA forces in the north-east. Signs of rebellion were everywhere. Indian soldiers were openly refusing to obey orders of British oficers. Naval ratings of Bombay and Karachi captured navy ships, turned the guns around and bombed the hell out of British lines on the sea-front. Read Sarila's book for details.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 02 Sep 2009 10:58

In those times, morality, honour, oath, allegiance etc was not shaken so easily and instead was sacrosanct. Those who are aware of the significance of Hookah Pani bandh will understand. Today, the meanings of these words are different and sort of unrestrained and therefore should not be superimposed for comprehension of the events, morals, values and ethics of those times. This was a part of the Indian culture of those time, irrespective of there being a British govt.

Biradari, namak etc were seriously taken and Honour was almost like a brief statement of religious belief; confession of faith. The spoken word was inviolate and the ‘fibre’ of character unshakable. To reinforce what I am meaning, in the olden days, one could never challenge an elder’s opinion. Today, it is continually challenged. In the yesteryears, we had to marry the girl as deemed fit by the parents and the family and today it is quite acceptable to ‘live in’! Times have changed and we cannot superimpose today’s sensibilities to events of yesterday! We see some examples of that fierce belief and resolve even today, though it is accepted as irrational in the modern context but it is still there, as in the Honour Killings (as reported in Harayana)!

Recruits accepted into the two freedom fighting organisations of Bengal had to take elaborate oaths of initiation and secrecy. These were in the form of religious rituals. Why so?

Comparison of morality, honour etc with western precepts is debatable.. Amongst Orientals ‘saving face’ is a very important aspect; it was and it is. I believe that there is no such philosophy in the Occidental world and societies.

The INA soldiers, those who defected, were on an oath to the British Indian govt. Therefore, after defecting, taking another oath to the Azad Hind govt makes the sanctity and import of taking an oath meaningless and mercenary and an instrument to suit the convenience! Oath is not to suit the flavour of the times! It is a sacred issue (at least that is what is taught in the Army)!

One appreciates what the INA contributed, but then if viewed clinically it was and it is against the ethos of military discipline and loyalty. I would shudder to imagine that my soldiers could change their loyalty to suit their purpose. In the Gujarat riots, there was a Muslim General controlling the situation when the Army was called in. By the logic that it is acceptable to have wavering loyalties, oath or otherwise to suit one's belief, had he had changed ‘sides’, would it be acceptable to the Union of India?

In Islam, killing people who are of Islam is haaram. What makes the Indian Muslim soldiers go bravely to fight fellow Muslims of Pakistan without a thought for religious injunctions, which to them is paramount? It is the oath and training! Inviolate!!

Take the Sikhs of the IA in Op Bluestar. I am sure they must have hated storming the Harmandar Sahib, but they did it. Why? Oath! Inviolate!

Shahbeg Singh, an ex General, was with the terrorists. Why? He felt he had been wronged! Personal convenience!

Food for thought

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 02 Sep 2009 11:35

It is interesting to learn that British officers were shot in the NE by Indian soldiers.

Knowing how the British were petrified of the Sepoy Mutiny and their way of handling issues, they would have quietly disbanded that unit, since they could not care less if people became destitute thereof, unlike today! Any mention of that?

My father was there in Imphal and in the Admin Box in Burma, he did not mention that Indians soldiers were on a killing spree and what is more, his family was thick in the armed rebellion in Bengal in those organisations declared 'terrorists'? He was sympathetic to the Indian cause, but was on oath! Namak!

The Naval Mutiny happened because of bad administration and lack of food and the mood for Independence was already electrifying the public. Had there not been bad administration, who knows?

Fragging, which was unheard of in the Army, is happening today. Why so? After all, we are all Indians!

History is written to suit the convenience of the time and govt and percepts. How far they are honest is a moot point. Was it the Sepoy Mutiny or was it the First War of Independence? Or was it jihad that spurted it? There are historians of all hues giving their own interpretation.

The Muqaaddimah succinctly put history in its correct perspective:

The writing of history requires numerous sources and much varied knowledge. It also required a good speculative mind and thoroughness, which lead the historian to the truth and keep him from slips and error. If he keeps historical information in its plain transmitted form and has no clear knowledge of the principles resulting from custom, the fundamental facets of politics, the nature of civilisation, or the conditions governing human social organisation.....

There is no need to be ultra sensitive on this. Most of the leaders during that time had switched allegiance between Colonial and the revolutionary/nationalist groups. Many elite to the common man had at various time worked for the British against the Indian cause, against the cause of the nation and the freedom and against the cause of the fellow human beings.

Acharya,

This issue was INA changing loyalties having taken an oath and not leaders and others!

It is the military ethos that is under question!

Leaders and common men changed loyalties then and even now. What's new?

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 02 Sep 2009 12:48

The Indian Army in India is not obeying the British officers. We have recruited our workers for the war; they have been demobilised after the war. They are required to repair the factories damaged by Hitler’s bombers.

Sir Cripps statement on Indian Army not ready to help the British

This is what Sir Stafford Cripps, intervening in the debate on the motion to grant Indian Independence said in the British House of Commons in 1947 quoted in ‘The Freedom Struggle and the Dravidian Movement’ by P.Ramamurti, Orient Longman, 1987.

I do not have the complete text of the speech and selective quotes can suit any point of view.

However, what is important to note that is demobilised troops have no reason to be loyal to anyone, but themselves!

It they are demobbed and are no longer in the BIA, why should they listen to British officers or their concerns?

If the selective quote is right, then Sir Cripps is a bit too imperious in his thoughts. The demobbed troops are not bonded for life!

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 02 Sep 2009 16:12

Well, if these demobbed workers are going to repair factories destroyed by Hitler's bombers - then it implies British "workers" - not Indian ones.

I agree that transference of loyalty from the BIA would be difficult because of "given word". The importance of the "given word" developed at a time in Indian history, when regular continuity of regimes and states were not guaranteed - so people had to rely on individual contractual commitments. The British would of course insist on using this as the basis of the contract, because they would be aware of the dangers of allowing any concept of indigenous nationhood included in the oath.

But in 1947, when, nationhood is a concept more orless widely disseminated, "nation" cannot be relegated below oath to a British authority. From a technical point, both the claims of inviolability of the oath to a British entity and the transference of loyalty to the nation, are dependent ultimately on "values" and perceptions.

I am aware of the problem, and hence suggested that the real question of loyalty would become more complicated if a Provisional Government declared itself to take over supreme authority and sovereignty in India and ordered the "IA" to report for duty under Indian command.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 02 Sep 2009 17:47

In 1947, The Army was under the sovereign Indian Govt.

It is to the entity that is called the Nation that the oath is taken, and the Govt being the custodian, it becomes incumbent to take orders and instruction from such govts.

There have been since then govts of various hues and persuasions. The loyalty to the Nation by obeying the orders and directions of govt of the day remained unwavering.

If the Govt of India decided that the INA members were to be reverted, then that was the Govt's call and it would have come to pass.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 02 Sep 2009 17:55

Talking about partition and IA......
From "Empire's First Soliders" by D P Ramachandran. 2008. Lancer Publications.

The soldiers from the south, whose forefathers had more than 200 years earlier - as mercenaries and unwittingly though - rallied under the British colours, to fight and win the earliest battles that would put INdia on the inexorable path to unification as one country for the first time ever in history,were, appropriately enough, to play the crucial role of being the guardins of peace at the national capital of a free INdia.

As the riots erupted, the 2nd and 4th Battalioins of the 3rd Madras Regiment were chosen to maintain peace at Delhi. They did it unbiased without fear or favor, keeping with the highest traditions of military discipline.

There seems to have been a preference for troops like Madrassis and Gorkhas, who hailed from places far from the riot torn areas, for cardinal tasks, in view of the sensitivity of the siutaiton

Professionalism and discipline have always been the biggest assets of the Madras soldier It wouldn't be out of context to quote what Colonel Reid, that great South Indian enthusiast, had to say about what made a Madras soldier click: 'They were not massive impressive warriors. They never appeared as great subjects for the author or the artist. They never advertised themselves. They were just plain Madrassis, Naidus, Mudaliars, Naickers, Pillays, Muslims and Christians. Quiet, hard working, intelligent, efficient, discplined, eating the same food, with no animosity towards each other, they were men of the South India, grand stuff.'

Even as Madras Regiment fought to keep the capital in one piece, the Madras Sappers were out in Punjab, providing succour to the multitude of refugees moving both ways across the border.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 02 Sep 2009 18:30

ramana wrote:
SSridhar wrote:“We were tired men,” India’s first Prime Minister said in 1960, “and we
were getting on in years too. Few of us could stand the prospect of going
to prison again—and if we had stood out for a united India as we wished
it, prison obviously awaited us. We saw the fires burning in the Punjab
and heard of the killings. The plan of Partition offered a way out and we
took it. […] We expected that Partition would be temporary, that
Pakistan was bound to come back to us.” {15Leonard Mosley, The Last Days of the Raj (London, 1961), p. 77.}
Do we have the full text of the book for context?

No, I have personally not read the book. It must be out of print by now. The above quotes were taken from Mushirul Hasan's article that I have saved in my HDD. However, these comments have been heard from many sources as well.