A look back at the partition
-
brihaspati
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 12410
- Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25
Re: A look back at the partition
Technically speaking, until 15th August, 1947, there was still no sovereign Indian nation. An oath of loyalty to the then government was not to the Indian nation, but still in the ultimate authority, to the British crown. The question of loyalty was not only about the INA but also about "loyal" soldiers of the BIA who could or could not be called upon by a Provisional Government of the Republic of India to transfer loyalty from the British crown to itself as a sovereign nation and used against the "activism" of the pro-Partition lobby. Under the instruments of transfer of power, the government headed by Mountbatten was not a government of the sovereign nation of India, until 15th August 1947. The legitimacy of the transitional government would be of the same order as that of Mountbatten government as both would still be "unelected" and practically speaking a "chosen" government which had to prove legitimacy through proper elections.
-
sanjaychoudhry
- BRFite
- Posts: 756
- Joined: 13 Jul 2007 00:39
- Location: La La Land
Re: A look back at the partition
You have to distinguish between oath to a free country whose government represents the aspirations and free will of the people and oath to a country being ruled by force against the wishes of the people by a foriegn colonial power. How can you put both on the same pedestal? Are you treating armed occupation of a country by a hostile race as a minor issue that its citizens should overlook because of the "oath of allegience" that they have taken to the occupiers? Such oath is over-ruled by the higher purpose of liberating the country and securing the right of a people to govern themselves.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.
-
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
100% agree. Even though existing Ministers etc are roaches, they are yet to defy an explicit order from EXPLICIT proven majority of citizens. Hence Army should obey the Ministers. But the British regime had NO connection with citizens of India what so ever. And hence there is NO need to be "loyal" to Britishers.sanjaychoudhry wrote:
1. You have to distinguish between oath to a free country whose government represents the aspirations and free will of the people and oath to a country being ruled by force against the wishes of the people by a foriegn colonial power.
2. How can you put both on the same pedestal? Are you treating armed occupation of a country by a hostile race as a minor issue that its citizens should overlook because of the "oath of allegience" that they have taken to the occupiers?
3. Such oath is over-ruled by the higher purpose of liberating the country and securing the right of a people to govern themselves.
The only reason to join and serve British Army would be to gain experience so that it can be later used against British. Be loyal to them as long as becoming disloyal is no good. But first opportunity comes, and Indian soldiers' moral duty is to back stab the British.
Which is why Subhashjee too had joined British Army (or at least took training there) and Veer Savarkar asked Indian youth to join Army. Their goal was not to serve the British but to gain strength and training.
-
brihaspati
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 12410
- Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25
Re: A look back at the partition
kudos sanjaychoudhry and RM, for being blunt and not mincing words as I have in my post. I am trying to be more diplomatic to avoid the type of flare-ups that lock up threads. Thanks again!
Re: A look back at the partition
How about the 1910s Lahore Conspiracy Case under which 19 were hanged till death for getting the indian army garrisons at Ambala, etc agreed to mutiny on a specific date to free the country.
Two days before the "supposed mutinyt" at all cantonments in North India., armaments were locked and indian Soldiers were left without arms or ammunition.
There have been many such cases in indian armed forces prior to 1947 .
Two days before the "supposed mutinyt" at all cantonments in North India., armaments were locked and indian Soldiers were left without arms or ammunition.
There have been many such cases in indian armed forces prior to 1947 .
Re: A look back at the partition
Sankuji,
According to RC Majumdar,the doyen of indian nationalist historians,to talk of united india at the start of 19th century was as much a historical blunder as to deny the impulse for united india at the end of 19th century.The British who had created the conditions for this impulse denied it till the very end.But even they had to admit that a Hindu air permeated the land from kashmir to kanyakumari inspite of obvious differences.
The Tamil kannada poet writer AK Ramanujan tried to answer the question whether India was one or many.He likened the idea of India to 'trousers'-unity at the top and plural down.
The French historian Sylvan Levi tried to understand the unity of India as 'belief in profound conceptions,ties of kinship and exigencies of situations between extremely different people reared on the same foundation.'
Hindu theologians who firmly upheld the unity of Indian civilisation had no idea of a modern state.Buddhist (or otherwise)republican kingdoms have existed in the past.
It was a leap of faith on the part of the Congress leaders to proclaim their vision.Orthodox Brahmanas would not have supported it.The 'martial races'-Sikhs and Rajputs would have little interest in the non-sectarian and egalitarian vision.The Dalits were at the margins. The British were scheming in the background.
The Liberals in the 1920s had fallen away.The 'revolutionaries' lacked broad support.It was only MKG and JLN who had pan indian appeal.True they were less popular in Bengal and Punjab.(For different reasons.)
The Muslims were dead against united India.The actors who shaped congress were moderate Hindus,if they could be called Hindus at all.The religion called Hinduism has no fixed doctrines except the most general and abstract.The moderate Congress leaders were convinced that Hinduism as it was then was 'weak' and had to be transformed in the image of modern west.The Congress leaders saw themselves as the new messiahs.
Where Hindus/Sikhs were in a minority,they could not win over the muslims as their program was in essence 'strengthening' Hindu society.Nehru was an anglicised Brahmana who considered Brahmanas as legitimate heirs to British.
MKG belonged to the trading castes which were acquiring clout because of a common market,better communication and national identity.
The landed gentry and martial castes were not sure how to react.Even Bankim Chandra Chatterjee who served in the higher ranks of British administration reflected that modern society will degrade Brahmanas and Kshatriyas.
The Brahmanas throughout the long history of India have never been known for ‘revolutionary’ activity.Yet as in many critical times of Indian history,they sensed that the Indian civilization they claimed to ‘represent’ was under siege by exceptionally gifted and ruthless conquerors who would go to any lengths to bleed it to the bare bones.
The Brahmanas who were the pillars of Congress (even in WB) realized that the share of spoils can be left to representative democracy which was in the spirit of the age.Imbued with age old belief in Dharma,they reasoned that the spirit of give and take will rise over the divisions which have existed from time immemorial.This belief was strengthened by an optimistic faith characterstic of 16th century enlightenment and 18th century democratic spirit which arrived all of a sudden in early to mid to late 19th century in Bengal,Bombay and other places.
In West Bengal and Bombay,the cohesion among Hindus was of a very high order due to historical conditioning(Advaita,BhakthifromJnanadeva,Tukaram,Chaitanya,Madhusudhana Saraswati) to modern reform(Bankim Chandra,Vivekananda,Raja Mohan Roy,RG Bhandarkar,Gokhale,Ranade).The radicals were also enlightened.(Netaji,Tilak etc).Perhaps Bombay and Calcutta being port cities also contributed.
In UP the Hindus had been crushed first by Mughals and then by British in 1857.
The Muslims in Punjab,the downhill champions had no renaissance.The Pakjabis,the Punjabi mussalman were turncoats and hypocrites.There was no way they would have co operated.They had no shared memories.Their past had been erased.
Surinderji,
The dominant castes among Pakjabis were Rajputs and Jats.After Sikh rule,the rajputs had little prestige in Central and East Punjab.But they were still powerful in West Punjab.
It is true that the muslim and Sikh jat interests had convergence.That was the reason for the success of Unionists.But even here the British ensured simmering tension in access to education,jobs,military recruitment.
Though there is no doubt that Ranjitsingh was fair to all classes.His rule had finished Muslim domination and this was not looked kindly by Muslim nobility and landlords.
Politics is always about power.And this is the single greatest failing of Mohammedans as pointed by Ambedkar.The Muslim cannot think in terms of economics or sociology when he is instigated over ‘religious’ issues.A Hindu thinks in terms of caste or a modern Hindu in terms of economic well being or ‘humanism’ but when a Muslim has to choose between a secular state and theocracy,he has no choice.
The Punjabi mussalman was secure in his land.It was the UP mussalman who was at risk.Yet look how the Pakjabi has internalized the hatred of Hindus.Has he ever tried to reach out to the Sikhs(even in pre-partition Punjab) except to stir hatred against the ‘Bahmans’ and ‘purbeahs’ in Delhi.
Even someone like Brihaspathiji is faulting the moderates without understanding the evolution of the Indian polity over the last 150 years and the intellectual clime of the age and the realities of ancient and recent Indian history.
From the pseudo view point of Pakjabi,they would loathe to be subservient to the hated Hindoos and Brahmanas who were their erstwhile ‘slaves’.
Sankuji,
You have to give credit to the Anglophile lawyers for creating the mess called modern India which has set up institutions like IITs etc,educated top class professionals,nurtured and protected a sense of Indianness.It has also preserved a fairly open society where even the poorest are finding voice,albeit on fractious platforms.
Surinderji,
I am sorry to say this.But in pre-Independence Punjab,MKG and JLN had little following among Jat Sikhs in Majha.The Congress base was almost exlusively Khatri and urban.The British had strong support from Jat Sikhs because of recruitment in British Indian Army,identity issues and Land Alienation Acts favouring peasants.
Bhagat Singh was an exceptional patriot who could argue on 'socialist and progressive' lines.
Ultimately demographics decided the boundary and the holiest of holies Amritsar and most other Sikh sanctuaries remained in India.I hope you willnot see me as a 'casteist'.The Sikhs,Marathas and Rajputs had different histories,social origins.The regions where they predominated had different social matrix.Only a 'modern'polity whose contours we cannot even guess holds the future.SVP and JLN wanted to build the new India in the truncated land.
We fully share the pain of Sikhs in punjab.In Punjab and Maharashtra a mass based native resistance had thrown the yoke of Mughals.An indian polity which is broadbased and founded on highest Indian ideals with respect for diversity alone can regain lost lands and ensure welfare of the Indian people.
According to RC Majumdar,the doyen of indian nationalist historians,to talk of united india at the start of 19th century was as much a historical blunder as to deny the impulse for united india at the end of 19th century.The British who had created the conditions for this impulse denied it till the very end.But even they had to admit that a Hindu air permeated the land from kashmir to kanyakumari inspite of obvious differences.
The Tamil kannada poet writer AK Ramanujan tried to answer the question whether India was one or many.He likened the idea of India to 'trousers'-unity at the top and plural down.
The French historian Sylvan Levi tried to understand the unity of India as 'belief in profound conceptions,ties of kinship and exigencies of situations between extremely different people reared on the same foundation.'
Hindu theologians who firmly upheld the unity of Indian civilisation had no idea of a modern state.Buddhist (or otherwise)republican kingdoms have existed in the past.
It was a leap of faith on the part of the Congress leaders to proclaim their vision.Orthodox Brahmanas would not have supported it.The 'martial races'-Sikhs and Rajputs would have little interest in the non-sectarian and egalitarian vision.The Dalits were at the margins. The British were scheming in the background.
The Liberals in the 1920s had fallen away.The 'revolutionaries' lacked broad support.It was only MKG and JLN who had pan indian appeal.True they were less popular in Bengal and Punjab.(For different reasons.)
The Muslims were dead against united India.The actors who shaped congress were moderate Hindus,if they could be called Hindus at all.The religion called Hinduism has no fixed doctrines except the most general and abstract.The moderate Congress leaders were convinced that Hinduism as it was then was 'weak' and had to be transformed in the image of modern west.The Congress leaders saw themselves as the new messiahs.
Where Hindus/Sikhs were in a minority,they could not win over the muslims as their program was in essence 'strengthening' Hindu society.Nehru was an anglicised Brahmana who considered Brahmanas as legitimate heirs to British.
MKG belonged to the trading castes which were acquiring clout because of a common market,better communication and national identity.
The landed gentry and martial castes were not sure how to react.Even Bankim Chandra Chatterjee who served in the higher ranks of British administration reflected that modern society will degrade Brahmanas and Kshatriyas.
The Brahmanas throughout the long history of India have never been known for ‘revolutionary’ activity.Yet as in many critical times of Indian history,they sensed that the Indian civilization they claimed to ‘represent’ was under siege by exceptionally gifted and ruthless conquerors who would go to any lengths to bleed it to the bare bones.
The Brahmanas who were the pillars of Congress (even in WB) realized that the share of spoils can be left to representative democracy which was in the spirit of the age.Imbued with age old belief in Dharma,they reasoned that the spirit of give and take will rise over the divisions which have existed from time immemorial.This belief was strengthened by an optimistic faith characterstic of 16th century enlightenment and 18th century democratic spirit which arrived all of a sudden in early to mid to late 19th century in Bengal,Bombay and other places.
In West Bengal and Bombay,the cohesion among Hindus was of a very high order due to historical conditioning(Advaita,BhakthifromJnanadeva,Tukaram,Chaitanya,Madhusudhana Saraswati) to modern reform(Bankim Chandra,Vivekananda,Raja Mohan Roy,RG Bhandarkar,Gokhale,Ranade).The radicals were also enlightened.(Netaji,Tilak etc).Perhaps Bombay and Calcutta being port cities also contributed.
In UP the Hindus had been crushed first by Mughals and then by British in 1857.
The Muslims in Punjab,the downhill champions had no renaissance.The Pakjabis,the Punjabi mussalman were turncoats and hypocrites.There was no way they would have co operated.They had no shared memories.Their past had been erased.
Surinderji,
The dominant castes among Pakjabis were Rajputs and Jats.After Sikh rule,the rajputs had little prestige in Central and East Punjab.But they were still powerful in West Punjab.
It is true that the muslim and Sikh jat interests had convergence.That was the reason for the success of Unionists.But even here the British ensured simmering tension in access to education,jobs,military recruitment.
Though there is no doubt that Ranjitsingh was fair to all classes.His rule had finished Muslim domination and this was not looked kindly by Muslim nobility and landlords.
Politics is always about power.And this is the single greatest failing of Mohammedans as pointed by Ambedkar.The Muslim cannot think in terms of economics or sociology when he is instigated over ‘religious’ issues.A Hindu thinks in terms of caste or a modern Hindu in terms of economic well being or ‘humanism’ but when a Muslim has to choose between a secular state and theocracy,he has no choice.
The Punjabi mussalman was secure in his land.It was the UP mussalman who was at risk.Yet look how the Pakjabi has internalized the hatred of Hindus.Has he ever tried to reach out to the Sikhs(even in pre-partition Punjab) except to stir hatred against the ‘Bahmans’ and ‘purbeahs’ in Delhi.
Even someone like Brihaspathiji is faulting the moderates without understanding the evolution of the Indian polity over the last 150 years and the intellectual clime of the age and the realities of ancient and recent Indian history.
From the pseudo view point of Pakjabi,they would loathe to be subservient to the hated Hindoos and Brahmanas who were their erstwhile ‘slaves’.
Sankuji,
You have to give credit to the Anglophile lawyers for creating the mess called modern India which has set up institutions like IITs etc,educated top class professionals,nurtured and protected a sense of Indianness.It has also preserved a fairly open society where even the poorest are finding voice,albeit on fractious platforms.
Surinderji,
I am sorry to say this.But in pre-Independence Punjab,MKG and JLN had little following among Jat Sikhs in Majha.The Congress base was almost exlusively Khatri and urban.The British had strong support from Jat Sikhs because of recruitment in British Indian Army,identity issues and Land Alienation Acts favouring peasants.
Bhagat Singh was an exceptional patriot who could argue on 'socialist and progressive' lines.
Ultimately demographics decided the boundary and the holiest of holies Amritsar and most other Sikh sanctuaries remained in India.I hope you willnot see me as a 'casteist'.The Sikhs,Marathas and Rajputs had different histories,social origins.The regions where they predominated had different social matrix.Only a 'modern'polity whose contours we cannot even guess holds the future.SVP and JLN wanted to build the new India in the truncated land.
We fully share the pain of Sikhs in punjab.In Punjab and Maharashtra a mass based native resistance had thrown the yoke of Mughals.An indian polity which is broadbased and founded on highest Indian ideals with respect for diversity alone can regain lost lands and ensure welfare of the Indian people.
Last edited by svenkat on 02 Sep 2009 22:38, edited 1 time in total.
-
brihaspati
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 12410
- Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25
Re: A look back at the partition
I have also "faulted" "extremists" like Bose for leaving India. 
My "faulting" of "moderates" (if they were really "moderates") is based on the specific context of attitude and tactics towards Islamism and the possible options in the leadup to the Partition. My fundamental cricticism of the so-called "moderates" is on this point - JLN and MKG had ideologically raised the Islamist ideology to a high pedestal where it could claim official recognition even from "Hindu" and an equal or distinct and even superior status. Having done so, they could not try to subsume the "Islamic" as subordinate to a pan-Indian identity, and this iexactly what they demanded. You cannot reinforce distinctions of superior claims of identity and then try to make it "inferior". In this they showed either deliberate or subconscious ignorance of the nature of Islamism, and their "fault" lies in this that such a reconstruction of Islam was not done for academic research or idle intellectual exercise - it becomes a case of criminal negligence because the price was paid by millions of innocents. MKG's self-sacrifice has paid the blood-price, but JLN hasn't.
As for "moderation", I agree they were really moderates - they were extremely moderate towards British repression on all forms of anti-British protest that was not undertaken under their own leadership, and as some of the comments in posts show in this thread- were not at all moderate when advising Bengali Hindus at the receiving end to allow themselves to be massacred or raped - that sort of advisory amounts to extremism, don't you think?
PS. I have not come across any advisory from MKG to Muslims at the receiving end in Bihar or elsewhere to allow themselves to be massacred or raped. If anyone has a reference to his advising so, can you please post it? I have studied his collected works, but it might have missed me.
My "faulting" of "moderates" (if they were really "moderates") is based on the specific context of attitude and tactics towards Islamism and the possible options in the leadup to the Partition. My fundamental cricticism of the so-called "moderates" is on this point - JLN and MKG had ideologically raised the Islamist ideology to a high pedestal where it could claim official recognition even from "Hindu" and an equal or distinct and even superior status. Having done so, they could not try to subsume the "Islamic" as subordinate to a pan-Indian identity, and this iexactly what they demanded. You cannot reinforce distinctions of superior claims of identity and then try to make it "inferior". In this they showed either deliberate or subconscious ignorance of the nature of Islamism, and their "fault" lies in this that such a reconstruction of Islam was not done for academic research or idle intellectual exercise - it becomes a case of criminal negligence because the price was paid by millions of innocents. MKG's self-sacrifice has paid the blood-price, but JLN hasn't.
As for "moderation", I agree they were really moderates - they were extremely moderate towards British repression on all forms of anti-British protest that was not undertaken under their own leadership, and as some of the comments in posts show in this thread- were not at all moderate when advising Bengali Hindus at the receiving end to allow themselves to be massacred or raped - that sort of advisory amounts to extremism, don't you think?
PS. I have not come across any advisory from MKG to Muslims at the receiving end in Bihar or elsewhere to allow themselves to be massacred or raped. If anyone has a reference to his advising so, can you please post it? I have studied his collected works, but it might have missed me.
Re: A look back at the partition
The concept of a political center by their own people was still alien for many elite of India before independence. Hence the oath to the nation (even though the center was a foreign political center) by the army was considered for the mathrabhumi and bharat.sanjaychoudhry wrote:
You have to distinguish between oath to a free country whose government represents the aspirations and free will of the people and oath to a country being ruled by force against the wishes of the people by a foriegn colonial power. How can you put both on the same pedestal? Are you treating armed occupation of a country by a hostile race as a minor issue that its citizens should overlook because of the "oath of allegience" that they have taken to the occupiers? Such oath is over-ruled by the higher purpose of liberating the country and securing the right of a people to govern themselves.
The connection of the Indian economy and livilhood of the people and the political center of India was never questioned until the last 30 years before independence. The British economy was the global British trading system and was huge and India was part of this global economy. Most of the elite Indians were of the notion that India was part of the global economy under the British trading system and cannot be separated out.
Dadabhai was the first to explore that Indian economic system is separate from the BRitish economic system. Concept of India as one economy is precursor to the notion that India is one nation. This simple fact was never articulated by the Indian elite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dadabhai_Naoroji
Re: A look back at the partition
This is answered by the post above thiskrishnapremi wrote:Sankuji,
According to RC Majumdar,the doyen of indian nationalist historians,to talk of united india at the start of 19th century was as much a historical blunder as to deny the impulse for united india at the end of 19th century.The British who had created the conditions for this impulse denied it till the very end.But even they had to admit that a Hindu air permeated the land from kashmir to kanyakumari inspite of obvious differences.
Re: A look back at the partition
In fact the British trading system was really the Indian trading system that they took over. Look at all the places the British were prominent and even then who were their principal helpers in this trading system. Its all Indic areas.
Colonization in Africa, Asia and Indian sub-continent was really the imposition of political power/rule and continue the Indian trading system under its protection. It was not like the colonization of North America nor Australia and New Zealand where there were Englsih settlers living to exploit the native resources.
Colonization in Africa, Asia and Indian sub-continent was really the imposition of political power/rule and continue the Indian trading system under its protection. It was not like the colonization of North America nor Australia and New Zealand where there were Englsih settlers living to exploit the native resources.
Re: A look back at the partition
This is precisely Dadabhai explored and came up with his book.ramana wrote:In fact the British trading system was really the Indian trading system that they took over. Look at all the places the British were prominent and even then who were their principal helpers in this trading system. Its all Indic areas.
Colonization in Africa, Asia and Indian sub-continent was really the imposition of political power/rule and continue the Indian trading system under its protection. It was not like the colonization of North America nor Australia and New Zealand where there were Englsih settlers living to exploit the native resources.
Re: A look back at the partition
I am greatful to you for making me aware of this for it explains why Britain and where. The French had a more difficult time in Africa and Indo-China.
Re: A look back at the partition
Thank you for the detailed post and taking the pain to address it to me amongst others.krishnapremi wrote:Sankuji,
.....
I do however say that I completely disagree with your thesis, nearly in every possible point. It would be hard for me to rebut it point by point given the sheer size of your essay (it is impressive) so instead I will write down what I think are the main conclusions points that you have in there and provide an alternate opinion on them.
But please do realize that some of the points that you make have actually been countered before.
Re: A look back at the partition
Please download this book since this is precursor to Hindu Swaraj. Dadabhai was the mentor to both Tilak and MKGramana wrote:I am greatful to you for making me aware of this for it explains why Britain and where. The French had a more difficult time in Africa and Indo-China.
Poverty and un-British rule in India By Dadabhai Naoroji
http://books.google.com/books?id=oqwCAA ... navlinks_s
With this book Naoroji signals the beginnings of the Indian Nationalist struggle against the British rule. He argues that the «drain» of wealth, or the unilateral transfer of resources from India to ...
More Britain, was the principal cause of poverty in India, as when Britain, for example, puts the average tax burden in India at twice that of contemporary England, although average income there was fifteen times greater at that point in time. Clearly his reasons to write about poverty were nationalist and political.
Re: A look back at the partition
Until 15 Aug 1947, there were the British in governance. Thereafter, the sovereign Indian govt took over. The oath of loyalty to the Nation devolved on the Indian free nation and its custodians, the Indian govt, elected or otherwise.
As I said earlier, the Armed Forces owe their loyalty and allegiance to the govt in power since they represent the Nation. It is but an instrument of the govt in power and not an independent freewheeling body that assume the responsibility to decide the destiny of the Nation! If the Armed Forces were not subservient to the concept of Nationhood and obedient to the custodians of the Nation i.e. the govt, then we would not have to go far to see the chaos that is in the neighbourhood, i.e. Pakistan – a country that is still finding its identity and failing miserably.
The BIA proved it loyalty to the govt in power and once there came into being a sovereign India, it automatically devolved that they would be loyal to the successor govt, since that govt represented the Nation called India! I daresay they have failed or have they?
The Army’s loyalty is to the Nation. And it is obvious that the Nation means obeying orders of whoever is governing!
I fail to see the disconnect!
I find a large majority of the opinion that the IA should have been like the INA and rebelled - of course in not so many words, but by inference.
I shudder to think of it. A Tiger having tasted human blood becomes a maneater. Pakistan is an ideal example. In other words, we should have become like Pakistan and I can assure you that there are enough reasons to be so, but I thank the Almighty that we in the IA, even today, are apolitical and beyond such, what I term as, evil thoughts.
On the second issue of distinguishing the oath between a free country and those under colonial rule and not putting it on the same pedestal, or ‘armed occupation of a country by a hostile race’, I find it a bit interesting. If the whole country was subservient to the British, then it must be realised the armed forces do not come from some foreign stock!
In so far as the INA is concerned and their serving the higher purpose of liberation the country, I will say noble thoughts. Since I have not been able to make myself understood, let me give you a contemporary example. Let us say that there was a person working with an MNC and he sold the company’s secrets and it was known and he was sacked, would an Indian company employ him? If such elements can be employed then you are right!!
Next issue of British regime had NO connection with the citizens. True. And what were the citizens doing? They were different and rebellious? A handful maybe, but what about the majority who could have made the difference?
I am afraid the only reason to join the BIA (notwithstanding the assumed esoteric thoughts) was not to gain experience, but to feed the hungry stomachs of the family. Such is also the reason today in majority of the cases.
It is good to tweak issues to show nationalism in retrospect. Laudable. However, a bit conservative with the reality.
I am not conversant with any details of Subash Bose having joined the British Army. That is news. Sarvarkar asked Indian youth to join Army. Their goal was not to serve the British but to gain strength and training. I would be grateful if links could be given so that I can update my knowledge.
And what happened in the 1910 Lahore Conspiracy? It was planned. How many army personnel joined, if indeed any joined?
I find the posts educative and interesting, However, I am clinical as I always was even when in service; unless the facts are given, one should not accept it as the Gospel. History, including military history is high on victories and gloss over and even misrepresents the unsavoury aspects to suit the agenda.
To mould one in a nationalistic cloak in retrospect as ''free Indians" is not difficult, but to live the contradictions of the time then and do what was feasible is another kettle of fish!
As I said earlier, the Armed Forces owe their loyalty and allegiance to the govt in power since they represent the Nation. It is but an instrument of the govt in power and not an independent freewheeling body that assume the responsibility to decide the destiny of the Nation! If the Armed Forces were not subservient to the concept of Nationhood and obedient to the custodians of the Nation i.e. the govt, then we would not have to go far to see the chaos that is in the neighbourhood, i.e. Pakistan – a country that is still finding its identity and failing miserably.
The BIA proved it loyalty to the govt in power and once there came into being a sovereign India, it automatically devolved that they would be loyal to the successor govt, since that govt represented the Nation called India! I daresay they have failed or have they?
The Army’s loyalty is to the Nation. And it is obvious that the Nation means obeying orders of whoever is governing!
I fail to see the disconnect!
I find a large majority of the opinion that the IA should have been like the INA and rebelled - of course in not so many words, but by inference.
I shudder to think of it. A Tiger having tasted human blood becomes a maneater. Pakistan is an ideal example. In other words, we should have become like Pakistan and I can assure you that there are enough reasons to be so, but I thank the Almighty that we in the IA, even today, are apolitical and beyond such, what I term as, evil thoughts.
On the second issue of distinguishing the oath between a free country and those under colonial rule and not putting it on the same pedestal, or ‘armed occupation of a country by a hostile race’, I find it a bit interesting. If the whole country was subservient to the British, then it must be realised the armed forces do not come from some foreign stock!
In so far as the INA is concerned and their serving the higher purpose of liberation the country, I will say noble thoughts. Since I have not been able to make myself understood, let me give you a contemporary example. Let us say that there was a person working with an MNC and he sold the company’s secrets and it was known and he was sacked, would an Indian company employ him? If such elements can be employed then you are right!!
Next issue of British regime had NO connection with the citizens. True. And what were the citizens doing? They were different and rebellious? A handful maybe, but what about the majority who could have made the difference?
I am afraid the only reason to join the BIA (notwithstanding the assumed esoteric thoughts) was not to gain experience, but to feed the hungry stomachs of the family. Such is also the reason today in majority of the cases.
It is good to tweak issues to show nationalism in retrospect. Laudable. However, a bit conservative with the reality.
I am not conversant with any details of Subash Bose having joined the British Army. That is news. Sarvarkar asked Indian youth to join Army. Their goal was not to serve the British but to gain strength and training. I would be grateful if links could be given so that I can update my knowledge.
And what happened in the 1910 Lahore Conspiracy? It was planned. How many army personnel joined, if indeed any joined?
I find the posts educative and interesting, However, I am clinical as I always was even when in service; unless the facts are given, one should not accept it as the Gospel. History, including military history is high on victories and gloss over and even misrepresents the unsavoury aspects to suit the agenda.
To mould one in a nationalistic cloak in retrospect as ''free Indians" is not difficult, but to live the contradictions of the time then and do what was feasible is another kettle of fish!
Re: A look back at the partition
I heard Dadabhai kept ledger accounting for all the known money Brutish stole from India .
Re: A look back at the partition
Sankuji,
I have very high regard for many in this forum.But I cannot accept easily the summary dismissal of the Godfather of all 'intellectual' b*******-JLN.
I would be delighted in hearing your rebuttal.Nothing would give me more happiness if you 'prove' to be right.The Indian tradition has always placed high value in learning from men of substance.
It is almost impossible to follow all the threads here.I am sorry about having not followed relevant discussion.
I have very high regard for many in this forum.But I cannot accept easily the summary dismissal of the Godfather of all 'intellectual' b*******-JLN.
I would be delighted in hearing your rebuttal.Nothing would give me more happiness if you 'prove' to be right.The Indian tradition has always placed high value in learning from men of substance.
It is almost impossible to follow all the threads here.I am sorry about having not followed relevant discussion.
Last edited by svenkat on 02 Sep 2009 22:48, edited 1 time in total.
Re: A look back at the partition
Sarvarkar clearly says that Hindu youths to join the army since the British were trying to hire more Muslims into the army and the notion that without armed training of the Hindu Youth the Society could be subjugated indefinetly and Pakistan would be most powerful army in the sub continent.RayC wrote:
I am not conversant with any details of Subash Bose having joined the British Army. That is news. Sarvarkar asked Indian youth to join Army. Their goal was not to serve the British but to gain strength and training. I would be grateful if links could be given so that I can update my knowledge.
Re: A look back at the partition
Your statement against what you could have provided as a link!Acharya wrote:Sarvarkar clearly says that Hindu youths to join the army since the British were trying to hire more Muslims into the army and the notion that without armed training of the Hindu Youth the Society could be subjugated indefinetly and Pakistan would be most powerful army in the sub continent.RayC wrote:
I am not conversant with any details of Subash Bose having joined the British Army. That is news. Sarvarkar asked Indian youth to join Army. Their goal was not to serve the British but to gain strength and training. I would be grateful if links could be given so that I can update my knowledge.
How many of Sarvarkar's Brigade went into the Army and what did they do?
Sarvarkar knew that Pakistan would come into being and have a stronger army?
I am asking all this, since it is the easiest way to understand history without wading through it!
With Independence, many Hindu youth joined the Army and I don't find the Pak Army uber alles!
Re: A look back at the partition
Ghadar movement which is also known as "Lahore conspiracy case trial"
The Lahore Conspiracy Case trial also known as the First Lahore Conspiracy Case, were the trials held in Lahore (then part of the undivided Punjab of British India) in the aftermath of the failed Ghadar conspiracy in 1915. The trial was held by a Special tribunal constituted under the Defence of India Act. Out of a total of 291 conspirators tried 42 were awarded the death sentence, 114 transported for life and 93 awarded varying terms of imprisonment. 42 defendants in the trial were acquitted. The uncovering of the conspiracy also saw the initiation of the Hindu German Conspiracy trial in the USA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghadar_conspiracy
The Lahore Conspiracy Case trial also known as the First Lahore Conspiracy Case, were the trials held in Lahore (then part of the undivided Punjab of British India) in the aftermath of the failed Ghadar conspiracy in 1915. The trial was held by a Special tribunal constituted under the Defence of India Act. Out of a total of 291 conspirators tried 42 were awarded the death sentence, 114 transported for life and 93 awarded varying terms of imprisonment. 42 defendants in the trial were acquitted. The uncovering of the conspiracy also saw the initiation of the Hindu German Conspiracy trial in the USA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghadar_conspiracy
Re: A look back at the partition
RayC Sahib,
I am debating whether to jump into the Oath discussion and derail this thread, or to keep out and loose out on making some points. Perhaps we can discuss Oath stuff in another thread, but I will make one point, but it in a form of a question:
The soldiers of the Kumaon regiment were in Jallianwalla Bagh on the fateful day in 1919. Should they have obeyed (as they did) or should they have not? They were under oath to obey the Brutish Gen Dyer.
Krishnapremi,
Many good points. I will post a more detailed response later.
SBajwa:
Can I make a request: Could you post a small paragraph or two about the case, along with your opinions. Some of us (like me) don't know much about it. Of course, some would say, Google it. I can do that, but all you get is a mass of conflicting info ... too much info. But on this forum we have people of a certain bent of mind and thinking, their summaries goes miles in interpreting & understanding for ignorants like me.
I am debating whether to jump into the Oath discussion and derail this thread, or to keep out and loose out on making some points. Perhaps we can discuss Oath stuff in another thread, but I will make one point, but it in a form of a question:
The soldiers of the Kumaon regiment were in Jallianwalla Bagh on the fateful day in 1919. Should they have obeyed (as they did) or should they have not? They were under oath to obey the Brutish Gen Dyer.
Often quoted with glee on this forum. Please ask the question: did Savarkar say this before or after his Kalapani punishment? That should tell you something ... or I shall I say it should tell us more than we really want to know.Sarvarkar asked Indian youth to join Army.
Krishnapremi,
Many good points. I will post a more detailed response later.
SBajwa:
Can I make a request: Could you post a small paragraph or two about the case, along with your opinions. Some of us (like me) don't know much about it. Of course, some would say, Google it. I can do that, but all you get is a mass of conflicting info ... too much info. But on this forum we have people of a certain bent of mind and thinking, their summaries goes miles in interpreting & understanding for ignorants like me.
Last edited by surinder on 02 Sep 2009 23:00, edited 1 time in total.
Re: A look back at the partition
Thus!! Indians serving the British Indian Army supported Britain in both the world wars and after thorough looting of India's natural resources, Britishers gifted the "independence" to Gandhi after crushing the real patriots.
It is so complete that we don't even know the names of the various Ghadriites who gave away their lives., there isn't a single monument to them anywhere in the country while we have nehru, rajiv, gandhi awards, hispitals, parks, colleges, etc.
It is so complete that we don't even know the names of the various Ghadriites who gave away their lives., there isn't a single monument to them anywhere in the country while we have nehru, rajiv, gandhi awards, hispitals, parks, colleges, etc.
Re: A look back at the partition
Brihaspathiji,
There is no doubt that the interests of Jat Sikhs in West Punjab were sacrificed.Similarly sub alterns were left to the mercy of muslims in East Bengal.Even RC Majumdar(himself from East Bengal) agress that Punjab and Bengal were sacrificed by AICC.But as a historian he also opines that the thought foremost on the minds of Congress leaders was that there could be no working relationship with Muslims after the fiasco of Interim govt in 1946.The muslims would sabatoge from within at the centre and create mayhem in the outlying provinces.That included Kohat,NWFP,Quetta,Naokhali,Jessore,Rangpur.The muslims would cause more bloodshed than Hindus.The Hindus could accomodate muslims but ML was hell bent on making hindus slaves.
The Congress leadership knew the travails of India could always be traced to a weak centre and warring provinces.With the removal of centrifugal forces,a strong India could be created which has been the dream of many a far sighted ruler in India's long history.
As far as East Bengal was concerned,it was felt that the East Bengali muslim did not have the same psychopathic racial hatred based on Turkic,'arap' and persian gene pool.
Also this is most painful to accept,the East Bengal Hindu population had a considerable population of Namashudras,SCs etc.In true Hindu fashion,the Congress leadership 'cared' more for the fair skinned Khatris,Jat Sikhs(who were vital for guarding the borders) than the sub-altern in Bengal who could have been seen by the 'high and mighty' as capable of accomodation with their brethren in East Bengal.The high caste hindu(even Bengali) saw the Bengali mussalman as converts from poorer castes,to put it mildly.But this was exactly how the haris in Punjab and Sindh and bhangis in Sind were treated.
Ofcourse,the muslim has little room for such niceties as seen from Pakjabi and later Bangladeshi treatment of poor hindus.
There is no doubt that the interests of Jat Sikhs in West Punjab were sacrificed.Similarly sub alterns were left to the mercy of muslims in East Bengal.Even RC Majumdar(himself from East Bengal) agress that Punjab and Bengal were sacrificed by AICC.But as a historian he also opines that the thought foremost on the minds of Congress leaders was that there could be no working relationship with Muslims after the fiasco of Interim govt in 1946.The muslims would sabatoge from within at the centre and create mayhem in the outlying provinces.That included Kohat,NWFP,Quetta,Naokhali,Jessore,Rangpur.The muslims would cause more bloodshed than Hindus.The Hindus could accomodate muslims but ML was hell bent on making hindus slaves.
The Congress leadership knew the travails of India could always be traced to a weak centre and warring provinces.With the removal of centrifugal forces,a strong India could be created which has been the dream of many a far sighted ruler in India's long history.
As far as East Bengal was concerned,it was felt that the East Bengali muslim did not have the same psychopathic racial hatred based on Turkic,'arap' and persian gene pool.
Also this is most painful to accept,the East Bengal Hindu population had a considerable population of Namashudras,SCs etc.In true Hindu fashion,the Congress leadership 'cared' more for the fair skinned Khatris,Jat Sikhs(who were vital for guarding the borders) than the sub-altern in Bengal who could have been seen by the 'high and mighty' as capable of accomodation with their brethren in East Bengal.The high caste hindu(even Bengali) saw the Bengali mussalman as converts from poorer castes,to put it mildly.But this was exactly how the haris in Punjab and Sindh and bhangis in Sind were treated.
Ofcourse,the muslim has little room for such niceties as seen from Pakjabi and later Bangladeshi treatment of poor hindus.
Re: A look back at the partition
Not just named after Nehru, but also countless schemes, societies, playgrounds named after his wife, mother, father, daughter, grandsons, grand-daughter-in-laws etc. There might be building named after the dogs of JLN household. But the INC blames whatshername that Dalit Chief Minister of UP, for she is the one, in their opinion, who is so undignified in building statues.
SBajwa & others, please check your spell checkers, the correct spelling is "Brutish", not British.
SBajwa & others, please check your spell checkers, the correct spelling is "Brutish", not British.
Re: A look back at the partition
We are aware of the Ghadar Movement. Much has been written on it.
The issue still remains is how many military men joined?
Just mentioning an issue without supporting facts to your contention is not enough.
The INA issue was brought it and so the Oath issue came into being.
What the soldier if the Kumaon Regt did was what they had to do as per the rules of service, the same way as many ICS and IPS officers did. The same way the Muslim General controlled the Gujarat riot. The same morality applied against insurgents of NE and Kashmir and Naxalites. That is how it works, unless you are Teesta Setalvad!
I would assure it that it is painful, but then what is the answer?
The issue still remains is how many military men joined?
Just mentioning an issue without supporting facts to your contention is not enough.
The INA issue was brought it and so the Oath issue came into being.
What the soldier if the Kumaon Regt did was what they had to do as per the rules of service, the same way as many ICS and IPS officers did. The same way the Muslim General controlled the Gujarat riot. The same morality applied against insurgents of NE and Kashmir and Naxalites. That is how it works, unless you are Teesta Setalvad!
I would assure it that it is painful, but then what is the answer?
Re: A look back at the partition
If you think that the Indian soldiers did the right thing in Jallianwalla Bag in 1919, I really don't have much to argue with you on the Oath issue.RayC wrote:What the soldier if the Kumaon Regt did was what they had to do as per the rules of service,
Re: A look back at the partition
A visit to Philip Mason's, 'A Matter of Honour' will dispel the misconception!!the Congress leadership 'cared' more for the fair skinned Khatris,Jat Sikhs
Re: A look back at the partition
Check this article about Ghadriites from Tribune.
Fanning the fires of
freedom abroad
By Kulwant Singh - The Tribune, Aug 16 1998
THE story of the Indian struggle for Independence will be incomplete without recollecting the contribution of the Indians settled abroad, and their publications which helped to fan the fire for Independence. The agitation against the British in foreign countries took a concrete shape towards the beginning of the 19th century, just prior to the World War I. It was supported by the Germans and the Japanese, both enemies of the British.
With the abolition of slavery by the British Parliament, early in the 19th century, and the refusal of the African slaves to work as free labour, indentured labour from India was sent to British colonies all over the world. The great Indian labour migration started in 1837, and by about 1915, their number had swelled to 3.5 million. A majority of the Punjabi immigrants, largely Sikh farm-hands, started settling down on the Pacific Coast of America and Canada, around California and Vancouver. Artisans preferred the Far East, China, Japan, Hong Kong, Malaysia and Thailand. These areas, particularly California, became the hot bed for spreading sedition against the British Raj.
The first publication on foreign land to advocate violence, as a means of achieving India’s Indepen-dence, was a monthly magazine — Free Hindustan, edited by Tarak Nath Dass, a young handsome Bengali student who devoted his life for India’s struggle for freedom. He was assisted by a patriot exiled from Bengal, Surinder Mohan Bose, who later founded the famous East India Association, a body of intellectuals committed to self rule by the Indians. The first edition of Free Hindustan was published in 1909; it focused on the promotion of disaffection amongst the Sikh migrants, most of them had served as sepoys in the British Army. On their return to India, they were likely to influence the very classes from which the Sikh regiments were recruited. Therefore, this section of migrants was rightly chosen by Tarak Nath Dass. He was later deported from Canada for his "objectionable" activities and was imprisoned in San Francisco.Bhai Mewa Singh, the martyr, was hanged to death on January 11, 1915, in Canada.
---- My comments --- Has anybody heard about Tarak Nath Dass?
The popularity of Free Hindustan was followed by two more publications — Aryan and Swadesh Sewak. Equally revolutionary, they generally followed the theme of Free Hindustan. The men associated with these papers were committed in as much as they took courses in military training, evidently in contemplation of an armed revolution in India. The most important and well known amongst them was Lala Hardyal, who had a brilliant academic career, a student of Gurukul Kangri and was considered to be a mathematical wizard. He came to Oxford with a scholarship by the Indian government. He declined that as he felt he should not accept money from the British Government which was committing atrocities on Indians.
Hardyal also edited Bande Mataram, the most violent paper of all, financed by the famous Madam Cama — a British hater and a sympathiser of India’s cause. At that time (1909-1910) there were 5000 Indian settlers on the Pacific Coast, who were targeted by Hardyal to preach his doctrine — that young Indians should leave their homes in India and visit foreign countries so that the social sense may be quickened and intense indignation against injustice be aroused against the British occupation of India. He openly advocated murder, the use of bombs and dynamite. For four years, from 1909-1912, Bande Mataram remained his launch pad for propaganda until after the formation of the Ghadar Party which gave further impetus to the movement and introduced fresh publications with effective directions by an organised body.
During the period when Bande Mataram was being published, two Urdu periodicals - The Islamic Fraternity and El - Islam were also in circulation. These were edited and produced by a great revolutionary ,Mohammad Maulvi ,Barkatullah, who was a professor of Urdu at the Tokyo University. He was assisted by the Japanese in his efforts against the British. Barkatullah played an important role of being a connecting link between three different movements: Pan Islamic, Asia for Asiatic, and the Indian sedition. The common aim of all these movements and Barkatullah’s writing was to free Asia, including Turkey from the British domination. All his pamphlets were Islamic, funded by the Sultan of Turkey and Amir of Afghanistan. Barkatullah’s papers were smuggled into India in large numbers from Yokohama to Bombay and Calcutta and later to all cities with a sizeable Muslim population. Barkatullah was assisted in his efforts by a Granthi at Penang, Bhai Bhagwan Singh. The latter was the most wanted rebel by the British Government. He was hunted all over the world; more on him later.
The Ghadar Party, originally known as the Hindu Association of the Pacific Coast was formed in April 1912 at Astoria (Oregan) with the efforts of Hardyal, Barkatullah and Jatinder Nath, all known revolutionaries. It had seven founder members. Prominent among them were Rattan Singh, Kartar Singh Sarabha, Jawala Singh, Santokh Singh and Jagat Ram. The mouthpiece of this party, a weekly paper Ghadar was launched on November 1, 1913. It was published quite openly at the Yugantar Ashram, 436 Hill Street, San Francisco. It was initially published in Urdu and Gurmukhi. More languages were added later.
Two dedicated revolutionaries, Nahar Singh and Munsha Singh, both on the hit list of the British, were trusted with the task of producing the paper. A quotation from the very first number sufficiently indicates its character:
"Today, there begins in foreign lands, but in our own country’s tongue, a war against the English Raj....What is our name? Mutiny (Ghadar means mutiny). What is our work? Mutiny. Where will the mutiny break out? In India.....The time will soon come when rifles and blood will take the place of pen and ink.....Brave men and worthy sons of India, be ready with bullets and shots. Soon the fate of tyrants will be decided on the battlefield, and days of happiness and glory will dawn for India."
The paper preached to end the British rule in India through an armed revolution, and to set up a Republic Government based on liberty and equality; it was an effective cutting edge for spreading the "Ghadar Party’s philosophy and revolution. The paper was critical of nationalist leaders, who were soft towards the British, and did not support the radical methodology. Criminal intelligence report of the British Government of June 8, 1915, commenting on the contents of Ghadar issue of April 14, 1915, states "The leading article of this issue abuses Indian politicians, in particular Lala Lajpat Rai for subservience to the British rules. Even after his deportation, it is said, Lajpat Rai demeaned himself by practising in British courts and addressing the presiding officer as "your lordship". He even brought an action against a Calcutta newspaper for calling him a rebel. They have nothing to do with political organisation in India, the members of which think they will get Independence by asking for it".Tarak Nath Dass, a great revolutionary, who was deported from Canada and imprisoned in San Francisco
Every effort was made to secure a wide distribution for Ghadar, both in India and abroad. Large quantities of paper were sent to countries where Indian immigrants were settled. Hundreds of copies reached India every week from many places on the Pacific via Shanghai, Hong Kong and finally to Bombay. Some were sent to Sikhs in the Army, accompanied by private letters implying that every Indian on the Pacific Coast was prepared to join in the armed revolt against the British Government. A large portion of Indian settlers in the western states, even at the date, did look upon armed rebellion in India as both desirable and practicable, as a result of effective propaganda.
The postal censorship introduced during the war, revealed that Ghadar and other publications were dispatched by the postal authorities in the USA to practically every country where Indians were present. As consignments in bulk were liable to interception, the papers were being sent to individual addressees in envelopes or wrappers. The list of addresses was supplied by local contacts to the postal department; a well organised system was at work. A large number of army personnel were getting the publications even after the censorship; the supply to Army units continued clandestinely.
By the summer of 1914, there was a marked increase in the demand for Ghadar. To cover the wider number of readers, the publication started in more regional languages, to include Punjabi, Gujarati, Pushtu and Gurkhali. A small number of Indian settlers at places like Trinidad, Sudan, Eden, Madagascar, Morocco, Manila, Jawa and Fiji started to ask for copies of Ghadar which clearly established its appeal and popularity. The most popular were the poems written by Granthi Bhagwan Singh which were translated from Punjabi to other languages and inflamed passions as nothing else could do. His writings were rapacious. It will be worth quoting one of his poems entitled Kill or Die written in Punjabi; when translated in English it reads —
"Let us kill the whites; kill the wicked and tyrannous Europeans. Do not leave any trace of them. Extirpate the whole nation. Set fire to all churches. Kill European men and women. Show no mercy, whatever. Flay them alive so that they remember for ages. Fill the rivers with their dead bodies. We will even go to England shouting kill, kill, kill".
About Bhagwan Singh, the British War Office wrote: "With Barkatulla was associated, at a later date, Bhagwan Singh, a dangerous ruffian whose seditious activities had secured his dismissal from the post of granthi (priest) to the Sikh temple at Penang and Hong Kong, and who was subsequently deported from Canada (August 1913) for entering the country under a misrepresentation". Bhagwan Singh was also associated with the Ghadar movement; he had provided 270 pistols to Baba Gurdit Singh while Kamagata Maru was passing through Yokohama.
Soon after the war the visible affects of propaganda, by the publications, started to show results: Thirtythree serious crimes and several hundred other transgressions, including murders and raids by well organised radicals, were traced by the British Government to the Ghadar incitement on foreign lands. The assassination of Mr Hopkinson, a Canadian officer, may be added to the list. He had been tracing the organisations, responsible for promoting these publications, and thus was disliked by the ‘rebels’.
He was born in India (English father, Indian mother), and could speak Indian languages fluently. He had established a ring of informers who used to report to him about the activities of the Sikh community. He was known for taking bribes for petty favours. He played an active part in refusing admission of Sikhs who arrived at Wancoure in the Kamagata Maru. The flash point, leading to his murder was the false evidence which he was to give to save one of his stooges who had murdered two Sikhs in cold blood. Mewa Singh Lopoke, a devout Sikh and known revolutionary, shot Hopkinson on October 21, 1914, in the premises of the court, before he could give fabricated evidence. After killing Hopkinson, Mewa Singh surrendered to the police. Later, in his defence he stated "If the police and administration join together in perpetrating justice, somebody must rise against it. I have risen, I have taken courage to give a knock to this wall of injustice, you may hang me. What more can you do?"
Mewa Singh was hanged on January 11, 1915; His day of martyrdom is celebrated by Sikhs all over Canada to this day. This sensational murder brought in open the vulnerability of the British or whites who were not safe even in their own homeland. It also conveyed that sedition was not confined to the Indian subcontinent alone. Instead, it was a worldwide agitation.
During the same period, the visible affects of publications started to manifest in India. A comprehensive scheme was unearthed for provoking a mutiny amongst Indian troops. Seditious pamphlets published abroad, including large number of Bande Mataram and Ghadar, were being circulated amongst soldiers. Ten bombs were recovered from a cavalry regiment located at Meerut; plans of starting a revolt by massacre of European was timely foiled. All units located in the North Indian cantonments were searched to locate volatile literature, which was found aplenty. At least four mutinies in the Army were instigated by the publications. These were: Punjab Regiment’s revolt in Jhansi, mutiny by the Sikh Squadron of the Central India Horse (4 Sikh Sepoys were hanged and 108 were sentenced to Kalapani), Madras artillery mutiny, and mutiny in 3/12 Punjab Regiment. A large number of publications were found during the searches carried out after the arrest of Shaheed Bhagat Singh from the premises of members of the revolutionary organisations all over India.
The success of Ghadar can be assessed by quoting from the political summary of September, 1914, originating from the office of Security of States U.K.: It reads: "We know that there is active sedition propaganda in full swing openly preaching rebellion in America. This has spread through Japan to Hong Kong and Singapore, and has manifested itself in India. They preach mutiny openly and unashamedly. We have heard of manifestations of this movement from several centres in the Far East, and its existence is absolutely certain. It is in touch in Europe with seditionist centres at Paris and Zurich."
It will be in fitness to talk about Kirti: An Indian publication, parallel of Ghadar, first published in Amritsar in 1926, and later at Meerut. Kirti preached the philosophy of Kirti Leher, a well-organised and co-ordinated movement, ultra revolutionary, pro-Communist and seditionist, advocating violence and eulogising the activities of revolutionary heroes, many hanged. Members of the Kirti Leher group had made ‘contacts’ with serving Sikh soldiers at Meerut cantonment, with the object of spreading disloyalty in the Indian Army as one of the main points in their many sided programmes. These ‘contacts’ were persuaded to visit the Kirti office, where they were systematically lectured by Harminder Singh Sodhi, a former editor of Ghadar who had secretly returned to India after completing a full course of training in Moscow. He was deputed to take over charge of Meerut office by the Kirti Control Board, and subsequently to become Editor-in-Chief.
Copies of Kirti were given to the soldiers to be smuggled into regimental lines and barracks; the ‘contacts’ were instructed to form their own "cells" in the Army. Large scale desertions from a Sikh unit followed by serious cases of mutinous behaviour by Sikhs proceeding on active service abroad took place as a result of Kirti preachings. Rattan Singh and Santokh Singh, founder-members of Ghadar Party coordinated activities of Kirti Leher in India and Ghadar Party abroad, both organisations with identical ideologies and ultimate aims.
India’s struggle for Independence was given a global character by dedicated men. The literature they produced had a lasting impact on Indians abroad as well as at home. The long-term contribution of publications cannot be quantified by a few incidents quoted; the psyche of Indian youth was oriented towards seeking self rule by radical methods, irrespective of personal loss. Many young men who were hanged and transported were keen readers of these fiery publications. While we celebrate the 50th year of Independence, we salute the brave and bold men who contributed to India’s Independence by their pen.
Fanning the fires of
freedom abroad
By Kulwant Singh - The Tribune, Aug 16 1998
THE story of the Indian struggle for Independence will be incomplete without recollecting the contribution of the Indians settled abroad, and their publications which helped to fan the fire for Independence. The agitation against the British in foreign countries took a concrete shape towards the beginning of the 19th century, just prior to the World War I. It was supported by the Germans and the Japanese, both enemies of the British.
With the abolition of slavery by the British Parliament, early in the 19th century, and the refusal of the African slaves to work as free labour, indentured labour from India was sent to British colonies all over the world. The great Indian labour migration started in 1837, and by about 1915, their number had swelled to 3.5 million. A majority of the Punjabi immigrants, largely Sikh farm-hands, started settling down on the Pacific Coast of America and Canada, around California and Vancouver. Artisans preferred the Far East, China, Japan, Hong Kong, Malaysia and Thailand. These areas, particularly California, became the hot bed for spreading sedition against the British Raj.
The first publication on foreign land to advocate violence, as a means of achieving India’s Indepen-dence, was a monthly magazine — Free Hindustan, edited by Tarak Nath Dass, a young handsome Bengali student who devoted his life for India’s struggle for freedom. He was assisted by a patriot exiled from Bengal, Surinder Mohan Bose, who later founded the famous East India Association, a body of intellectuals committed to self rule by the Indians. The first edition of Free Hindustan was published in 1909; it focused on the promotion of disaffection amongst the Sikh migrants, most of them had served as sepoys in the British Army. On their return to India, they were likely to influence the very classes from which the Sikh regiments were recruited. Therefore, this section of migrants was rightly chosen by Tarak Nath Dass. He was later deported from Canada for his "objectionable" activities and was imprisoned in San Francisco.Bhai Mewa Singh, the martyr, was hanged to death on January 11, 1915, in Canada.
---- My comments --- Has anybody heard about Tarak Nath Dass?
The popularity of Free Hindustan was followed by two more publications — Aryan and Swadesh Sewak. Equally revolutionary, they generally followed the theme of Free Hindustan. The men associated with these papers were committed in as much as they took courses in military training, evidently in contemplation of an armed revolution in India. The most important and well known amongst them was Lala Hardyal, who had a brilliant academic career, a student of Gurukul Kangri and was considered to be a mathematical wizard. He came to Oxford with a scholarship by the Indian government. He declined that as he felt he should not accept money from the British Government which was committing atrocities on Indians.
Hardyal also edited Bande Mataram, the most violent paper of all, financed by the famous Madam Cama — a British hater and a sympathiser of India’s cause. At that time (1909-1910) there were 5000 Indian settlers on the Pacific Coast, who were targeted by Hardyal to preach his doctrine — that young Indians should leave their homes in India and visit foreign countries so that the social sense may be quickened and intense indignation against injustice be aroused against the British occupation of India. He openly advocated murder, the use of bombs and dynamite. For four years, from 1909-1912, Bande Mataram remained his launch pad for propaganda until after the formation of the Ghadar Party which gave further impetus to the movement and introduced fresh publications with effective directions by an organised body.
During the period when Bande Mataram was being published, two Urdu periodicals - The Islamic Fraternity and El - Islam were also in circulation. These were edited and produced by a great revolutionary ,Mohammad Maulvi ,Barkatullah, who was a professor of Urdu at the Tokyo University. He was assisted by the Japanese in his efforts against the British. Barkatullah played an important role of being a connecting link between three different movements: Pan Islamic, Asia for Asiatic, and the Indian sedition. The common aim of all these movements and Barkatullah’s writing was to free Asia, including Turkey from the British domination. All his pamphlets were Islamic, funded by the Sultan of Turkey and Amir of Afghanistan. Barkatullah’s papers were smuggled into India in large numbers from Yokohama to Bombay and Calcutta and later to all cities with a sizeable Muslim population. Barkatullah was assisted in his efforts by a Granthi at Penang, Bhai Bhagwan Singh. The latter was the most wanted rebel by the British Government. He was hunted all over the world; more on him later.
The Ghadar Party, originally known as the Hindu Association of the Pacific Coast was formed in April 1912 at Astoria (Oregan) with the efforts of Hardyal, Barkatullah and Jatinder Nath, all known revolutionaries. It had seven founder members. Prominent among them were Rattan Singh, Kartar Singh Sarabha, Jawala Singh, Santokh Singh and Jagat Ram. The mouthpiece of this party, a weekly paper Ghadar was launched on November 1, 1913. It was published quite openly at the Yugantar Ashram, 436 Hill Street, San Francisco. It was initially published in Urdu and Gurmukhi. More languages were added later.
Two dedicated revolutionaries, Nahar Singh and Munsha Singh, both on the hit list of the British, were trusted with the task of producing the paper. A quotation from the very first number sufficiently indicates its character:
"Today, there begins in foreign lands, but in our own country’s tongue, a war against the English Raj....What is our name? Mutiny (Ghadar means mutiny). What is our work? Mutiny. Where will the mutiny break out? In India.....The time will soon come when rifles and blood will take the place of pen and ink.....Brave men and worthy sons of India, be ready with bullets and shots. Soon the fate of tyrants will be decided on the battlefield, and days of happiness and glory will dawn for India."
The paper preached to end the British rule in India through an armed revolution, and to set up a Republic Government based on liberty and equality; it was an effective cutting edge for spreading the "Ghadar Party’s philosophy and revolution. The paper was critical of nationalist leaders, who were soft towards the British, and did not support the radical methodology. Criminal intelligence report of the British Government of June 8, 1915, commenting on the contents of Ghadar issue of April 14, 1915, states "The leading article of this issue abuses Indian politicians, in particular Lala Lajpat Rai for subservience to the British rules. Even after his deportation, it is said, Lajpat Rai demeaned himself by practising in British courts and addressing the presiding officer as "your lordship". He even brought an action against a Calcutta newspaper for calling him a rebel. They have nothing to do with political organisation in India, the members of which think they will get Independence by asking for it".Tarak Nath Dass, a great revolutionary, who was deported from Canada and imprisoned in San Francisco
Every effort was made to secure a wide distribution for Ghadar, both in India and abroad. Large quantities of paper were sent to countries where Indian immigrants were settled. Hundreds of copies reached India every week from many places on the Pacific via Shanghai, Hong Kong and finally to Bombay. Some were sent to Sikhs in the Army, accompanied by private letters implying that every Indian on the Pacific Coast was prepared to join in the armed revolt against the British Government. A large portion of Indian settlers in the western states, even at the date, did look upon armed rebellion in India as both desirable and practicable, as a result of effective propaganda.
The postal censorship introduced during the war, revealed that Ghadar and other publications were dispatched by the postal authorities in the USA to practically every country where Indians were present. As consignments in bulk were liable to interception, the papers were being sent to individual addressees in envelopes or wrappers. The list of addresses was supplied by local contacts to the postal department; a well organised system was at work. A large number of army personnel were getting the publications even after the censorship; the supply to Army units continued clandestinely.
By the summer of 1914, there was a marked increase in the demand for Ghadar. To cover the wider number of readers, the publication started in more regional languages, to include Punjabi, Gujarati, Pushtu and Gurkhali. A small number of Indian settlers at places like Trinidad, Sudan, Eden, Madagascar, Morocco, Manila, Jawa and Fiji started to ask for copies of Ghadar which clearly established its appeal and popularity. The most popular were the poems written by Granthi Bhagwan Singh which were translated from Punjabi to other languages and inflamed passions as nothing else could do. His writings were rapacious. It will be worth quoting one of his poems entitled Kill or Die written in Punjabi; when translated in English it reads —
"Let us kill the whites; kill the wicked and tyrannous Europeans. Do not leave any trace of them. Extirpate the whole nation. Set fire to all churches. Kill European men and women. Show no mercy, whatever. Flay them alive so that they remember for ages. Fill the rivers with their dead bodies. We will even go to England shouting kill, kill, kill".
About Bhagwan Singh, the British War Office wrote: "With Barkatulla was associated, at a later date, Bhagwan Singh, a dangerous ruffian whose seditious activities had secured his dismissal from the post of granthi (priest) to the Sikh temple at Penang and Hong Kong, and who was subsequently deported from Canada (August 1913) for entering the country under a misrepresentation". Bhagwan Singh was also associated with the Ghadar movement; he had provided 270 pistols to Baba Gurdit Singh while Kamagata Maru was passing through Yokohama.
Soon after the war the visible affects of propaganda, by the publications, started to show results: Thirtythree serious crimes and several hundred other transgressions, including murders and raids by well organised radicals, were traced by the British Government to the Ghadar incitement on foreign lands. The assassination of Mr Hopkinson, a Canadian officer, may be added to the list. He had been tracing the organisations, responsible for promoting these publications, and thus was disliked by the ‘rebels’.
He was born in India (English father, Indian mother), and could speak Indian languages fluently. He had established a ring of informers who used to report to him about the activities of the Sikh community. He was known for taking bribes for petty favours. He played an active part in refusing admission of Sikhs who arrived at Wancoure in the Kamagata Maru. The flash point, leading to his murder was the false evidence which he was to give to save one of his stooges who had murdered two Sikhs in cold blood. Mewa Singh Lopoke, a devout Sikh and known revolutionary, shot Hopkinson on October 21, 1914, in the premises of the court, before he could give fabricated evidence. After killing Hopkinson, Mewa Singh surrendered to the police. Later, in his defence he stated "If the police and administration join together in perpetrating justice, somebody must rise against it. I have risen, I have taken courage to give a knock to this wall of injustice, you may hang me. What more can you do?"
Mewa Singh was hanged on January 11, 1915; His day of martyrdom is celebrated by Sikhs all over Canada to this day. This sensational murder brought in open the vulnerability of the British or whites who were not safe even in their own homeland. It also conveyed that sedition was not confined to the Indian subcontinent alone. Instead, it was a worldwide agitation.
During the same period, the visible affects of publications started to manifest in India. A comprehensive scheme was unearthed for provoking a mutiny amongst Indian troops. Seditious pamphlets published abroad, including large number of Bande Mataram and Ghadar, were being circulated amongst soldiers. Ten bombs were recovered from a cavalry regiment located at Meerut; plans of starting a revolt by massacre of European was timely foiled. All units located in the North Indian cantonments were searched to locate volatile literature, which was found aplenty. At least four mutinies in the Army were instigated by the publications. These were: Punjab Regiment’s revolt in Jhansi, mutiny by the Sikh Squadron of the Central India Horse (4 Sikh Sepoys were hanged and 108 were sentenced to Kalapani), Madras artillery mutiny, and mutiny in 3/12 Punjab Regiment. A large number of publications were found during the searches carried out after the arrest of Shaheed Bhagat Singh from the premises of members of the revolutionary organisations all over India.
The success of Ghadar can be assessed by quoting from the political summary of September, 1914, originating from the office of Security of States U.K.: It reads: "We know that there is active sedition propaganda in full swing openly preaching rebellion in America. This has spread through Japan to Hong Kong and Singapore, and has manifested itself in India. They preach mutiny openly and unashamedly. We have heard of manifestations of this movement from several centres in the Far East, and its existence is absolutely certain. It is in touch in Europe with seditionist centres at Paris and Zurich."
It will be in fitness to talk about Kirti: An Indian publication, parallel of Ghadar, first published in Amritsar in 1926, and later at Meerut. Kirti preached the philosophy of Kirti Leher, a well-organised and co-ordinated movement, ultra revolutionary, pro-Communist and seditionist, advocating violence and eulogising the activities of revolutionary heroes, many hanged. Members of the Kirti Leher group had made ‘contacts’ with serving Sikh soldiers at Meerut cantonment, with the object of spreading disloyalty in the Indian Army as one of the main points in their many sided programmes. These ‘contacts’ were persuaded to visit the Kirti office, where they were systematically lectured by Harminder Singh Sodhi, a former editor of Ghadar who had secretly returned to India after completing a full course of training in Moscow. He was deputed to take over charge of Meerut office by the Kirti Control Board, and subsequently to become Editor-in-Chief.
Copies of Kirti were given to the soldiers to be smuggled into regimental lines and barracks; the ‘contacts’ were instructed to form their own "cells" in the Army. Large scale desertions from a Sikh unit followed by serious cases of mutinous behaviour by Sikhs proceeding on active service abroad took place as a result of Kirti preachings. Rattan Singh and Santokh Singh, founder-members of Ghadar Party coordinated activities of Kirti Leher in India and Ghadar Party abroad, both organisations with identical ideologies and ultimate aims.
India’s struggle for Independence was given a global character by dedicated men. The literature they produced had a lasting impact on Indians abroad as well as at home. The long-term contribution of publications cannot be quantified by a few incidents quoted; the psyche of Indian youth was oriented towards seeking self rule by radical methods, irrespective of personal loss. Many young men who were hanged and transported were keen readers of these fiery publications. While we celebrate the 50th year of Independence, we salute the brave and bold men who contributed to India’s Independence by their pen.
Re: A look back at the partition
I retrospect, it may not appear right.surinder wrote:If you think that the Indian soldiers did the right thing in Jallianwalla Bag in 1919, I really don't have much to argue with you on the Oath issue.RayC wrote:What the soldier if the Kumaon Regt did was what they had to do as per the rules of service,
Put it back into history and you will realise.
Are you aware the number of jagirs given to Punjabis and Harayanis by the British govt?
Read Philip Mason and realise who all were with the British!
Re: A look back at the partition
Bajwa Sahib,
I had the honor and pleasure of paying respect to Gadhar Hall in Frisco where Babas are honored every year by Indian community and not just treated like small foot note in Nehuru Mahima Vaakhan exponded by secular education system set up in Hind. Seen no Paki there as they dont even know that they eat of Zakat from the food sowed by the Babas.
Bay Area BRites have the luck of having such historical place near by . A place from which one of the first shots for Indian Freedom was fired .
I had the honor and pleasure of paying respect to Gadhar Hall in Frisco where Babas are honored every year by Indian community and not just treated like small foot note in Nehuru Mahima Vaakhan exponded by secular education system set up in Hind. Seen no Paki there as they dont even know that they eat of Zakat from the food sowed by the Babas.
Bay Area BRites have the luck of having such historical place near by . A place from which one of the first shots for Indian Freedom was fired .
Re: A look back at the partition
Bajwa,
The day I take Khuswant Singh seriously, that will be the day!
He has a column in the Telegraph and he propagates Sikhs, their culture and their achievements.
I would rather read a non parochial view and I have great regards for the Sikh, but I am not blind!
My equation with Sikhs can be understood by the fact that till I arrived from Ferozpur (on my scooter through then terrorist infested area, since my fool Brigade Commander deemed it a personal issue which was technically true, but without taking cognisance of the terrorist threat) to Faridkot, the funeral of my Sikh friend did not take place. His son and I had to jointly light the funeral pyre!!
I have great regards for the Sikh, but then I am pragmatic!
The day I take Khuswant Singh seriously, that will be the day!
He has a column in the Telegraph and he propagates Sikhs, their culture and their achievements.
I would rather read a non parochial view and I have great regards for the Sikh, but I am not blind!
My equation with Sikhs can be understood by the fact that till I arrived from Ferozpur (on my scooter through then terrorist infested area, since my fool Brigade Commander deemed it a personal issue which was technically true, but without taking cognisance of the terrorist threat) to Faridkot, the funeral of my Sikh friend did not take place. His son and I had to jointly light the funeral pyre!!
I have great regards for the Sikh, but then I am pragmatic!
Re: A look back at the partition
Ray Sir,
That's not the famouse wine, women and scotch khushwant Singh but unknown Kulwant Singh.
This quote from above article by kulwant singh might gave us some clue of soldiers
"Ten bombs were recovered from a cavalry regiment located at Meerut; plans of starting a revolt by massacre of European was timely foiled. All units located in the North Indian cantonments were searched to locate volatile literature, which was found aplenty. At least four mutinies in the Army were instigated by the publications. These were: Punjab Regiment’s revolt in Jhansi, mutiny by the Sikh Squadron of the Central India Horse (4 Sikh Sepoys were hanged and 108 were sentenced to Kalapani), Madras artillery mutiny, and mutiny in 3/12 Punjab Regiment. A large number of publications were found during the searches carried out after the arrest of Shaheed Bhagat Singh from the premises of members of the revolutionary organisations all over India. "
Also!! Khushwant Singh is more British than British themselves!! He was firmly in the British Camp even in 1947. (not in naram or garam dal but in British camp).
That's not the famouse wine, women and scotch khushwant Singh but unknown Kulwant Singh.
This quote from above article by kulwant singh might gave us some clue of soldiers
"Ten bombs were recovered from a cavalry regiment located at Meerut; plans of starting a revolt by massacre of European was timely foiled. All units located in the North Indian cantonments were searched to locate volatile literature, which was found aplenty. At least four mutinies in the Army were instigated by the publications. These were: Punjab Regiment’s revolt in Jhansi, mutiny by the Sikh Squadron of the Central India Horse (4 Sikh Sepoys were hanged and 108 were sentenced to Kalapani), Madras artillery mutiny, and mutiny in 3/12 Punjab Regiment. A large number of publications were found during the searches carried out after the arrest of Shaheed Bhagat Singh from the premises of members of the revolutionary organisations all over India. "
Also!! Khushwant Singh is more British than British themselves!! He was firmly in the British Camp even in 1947. (not in naram or garam dal but in British camp).
-
brihaspati
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 12410
- Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25
Re: A look back at the partition
The real violence of the "Partition" happened before 15th August, 1947. So this was the period when BIA had its oath and loyalty to the then existing government which was not a sovereign Indian government but the British Crown. The question on this thread originally arose on the question of both the INA as well as whether or not the army was effectively used against the "pro-Partitionist" lobby's violence before the Partition. It was on this context that the transference of loyalty to a Provisional government of free India arose - as the argument against using the army can come up as "oh it was the British Government, and they would not do anything against the Partitionists, and the army had sworn oath of loyalty to that gov, so it could not do anything...yadda yadda". I do not think anyone is doubting the loyalty to Indian government after 15th August, 1947.
But this is also true, that most joined the BIA out of poverty. They did not have a big concept of nation before them and perhaps even had their immediate historical experience that made them prefer service with a foreigner compared to "domestic" overlords. Concepts of dedication in service was however driven by Indic tradition and simply transplanted to an entity that appeared to offer competitive service conditions. The early EIC was also more tactically and attitude-wise flexible, compared to the more openly racist and imeprialist post 1857 regimes.
But this is also true, that most joined the BIA out of poverty. They did not have a big concept of nation before them and perhaps even had their immediate historical experience that made them prefer service with a foreigner compared to "domestic" overlords. Concepts of dedication in service was however driven by Indic tradition and simply transplanted to an entity that appeared to offer competitive service conditions. The early EIC was also more tactically and attitude-wise flexible, compared to the more openly racist and imeprialist post 1857 regimes.
Re: A look back at the partition
OK who is Kulwant Singh?SBajwa wrote:Ray Sir,
That's not the famouse wine, women and scotch khushwant Singh but unknown Kulwant Singh.
This quote from above article by kulwant singh might gave us some clue of soldiers
"Ten bombs were recovered from a cavalry regiment located at Meerut; plans of starting a revolt by massacre of European was timely foiled. All units located in the North Indian cantonments were searched to locate volatile literature, which was found aplenty. At least four mutinies in the Army were instigated by the publications. These were: Punjab Regiment’s revolt in Jhansi, mutiny by the Sikh Squadron of the Central India Horse (4 Sikh Sepoys were hanged and 108 were sentenced to Kalapani), Madras artillery mutiny, and mutiny in 3/12 Punjab Regiment. A large number of publications were found during the searches carried out after the arrest of Shaheed Bhagat Singh from the premises of members of the revolutionary organisations all over India. "
Also!! Khushwant Singh is more British than British themselves!! He was firmly in the British Camp even in 1947. (not in naram or garam dal but in British camp).
Khuswant Singh is little liberal with the facts.
Lets allow the poor old man to live his remainder life in peace!
Re: A look back at the partition
RayC wrote:
I am not conversant with any details of Subash Bose having joined the British Army. That is news. Sarvarkar asked Indian youth to join Army. Their goal was not to serve the British but to gain strength and training. I would be grateful if links could be given so that I can update my knowledge.
Sarvarkar clearly says that Hindu youths to join the army since the British were trying to hire more Muslims into the army and the notion that without armed training of the Hindu Youth the S
Your statement against what you could have provided as a link!
How many of Sarvarkar's Brigade went into the Army and what did they do?
Sarvarkar knew that Pakistan would come into being and have a stronger army?
I am asking all this, since it is the easiest way to understand history without wading through it!
With Independence, many Hindu youth joined the Army and I don't find the Pak Army uber alles!
Here it is
http://books.google.com/books?id=Uc9lLS ... in&f=false
Veer Vinayak Damodar Savarkar: an immortal revolutionary of India
By Bhawan Singh Rana
Re: A look back at the partition
Ray Sir, this is KuLwant Singh, NOT KhuSHwant Singh.
Re: A look back at the partition
I strongly agree with this, the British have many times said, our rule on India is based not on force but by the force of morality (and they were right from their perspective)Acharya wrote:The concept of a political center by their own people was still alien for many elite of India before independence. Hence the oath to the nation (even though the center was a foreign political center) by the army was considered for the mathrabhumi and bharat. isanjaychoudhry wrote:
You have to distinguish between oath to a free country whose government represents the aspirations and free will of the people .....
Note the British, always maintained that they were just a bunch of people ruling India for its own people in the name of the Queen. As such they pretended to always have a principle of equal citizen status for British and Indians (yes I know not in practice but only publically)
Note in nearly every case the British first tied up with a ruler, spent some time claiming legitimacy as the joint ruler then annexed the state (doctrine of lapse etc) Ostensibly for better governance.
It is important to note that even till the end even MKG was okay with dominion status at many points of time.
So while there was definitely a large body of Indians (Aurobindo et al) who clearly saw the British for what they were, that is charltans operating under a cloak of moral superiority, many others were not so blessed, some understood and pretended otherwise and some just didnt care as far as their ends got served.
The mass of Indian soldiers, including those of BIA fell in the simple trap of considering British to be latest ruler in those turbulent times of rapidly changing rulership patterns.
It took some time for consciousness to spread and that too not fully.
Re: A look back at the partition
He wanted the ban on Hindu Commissioned officers to be lifted.
It was banned for Hindus, Muslims and every other Indian.
Hardly a call for Hindus to join the Army by cocking the snoot at the British and expecting the British to harbour people who will eliminate them.
One has to give a practical call. It is just like Indira Gandhi's 'Garibi Hatao'!
Man, by the call Garibi has really been Hatoed and we are the richest.
Put your money where your mouth is!!
It was banned for Hindus, Muslims and every other Indian.
Hardly a call for Hindus to join the Army by cocking the snoot at the British and expecting the British to harbour people who will eliminate them.
One has to give a practical call. It is just like Indira Gandhi's 'Garibi Hatao'!
Man, by the call Garibi has really been Hatoed and we are the richest.
Put your money where your mouth is!!
Re: A look back at the partition
I have noted that.Rahul M wrote:Ray Sir, this is KuLwant Singh, NOT KhuSHwant Singh.
But I do not know who is Kulwant, except those in the Army including one Brigade Commander of mine, who was oh so very British!
-
brihaspati
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 12410
- Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25
Re: A look back at the partition
Jallainwallbag is a thorny issue. Can modern army soldiers excuse themselves if they kill unarmed civilians saying they did it because their superior army commander ordered them to? In spite of Bosnia, etc., the issue is not very clear in the international context. Since the Indian Government under JLN was the legal heir of the British government on India, after 15th August, 1947, could they reopen investigation into the massacre? The two main Britishers implicated, were dead by this time. But surely some of those who took orders and shot unarmed civilians were still living. As far as I remember there were 90 soldiers mainly from, Pathan, Dogra, Baloch and Punjab regiments. It is interesting to not that JLN condemned Udham Singh's assassination of O'Dwyer in 1940 and praised him in his typical extravagance - as "shaheed" in 1952.