A look back at the partition

[Brad Goodman]

jambudvipa ji. Thanks for your responses the only lingering doubt in my mind is that to prosper economically we need relative span of time (decades) with peace and law & order. If we had 60 - 40 % fighting over faith we would have quickly become Rawanda or Somalia. Only because we have kept the momeens quiet for 60 years has given us the ability to fly to moon and become a force to rekon with in sciences and engineering.

[Brad Goodman]

The shoe is, in fact, on the other foot. Those who's historical provinces are intact and suffered no losses in Partition should remember it and vow to take it back. They, however, are the biggest indulgers in the love fest with pa'astan and the followers of RoP. They know that few more partitions are not going to affect them either.

Surinder Ji I was always under the impression that people who have some kind of relation with the old paki territories are the ones who have the love fest for pakis and not people from other provinces. Example for this would be Shri IK Gujral, Dr. Man Mohan Singh, Kuldip Nayyar, most old guard of CPIM like jyoti basu etc and their commie brothers etc or Sania Mirza types of hyderabadi who have relatives in pak land. Can you provide us any specific example of people from unpartitioned provinces that have indulged in love fest with pakis? Only name I can think of is Mahesh Bhatt but that guy does it because he is half pure blood and half money minded who wants to make money on his semi erotic movies in paki territories.

I am not talking about people like Jawed Naqwi etc who are more of ummah and have no loyalty to any particular region. If you are talking about Siddharth Varadrajan /Arundhati Roy types then they also cannot be identified with any region but they can be grouped by their left leaning ideology which opens up another questions why to left leaning leaders & intellectuals (no pun intended here ) supported creation of paki lands and why they have soft corners for blood thirsty momeens

[Sanju]

AbhiG,

Thank you for posting the link to the Bengalvoice Blog. This is something that is never taught in our schools. This needs to be read by every Indian - I wonder how many Bengalis know of this.

I jumped to Chapter 3 and I couldn't help the tears on reading of the famine and how people died for the sheer cruelty of the British in extending their rule over India.

Suhrawardy and ML getting their money via the government grant to Isaphani (Rs 2 Crores in those days) without a tender, contract or even a piece of paper is a reference worth its weight in gold. ML was funded directly and indirectly by the Govt and its policies. This needs to be studied in detail and to match and see if the same practices are being followed today. Article 320 seems to be the child of such policies.

[ramana]

RayC also had questions on the non-documentation of the East Bengal partition. Hope he logs in and reads that link.

[brihaspati]

To add on to what Surinder and Jambudvipa ji have said,
it is always problematic to have a "what of" type scenario analysis for historical sequences. I have no problem with this "problem" and obviously there will be two line sof thoughst over reversal of "Partition" - one that opposes reversal and the other in favour. The motivations to arrive at these conclusions come partly from personal or family experiences (or the lack of such experiences) and what has been propagandized through the media or through formal education.

I think it is worthwhile for anyone concerned about the issue to fully studey, explore and argue out both sides of the position on "reversal". I have personally done this, and found that "Partition" not happening would have been the best possible thing from the "national" viewpoint if you were not anti-Hindu or anti-pre-Islamic civilizations in Asia. I would request everyone to do this personal exploration on their own - and there are plenty of material available now openly to do this. Since it has happened, "reversal" is the next best option, once again from a similar analysis of both sides of the argument.

You will notice that all the arguments I have given as to "why reversal needed" on the issue are impersonal, and none of the experiences I have had or known from distant clan connections have found place here except in confirmation of general tendencies of otherwise apparently "non-Jihadi" Islalmic populations in times of "crisis and Jihad opportunities". But I come to my conclusions on the national sweep based on large numbers of case studies (typically done by sociologists) and I am always on the lookout for general tendencies/patterns and not individual exceptions.

I have always rooted for "ghar wapasi" of IM commons. It is a difficult task given the centuries of distrust and genocide memories. However, we cannot also forget the fact that our ancestors had failed to protect their ancestors from submitting as a survival option. Most of the urban artisan IM class were wholesale converts under duress in the ancient urban centres of India. Thei trade dependent skill-based livelihood made them unable to move away.

I always feel amused at the strange dilemma shown by Centre-Left type attitude towards Muslims. On the one hand they do everything to preserve Islamism - on the other hand they are against reversal of Partition because they feel that otherwise Muslims would overhwlem the rest! I would say they do not realize (or maybe they do!) that their appeasement of IM and Paki/BD Islamism comes froma deep seated fear and hatred of the Indian Muslim. Is it because they derive from that portion of the older Hindu elite who felt superior by birth from the "lower castes" and therefore never thought of the majority common pre-Islamic Indian masses as their fellow countrymen? That feeling continued in the hatred and distrust when such "lowers" converted under the sword? Therefore the urge to keep them separated as Muslims - reinforce their "mullah's" claims of exclusive identity - and not allwo them lose that identity! Hence the eagerness to justify the Partition - maybe, they "wanted" Partition in exactly a grand national level "untouchability" drive!

[Brad Goodman]

B ji, I am all for "ghar wapsi" or "shuddhikaran" but why try to mix oil with water? We can try that but we first need to put our house in order. We have barely got rid of our begging bowl in past decade but we have fractured ourselves with mandal politics. Unless our society gets back to equilibrium in the post mandal world we cannot think of fulfilling Nathuram Godse's dream

[Atri]

I would like to bring the attention of this forum to one more partition which happened 10 years before 1947. In 1937, Burma was cut-off from India. That was one huge loss of territory as well.

The only reason why the pain is less for the loss of Burma is that the people there belonged to Indic fold and did not wat to move away from their civilizational centre of gravity. Technically, partition of Burma was similar to Partition of Bengal in 1905 and that of Punjab ang Bengal in 1947. However, one of the reasons why there is no lingering bitterness in the minds of people is that there was no exchange of population. But was this the only reason? There was no loss of territory of Maharashtra nor was there any exchange of population here. But one can feel the pain of loss when one speaks of partition. One also sees the wish to bring those regions back to Indic fold.

When we wish of bringing Punjab, sindh, Bengal and Pashtoon areas back into Indic fold, we should not forget this part of India as well.

The boundaries of our Rashtra lie as far as the expanse of our sanskriti. It is the duty to ascertain the maximum expanse of our sanskriti that has happened in the course of space and time and strive to bring it back firmly into Indic fold. Politically, the unity will not last long, history is witness to this fact. However, the concept of India should not vanish with political disintegration of a particular nation-state. On the other hand, India should remain persistent and eternal in spite of political consolidations and disintegrations.

[surinder]

Brad wrote:
Surinder Ji I was always under the impression that people who have some kind of relation with the old paki territories are the ones who have the love fest for pakis and not people from other provinces. Example for this would be Shri IK Gujral, Dr. Man Mohan Singh, Kuldip Nayyar, most old guard of CPIM like jyoti basu etc and their commie brothers etc or Sania Mirza types of hyderabadi who have relatives in pak land. Can you provide us any specific example of people from unpartitioned provinces that have indulged in love fest with pakis? ...

People might feel offended, but I will say it.

The "core" of India sits comfortably secure, letting the periphery fight it out for its very survival. Then while sitting comfortably find faults in them for not fighting the enemies properly. That is why they label the love fest indulgers as either Punjabis, Bengalis, or IM's. Heaven forbid if anyone from the core is to be blamed.

INC core was from the "core" of India. They were not terribly comfortable with either the Punjabis or the Bengalis, and as a matter of fact, nor with the IM's. They never understood their dilemmas, compulsions and issues. Nor did they sumpathsize with them and their plight. These provinces had their leaders side lined, and their apprach to dealing with Briish and M's stigmatized (ahimsa rules). Gandhi conveniently got himself in the senseless Khalifat movement, INC gave birth to Jinnah (not the Punjabis or Bengalis, who the bore the brunt of this man's output). The ease with which "core" leadership agreed to partition, the secrecy in which they carried out their capitulation. In the fall of 47, these leaders really had no advice to the Punjabis & Bengalis, except to say that please stay put and get massacred.

When partietion did happen, Indian Punjab was cleansed in retaliation, and RoP presences erased. But who were the main planners and intellectual brains behind the 2 nation theory? They were the elite of UP. Where are these elites now? They are still living quite nicely in UP, thank you very much. Which institutions played a role? AMU & Deoband, they are still functioning as though nothing happened. Why were they not leveled to the ground? Hyderabi Owaisis are all still there. Why did UP, Bihar etc. not go in arms against partition? How much countering was done by them for fostering this disease on us? Would UP have been as comfortable if (say) Lucknow and Benaras had become foreign countries? Why did they not cause counter trauma for partiton on those individuals and institutions that were operating out of its soil? Are they not functioning as before and are a legitimate part of the national political horse-trading? From which states does isalaimic parties exert the biggest influence on India and its policies?

Incidently, we forget that J&K is also part of the partition drama. While Kashmir is gasping for its vey life, hanging by a thread in the 1947-48 war, Gandhi goes on fast so that TSP can have more money to better fight the war? Why did JLN cause the forces to stop and not recover territory fully? What haste was there to sign the Runn of Kutch and IWT accords? Which area of India is the most adamant that history be re-written to erase certain inconveniences of a certain faith? Who has become an intellectual pawn in the hands of certain faith? Which "core" area gave us article 370 & personal law? Who sends the most number of MP's to form the govt? What did India do when it captured Lahore in 1965?

Most of all, why is Radcliffe line sacrosanct? Why did we not openly question it? Who were the leaders who hold that line more holy than anything?

After having asked the Punjabis and Bengalis to suck it up, why resent the fact that they are sucking it up?

[svinayak]

I always feel amused at the strange dilemma shown by Centre-Left type attitude towards Muslims. On the one hand they do everything to preserve Islamism - on the other hand they are against reversal of Partition because they feel that otherwise Muslims would overhwlem the rest!

This is exactly what the colonial powers wanted. They wanted a Islamic political power and over time with force of history would be the dominant. They expect many states in the sub-continent - (500) and Pakistan would be largest state in the entire region.

http://www.indiaresearch.org/India_at_S ... _eBook.pdf

CONCEPT OF SOUTH ASIA AND THE STRATEGY OF SOUTH ASIA

The South Asia terminology started being used in the 90s as the globalization started with momentum in the Indian sub-continent. The state department in US and Foreign Office FO in Pakistan started using it frequently so that importance of India as the premier country in the sub-continent is devalued. Pakistan FO even commented on renaming the Indian Ocean as something else so that the name India is not associated to the ocean. The concept of south Asia started making rounds to describe any Indian abroad. The term south Asia make sure that the identity of the Indian civilization and Hindu religion does not arise at all and is not distinct at all. The whole idea is to make sure that the new generation of Indians born abroad mostly in US and UK do not get a separate distinct Indian/Hindu identity. The Indian identity is submerged under the south Asia concept and the distinct Indian civilization is negated after several generations.
The main aim is to reduce and ultimately negate the non-Muslim identity in the Indian sub-continent in the wider world in the long run. When will this happen. Some Pakistani commentators have told Indian MPs that the balance between India and Pakistan will happen when Muslim population will equal the Hindu population in the sub-continent. In 1947 the Indian sub-continent had 400 million population with 100 million Muslims. By 2000 the Muslims are already 400 million and Bengali Muslims being the largest non-arab ethnic Muslims in the world. This has strengthened the vision of the pan Islamists in the subcontinent to create a pan Islamic political center which will have the largest Islamic block outside the arab world.
Quote from Ikram Sehgal in Defense Journal from Pakistan : In South Asia there are three major Muslim communities, largest being in India, the second biggest in Bangladesh and the third biggest in Pakistan. A strong Pakistan and a strong Bangladesh is the security for the largest community of Muslims who live in India. It is unfortunate but that sense of security comes from the fact that we are there together and the people will understand that as long as the two strong nations are there that they will be secure.
G. Parthasarathy quotes: “At a recent meeting that I had with a group of prominent Pakistanis in a
South Asian capital, a close associate of General Musharraf bluntly remarked that if India believed that it could ignore differences with Pakistan and move ahead economically, his country would have no difficulty
in taking steps to retard Indian economic progress. A few years ago a former Director-General of the ISI remarked to me that >Pakistan would see to it that jihad in Kashmir would draw support from Muslims all across India. This was in response to an assertion by me that Muslims in India were proud of the secular ethos of their country. It is important to bear these factors in mind while assessing the challenge that Pakistani policies pose to India. Pakistani ideologues, especially in their Punjabi dominated armed forces establishment, believe that they are the true inheritors of the Mughal throne in Delhi.
The real meaning is that the Muslims of the entire south Asia will be able to equal and dominate the non-Muslims in terms of identity, perception and supremacy when the population equals or exceeds the non-Muslims now or sometime in future. It also means as long as Islamic political center exists inside the subcontinent Muslims are safe from the non-Muslims. Is this possible? By projecting the Pakistani ashrafs as the rightful leaders of all the Muslims in the sub-continent they are waiting for the right moment of ‘awakening’ when the Muslims of India will join and support the political center in Pakistan and Bangladesh to create one monolithic Muslim block to rival the non-Muslims.
Under the support of a hyper power with control over world media, resources and a world wide recognition of Islamic religion with no negative implications; the non-muslims of the south Asia could be totally sub-merged and negated over a period of time such as under a century. According to the Pakistani elite India is not monolithic but heterogeneous India.
The main worry for the Islamists and the pan Islamists in the sub-continent is that with India freed from concerns over the Muslims of South Asia, India could then turn its full attention to America’s rival, China. Neutralizing Pakistan’s threat to India is an outstanding achievement for any Indian government; as such an eventuality would be viewed as the beginning of an era of stability and prosperity for the Hindu State. Indeed, normalization of Indo-Pak relations would finally enable India to bring the Muslims of the entire region under its writ, a matter that the Hindus were not able to achieve even when Muslims were far weaker than today, over fifty years ago. They also admit that before Vajpayee took power, America overtly and covertly supported jihad in Kashmir and insisted upon the implementation of UN Security Council Resolutions concerning Kashmir. This has helped the Islamists to wage a covert war against India.
The Islamists believe that the historical fact was Muslim rule that liberated the Hindu masses of the Subcontinent from oppression at the hands of their own Brahmin-led elite. Only under Muslim rule was the Subcontinent elevated to such global economic and material significance, that the British Empire valued this region above all others as its “Jewel in the Crown.” Indeed, after Muslim rule, the Subcontinent suffered steep economic decline at the hands of the British, reducing it to economic misery, a condition that the post-British leadership in India has been unable to reverse. Accepting the Hindu State as a regional leadership merely on the basis of Hindu majority is naive political thinking propagated by Pakistan’s rulers. Leadership is given to the one deserving of it.
The Islamists are of the view that without doubt Pakistan is fully capable of leading the entire region’s peoples. Khilafah will restore the leadership of the region to the Muslims, as well as providing justice and protection to all the inhabitants of the region, be they Hindu, Sikh or Christian. According to them reports of terrible atrocities against Muslim, Sikh and Christian minorities, as carried by India’s own media, are more than enough to convince any impartial observer that the Hindu elite is incapable of bestowing justice upon any people, leaving aside its treatment of its co-religionist, lower caste Hindus. Indeed, expecting justice from a nation whose own religious teachings openly sanction caste-based discrimination in society, depriving the majority of its own people their rights, is nothing but naivety.
By creating a strong political center in Pakistan the Kashmiris nationalism was inspired and nurtured to insurgency in 1989. In the next step Kashmir nationalism was subsumed under the Islamic political movement in the sub-continent by 1995. The statement from Islamists in 2003 is “The struggle of the Kashmiri people was not aimed at securing a piece of land but to ensure the triumph of belief and supremacy of Islam. The next stage is to create an all south Asia Islamic political movement which will create solidarity with Muslims of the sub-continent. When that happens this movement will be able to oppose the non-Muslims of the sub-continent when the Indian state becomes weak and create an alternative Muslim political center for the entire south Asia as a rival to Indian state.

Pakistan was creating for itself a larger role in the geo-political game.

From the book, "India & Pakistan in War and Peace" by J.N.Dixitis paraphrasing a speech given by the CEO to a forum on 23 June 2000:

* The idea of the integration of Kashmir with Pakistan may be given up if it is expedient to do so.
* Pakistan wishes to emerge as the leader of an Islamic bloc comprising Afghanistan, CAR countries, and
Iran with peripheral support from the Gulf States and Turkey.
* It claims this status by virtue of the fact that in this century, "the century of gas", no longer one of oil,
all gas supplies to India, South East Asia and further East, have to pass through Pakistan.

Amir of the Markaz Hafiz Muhammad Sayeed declares: ‘In fact, the Hindu is a mean enemy and the proper way to deal with him is the one adopted by our forefathers […] who crushed them by force. We need to do the same’. India is a special target for the Markaz’s mujahidin. According to the Amir of the Markaz, Hafiz Muhammad Sayeed, ‘The jihad is not about Kashmir only. It encompasses all of India’. Thus, the Markaz sees the jihad as going far beyond the borders of Kashmir and spreading through all of India. The final goal is to extend Muslim control over what is seen as having once been Muslim land, and, hence, to be brought back under Muslim domination, creating ‘the Greater Pakistan by dint of jihad’. Thus, at a mammoth congregation of Markaz supporters in November 1999, Hafiz Muhammad Sayeed declared, ‘Today I announce the break-up of India, Inshallah. We will not rest until the whole of India is dissolved into Pakistan’. On the same occasion, Amir Hamza, senior Markaz official and editor of its Urdu organ, ad-Da’waa, thundered: ‘We ought to disintegrate India and even wipe India out’. Those who take part in this anti-Indian jihad are promised that ‘Allah will save [them] from the pyre of hell’, and ‘huge palaces in paradise’ await those who are killed in fighting the ‘disbelieving enemies’.
This project for the disintegration of India, followed by its take-over by Pakistan and the establishing an Islamic state in the entire sub-continent, is sought to be justified by an elaborate set of arguments that use the rhetoric of liberation. Thus, instances of human-sacrifice, untouchability, infanticide, the oppression of the ‘low’ castes by the Brahmins and the suppression of women in Hinduism are described in great detail, and on this basis it is sought to be shown that such a religion as Hinduism should not ‘be allowed to flourish’. In Markaz literature, the mass slaughter of Muslims by Hindu chauvinist groups, often in league with the Indian state and its agencies, and the growing wave of attacks on other marginalized groups in India such as the ‘low’ caste Dalits, Shudras and Christians, are presented in stark colors, and the point forcefully made that such a country ‘where non-Hindus are not allowed to exist’ should break-up.
Retired Lieutenant General Hamid Gul, former head of Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence directorate, tells ... that the only reason Pakistan does not dismember India is because "we never wanted to create problems with our Muslim population in India."
Also he says

" I am against the imperial streak in the Indian psyche. The 1947 riots had a deep impact on my mind...About 5% to 6% Brahmins dominate India." "India will give its land when it will be divided into many pieces. India will have to be break. If India does not give us our land we will go to war and divide India...believe me, India is so fragile. India has such weak joints that if we want we could strike these weak joints then India will dismember. But we don't want India to break....India is ridden with problems...There are many other weak joints. Indians have strong fissiparous tendencies, which is absent in Pakistan. One can easily exploit it politically." Jinnah was right when he invited Ambedkar to join Pakistan. About 5% to 6% Brahmins dominate India. Where are the lower classes? I am an Islamists. Islam is the final destiny of mankind. Islam is moderate, Islam is progressive. Islam is everything that man needs. It is not necessary to become a Muslim but it is necessary to adopt the principles of Islam. Naseem Azavi and Iqbal's writings have influenced my thinking.

There have been cases of ordinary Americans were surprised that Indians are actually Indians of East Asia and not really the American Indians/native Americans of north American continent. This is an example of vast groups of society in the western world can be ignorant of a large civilization and national identity. The identity of Indians/Hindus with a unique civilization and an Indian identity can be erased over time if a proper strategy of media, negation of culture, academic work and brainwashing is executed. This is happening as we speak.

Stability in South Asia from a Western point of view:

When the Cold War ended, India and Pakistan were often characterized by Western strategists as irresponsible—or dangerous—because of their apparent pursuit of nuclear weapons. Now, the motives that created these programs are becoming increasingly clear. While the major threats to South Asia are internal—low growth rates, inequitable distribution of wealth, and ethnic and religious conflicts exacerbated by an environmental crisis—these states do have legitimate external security concerns as well.
Pakistan, like Israel, is faced with a much larger adversary that barely recognizes its legitimacy. India, like the Austro-Hungarian empire, is a multinational entity with both strong (China and Pakistan) and weak (Sri Lanka, Nepal, and Bangladesh) neighbors; it has significant differences with the former, but the very weaknesses of the latter pose a threat also.

[brihaspati]

Brad Goodman wrote
B ji, I am all for "ghar wapsi" or "shuddhikaran" but why try to mix oil with water? We can try that but we first need to put our house in order. We have barely got rid of our begging bowl in past decade but we have fractured ourselves with mandal politics. Unless our society gets back to equilibrium in the post mandal world we cannot think of fulfilling Nathuram Godse's dream

well just a thought - what if the Muslim card was not available in India! How do you think it would have affected the Mandal line? One of the utility of the "minority" card has been the construction of the fear that unless the "lower castes" are reinforced they may "convert". Overall of course, any fracturing of the identity of the "Hindu" is good for the elite section I mentioned in my previous post. See - by preserving all these hated, "alien", "braatya" segments of pre-Islamic India. they are simply following their traditional sense and cult of "birth superiority".

[brihaspati]

Atri wrote
I would like to bring the attention of this forum to one more partition which happened 10 years before 1947. In 1937, Burma was cut-off from India. That was one huge loss of territory as well.

There are opportunities - through the "dormant ethnic volcanoes" in the frontierland between Myanmar and China. Yes that is a Partition needed to be reversed too, but maybe not for this thread. The Bay of Bengal mouth to India's heartland cannot be secured properly unless that Partition is reversed. But probably not prudent to talk about openly.

[surinder]

Was Burma really part of Bharat Proper ever? Was it not just lumped up with India by British, and hence its unlocking is not really a partition, I would think.

When we go to Burma, the culture of India changes from Indian/Hindu to East Asia. I am not sure that it is valid to claim Burma.

[surinder]

Partitions committed by UK:

1) India-TSP
2) Ireland
3) Palestine
4) Cypress (Greece/Turk)
5) Arab lands (Iraq, Kuwait etc.)
6) Germany



Partitions By Others under UK influence in modern history:

1) Korea
2) Vietnam


It is clear that Partition is a favorite hobby of the British. They seem to like it tremendously as a tool.

[svinayak]

It is clear that Partition is a favorite hobby of the British. They seem to like it tremendously as a tool.

"I confess that countries are pieces on a chessboard," said Lord Curzon, viceroy of India in 1898, "upon which is being played out a great game for the domination of the world."

http://www.crucial-systems.com/The_Gran ... mperatives

[brihaspati]

Surinder,
the idea of core should primarily be in the set of ideals/cultural, philosophical foundations. Here importance territory or regions comes only second. It is the extremes of society which give it a character, not the middle - which are non-commital. "Home is where the heart is". I don't think we should blame the "core" regions. If the regions does not think like a "core" it is not a core. Yes, its political importance may be great becuuase it has mustered up the numbers - but then by that logic the Chinese will always be more right and correct than Indians! Some "faiths" will always be more "core" than "Hindus"!

Long ago we argued that the heart of a nation lies in whichever subgroup carries on its ideals, no matter how small that group is or where it is forced to migrate. This is one of the reasons I respect the founding fathers of Israel. Yes they used a particular worldwide clash to carve out their nation - but more importantly they showed that you can hold on to your idea of a nation and found it too. Nations survive in people, committed people. The "people"s you mention as having been forced to suck up also produced some of the most committed people to the idea of India, and therefore they are also likely to be people among whom the real "idea" of the nation may rise again.

Reversal of Partition is a matter of time.

[surinder]

http://news.rediff.com/column/2009/sep/ ... tition.htm

The British role in India's division is best summed up by Sardar Patel. He said on August 9, 1945, "The British talk of Hindu-Muslim quarrels, but who has thrust the burden on their shoulders? Give me just a week's rule over Britain; I will create such disagreements that England [ Images ], Wales and Scotland will fight one another for ever" (Patel -- A Life by Rajmohan Gandhi).


http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/b ... oks_mishra

Meeting Mountbatten a few months after partition, Churchill assailed him for helping Britain’s “enemies,” “Hindustan,” against “Britain’s friends,” the Muslims.

[Atri]

Partitions committed by UK:

1) India-TSP
2) Ireland
3) Palestine
4) Cypress (Greece/Turk)
5) Arab lands (Iraq, Kuwait etc.)
6) Germany



Partitions By Others under UK influence in modern history:

1) Korea
2) Vietnam


It is clear that Partition is a favorite hobby of the British. They seem to like it tremendously as a tool.

Especially please watch the part two of this episode (the second link) from 03:08 onwards.

Exactly this line of thought is expanded here.. Rather cynically, though...

[surinder]

B,

We discussed the "core" and its effect and actions in a different thread. Not more can be said, but I was answering that large chunks of India have done nothing to shatter the forces that brought upon us the sorry events of 47, solely because they themselves did not suffer its full impact. On the contrary they have continued to provide a fertile ground for the same forces. This absence of empathy, an absence of the ability to see loss of one set of Indians as their own loss characterizes much of who we are.

Now if the Jiehadic forces bypass Punjab & Bengal and head straight for the core, would the reaction be the same?

Unfortunately, the periphery that you proudly present is traumatized: Punjabis, Bengalis, Sindhis, or Kashmiris. They cannot take on the job of reversing Partition on their own. They are too weakened to do anything. They can only do somethign if the core springs to action. Ergo, the reversal idea can only happen when the core wakes up. But the core does not want to, because it hasn't felt the pain enough.

[ramana]

I would like to bring the attention of this forum to one more partition which happened 10 years before 1947. In 1937, Burma was cut-off from India. That was one huge loss of territory as well.

The only reason why the pain is less for the loss of Burma is that the people there belonged to Indic fold and did not wat to move away from their civilizational centre of gravity. Technically, partition of Burma was similar to Partition of Bengal in 1905 and that of Punjab ang Bengal in 1947. However, one of the reasons why there is no lingering bitterness in the minds of people is that there was no exchange of population. But was this the only reason? There was no loss of territory of Maharashtra nor was there any exchange of population here. But one can feel the pain of loss when one speaks of partition. One also sees the wish to bring those regions back to Indic fold.

When we wish of bringing Punjab, sindh, Bengal and Pashtoon areas back into Indic fold, we should not forget this part of India as well.

The boundaries of our Rashtra lie as far as the expanse of our sanskriti. It is the duty to ascertain the maximum expanse of our sanskriti that has happened in the course of space and time and strive to bring it back firmly into Indic fold. Politically, the unity will not last long, history is witness to this fact. However, the concept of India should not vanish with political disintegration of a particular nation-state. On the other hand, India should remain persistent and eternal in spite of political consolidations and disintegrations.

Partition fo Burma was the price INC had to accept to be allowed to form the locak self government in 1937.

As to those who question whether Burma was part of Indian sub-contiental mileu, I request read history of when Burma was conquered by Mongol generals of the Chinese empire and what was its cutlrue before that. Distance may dim the prespective but should distort the vision.

BTW if you look at names/culture of SE Asians the Plain of Jars in SE Asia marks the Eastern limit of Indic culture/civilization. East of that are Sinic.

So shed that Look West mentality!

[brihaspati]

Surinder,
on the contrary I think, determined minorities of committed people can change the course of nations. Why is it the weak, poor, economically backward, traumatized/expelled from core, periphery of ancient Bharat produce wave after wave of people who finally imposed their will on India? The loss, trauma breaks many - but clears the way for the more committed among those peripheral groups. They have less at stake in maintaining the status quo than the central, protected by location, areas - who may have gotten fat on their security and want no risks!

Now if what happened in 47 begins to happen in UP - typical reaction will be capitulation and territorial cleansing. If some kind of GOI survives, it will recognize a separate semi-independent Islamic territory (the idea has already been indirectly alluded to by certain icons of secular IM). This is the region that practically did nothing to ancestors of future Mohajirs who however went to carry out the most horrible atrocities on non-Muslims in Sind and Pakjab. This is the region which is also showing the politics of reinforcing identities of fractures of pre-Islamic society.

But it will also destory the main clique that has been responsible for India's slavery to foreign interests - the accumulators of wealth who avoid taking risks to enjoyment of that wealth at any cost - trading in their nation, their people, their periphery, their women and children and family if they feel it necessary!

[Sanju]

Surinder,

Not intending to jump on your discussion with Brihaspati. I just wanted to add something that struck me.

The core has not fought as much as the peripherals have fought (through constant invasions) and has been closer to the Centre of Imperialist Power (be it Mughal or British) and has become more subdued (for a lack of better word) than the peripherals. Any action started there could be easily put down due to its proximity to the Centre of Rule. Another reason that the Deoband is in the Core area and so is AMU - support from the Centre of Power and oppression for the others.

Maybe they are looking for inspiration from the peripherals such as the 1857 First War of Independence had a huge complement from the Eastern periphery in the Bengalis. But rest be assured that the pain of partition is felt by everyone otherwise why would a Mallu shed tears reading about a "Sikhnee" or Noakhali?
You can replace the word "Mallu" with any other Indian sub-group and the reaction would be the same.

[ramana]

Not true Sanju.
The core shifted with time as the threat/pressure increased. In the early middle ages the core was Punjab (Kanauj) from days of Harsha. In epic age too it was the Punjab and the Gangetic plains ie the Indo-Gangetic plains.
You see the gradual shift of the core till it survived till Independence.

[brihaspati]

Proximity is an important factor - but something else was at work here. For the Sikhs in Punjab were operating in equal proximity to Delhi as to UP - could be the lingering traces of Buddhism that persisted until later in the lower Gangetic Valley compared to the western mouth. Even HP fought off the Sultanate.

[Abhi_G]

Surinder,

Notwithstanding the fact that I myself cannot be so articulate about the grim fate of my ancestors who among unnamed millions faced the partition, as you have been putting so succintly, this is my humble suggestion. One can say that the parts of India that have not lost territory were brutalized too physically and psychologically to react in any coherent way against the way in which the partition was carried out. Sometimes, if the psychology is too brutalized, people refuse to react and on the other extreme, they take sadistic pleasure by torturing their very own (just like police forces sometimes commit on the weak). However, within 50 years of 1857, when I look at the regions from which our revolutionaries and freedom fighters came including Punjab, Maharashtra and Bengal, I feel that people of India will speak up once again.
JMTs.

[surinder]

Sanju, not entirely correct. Core has not faught as much, and does not value fighting either, is because the traditional route of the marauding gangs came from the NW, from the Khyber. This put the Punjabi as the door mat, and Delhi as the target, and UP as somewhat beyond. Fighting was optional for the UP/Bihari, but not so for the Punjabi. Absence of empathy implies that you do not overcome the physical distance by emotional connection. Nations, especially large ones, cannot survive is geographical distances are an excuse. If Florida feels no pain when Alaska is attacked by Russia, then that is a sure shot sign of of death of Amirkhan. (Fortunately that nation is not comatose just yet.)

Forget about past ancient history. How many Indian personally wake up every day personally offended that Kashmiri Pandits are being kicked from the valley? How many are willing to donate money, bl00d, votes for that cause? How many have made their rehabilitation *at all costs* the agenda of their life?

[surinder]

Abhi_G, glad you mentioned Maharashtra. That is the only region which though not personally assaulted has felt and acted in unision with the nation as a whole. But it is an exception that proves the rule.

[brihaspati]

A thorough cleansing went on in UP when the Ghori hordes came down. Their narrators describe explicitly, how they specifically targeted the "but -prasts" and the Hindu "priests", and burned the libraries. specifically targeting the Buddhist university towns and enslaved the women and killed post-puberty males. The very nature of these campaigns show that they were cleaning off the urban centres, trade routes [which they knew from their own "pious" and oh-so-peaceful traders] and taking over the most fertile lands as well as well as "fertile" humans. It was a planned campaign of genocidic colonization.

This pushed out a lot of "Hindus" and Buddhists as well as other non-Muslim sects, out of the upper part of the valley and they gradually dispersed to more difficult terrain on the hilly sides of the valley both to the north as to the south. This is why you will see a series of centres of resistance all along the chain of hills/ranges that line the south side of the Punjab-Ganges Valley. The refugees served to disperse the idea of the nation back into more difficult areas like the Assam Valley and Central India. This was what probably provided the nutrients for a future Vijaynagara or Shivaji.

But this also explains the phenomenon of UP. When the refugees went - they contained more of the "core" and in their wake they left an UP less in the "core". This was one of my primary reasons to insist on recgnizing the importance of the people "carrying the flame" as the primary identifier of the core - rather than the population residing in that territory.

Reaction to Partition and even the whole approach to politics for the top posts from the British rashtra (replacement of personnel not the system) as shown by the UP based networks. - can be explained if you keep the above scenario in mind.

[surinder]

Not true Sanju.
The core shifted with time as the threat/pressure increased. In the early middle ages the core was Punjab (Kanauj) from days of Harsha. In epic age too it was the Punjab and the Gangetic plains ie the Indo-Gangetic plains.
You see the gradual shift of the core till it survived till Independence.

Ramana, core shifted because we suffered one defeat after another. Not for because of any greatness. India is a huge land, and hence there is lot of land to hide and the core to move. Nothing glorious.

A few posts back, we had a poster claim that surrender of 1/3 of India for being a force in science and technology is worth it. Since our fore fathers gave a huge land, we contine to surrender it to get peace, which is basically a euphism for wealth and absence of sacrifice.

I talk to people and they think Punjab is only Sikhism, that is it. It is a surprise that Vedic core was Punjab. It is already written off from teh consciousness. People are shocked that A'stan used be our land as well.

India is a shrinking nation. The most apt expression for it is: Honey I shrunk the country.

[ramana]

Sorry where did I say it was due to 'greatness'?

[Prem]

Nehru had special dislike for Punjabis as they always made his shut up with argument as well arms. Chacha could not stand some one contardicting him. Ramana and B'sir idea have me thinking that if Punjab was still united and not split in 3 states,Indian politcis could have been played in entirely diffeent paradigm. The parliamentary system granted power to the most unqualified , unproductive section of Indian society thus putting break on economic, social progress . Good news is now we are beginning to see the balancing efforts and gradual shift in attitude. One thing importanat to watch is that reservation /appeaement dont get extended into National secuirty Insititution as it is beyond stupidity to expect national security to be protected at the hands of folks who dont believe in such thing as Nation and its boundaries . Neutralising PSism will go long way in strengthing the core and removing the threat .

[surinder]

Not just the Lady Mounting Nehru, but also MKG had a dislike for Punjabi attitudes to dealing with issues. They were not willing to learn that maybe the Punjabis had developed this particular set of strategies to deal with issues due to their peculiar experience. That this experience would be useful in formulating strategies to the overthrow UK and checkmate ML was lost on them. They wanted to invent a new way---their way and their way only.

But the most damnning act was not the above, it was the following: disagreeing is OK, but they wanted to establish a monoply on the freedom struggle. Their biggest failure is to realize that diversity of approaches is a good thing, not a bad thing. By suppressing the diversity, they shot themselves in the foot. They had little cards to play against the Brutish & the ML.

Even when disowned by INC cabal (Lady Mounter & MKG), Bose & Bhagat Singh never demonized the INC, because they saw their utility despite not following their lead.

[Sanju]

Ramana,

Agreed the core has shifted, I was referring to Punjab of old (not the truncated version that we know today ).

I think Brihaspati's comment on the Buddhist nature is a possibility.

Also being in the plains protected by people of lands far away, people of the plains were simply not used to as much fighting as the rest. Did the people of the plains became more agrarian as their wars were being fought by someone else in distant lands?

Surinder,

I was not giving my explanation as an excuse - but rather as a possible reason for their apathy/indifference.

It is only people of this forum and a handful of other folks in India who care about Nationalist issues and what has happened to the Kashmiri Pandits. It is this apathy for our own that has been our downfall in the past. There is no argument there. Actually there a lot of people who have no idea of the existence of the Kashmiri Pundits.
We need to educate our people, even if it is one at a time. I know of a person in his mid-thirties, internet savvy, who has no clue about the late FM Maneshaw!

I had an interesting conversation with a non-Indian friend of mine. He mentioned that the Bolsheviks realised that the "aam log" can be controlled by cheap booze (Vodka) and cheap entertainment (circus). The aam log don't care for anything else - if they got that two.

Now in India we have a huge influx of Bars and other legal and illegal watering holes and for entertainment there is the circus in the form of Ekta Kapoor's show.
Keep the population dumb so that the ruling class can make merry- no questions asked.

All the tools of communication that should be disseminating information to the people is used for spreading disinformation in the form of propaganda. If there is a sane voice in the cacophony - it is unheard or lost in the confusion.

[svinayak]

It is only people of this forum and a handful of other folks in India who care about Nationalist issues and what has happened to the Kashmiri Pandits. It is this apathy for our own that has been our downfall in the past. There is no argument there. Actually there a lot of people who have no idea of the existence of the Kashmiri Pundits.

It is all about the media. Media is playing for somebody else.
Unless the media plays for Indians and national interest this will continue.

[Pulikeshi]

The question to ask oneself is when did the partition of Bharat begin?
There are tomes written on the partition of British India in 1947.
While theories are all interesting, it is still about the latter not the former.

[Sanku]

Surinder, if UP-Bihar is the core, what also has to be seen that this is the core that led the movement to destroy the British in 1857. 1857, what ever be the merits demerits, the Sikhs escaped the burnt since they went with the British.

Not accounting the effect of 1857 on the next 100 years is what is causing all the what if type of questions here.

Let is be very clear, the CORE the purbaia's of India were THE force which won not only India for East India company but also the entire BRITISH empire in ASIA.

It would be most inappropriate to pass to the mistakes of one of the folks from the Allahabad as the view of Core.

Core not fighting is the BS that has been peddled by the British post 1857 -- dont fall for it.

[Sanku]

I had an interesting conversation with a non-Indian friend of mine. He mentioned that the Bolsheviks realised that the "aam log" can be controlled by cheap booze (Vodka) and cheap entertainment (circus). The aam log don't care for anything else - if they got that two..

Its continuation of the Roman thinking, the need for the circus.

Unfortunately it WONT work in India, not unless there is complete destruction of prior sanskriti first.

[RamaY]

Nehru had special dislike for Punjabis as they always made his shut up with argument as well arms. Chacha could not stand some one contardicting him. Ramana and B'sir idea have me thinking that if Punjab was still united and not split in 3 states,Indian politcis could have been played in entirely diffeent paradigm. The parliamentary system granted power to the most unqualified , unproductive section of Indian society thus putting break on economic, social progress . Good news is now we are beginning to see the balancing efforts and gradual shift in attitude. One thing importanat to watch is that reservation /appeaement dont get extended into National secuirty Insititution as it is beyond stupidity to expect national security to be protected at the hands of folks who dont believe in such thing as Nation and its boundaries . Neutralising PSism will go long way in strengthing the core and removing the threat .

It is kind of irony that current UP has highest number of MPs; location of Deoband.

And indirect quota system is already in place
Sonia Gandhi to head National Advisory Council : http://in.reuters.com/article/topNews/i ... 6220100330

[Sanju]

It is only people of this forum and a handful of other folks in India who care about Nationalist issues and what has happened to the Kashmiri Pandits. It is this apathy for our own that has been our downfall in the past. There is no argument there. Actually there a lot of people who have no idea of the existence of the Kashmiri Pundits.

It is all about the media. Media is playing for somebody else.
Unless the media plays for Indians and national interest this will continue.

That's why in an earlier post I had said that we have replaced White Sahibs with Brown Sahibs. The Media plays for them and they are playing for National interest - just not the Indian nation!

[SBajwa]

By Brad Goodman
Surinder Ji I was always under the impression that people who have some kind of relation with the old paki territories are the ones who have the love fest for pakis and not people from other provinces. Example for this would be Shri IK Gujral, Dr. Man Mohan Singh, Kuldip Nayyar, most old guard of CPIM like jyoti basu etc and their commie brothers etc or Sania Mirza types of hyderabadi who have relatives in pak land.

True!! Manmohan Singh, Kuldeep nayyar, etc were teenagers in 1947 protected by their peers (who included their own villagers or friends (muslims))., thus it is a case of common stockholm syndrome among non-muslim punjabis/Bengalis who were teenagers in 1947 (and their progeny).

Almost all Punjabis who escaped Paksitan were assisted by their neighbourers friends, etc who escorted them to the border (and kept their lands, cows, buffalos, buildings, etc in lieu). so!! please read up on stockholm syndrome and the real reason why WKK go on doing their jobs.

[surinder]

Net merely Stockholm Syndrom, though that is a possibility. The refugees soon discovered that there is basically no use being the non-compromiser---you get slaughtered, make no money, your children hunger, you are called an extremst, your countrymen do not even care. You realize that those who compormised and sung absurd songs songs of "a11ah tero naam, 1shwar tero naam" are rulers, the movers, the shakers, the elite, you decide to change. Compromising is not that difficult to do anyways, so that change isn't terribly hard to make.

You make the change and realize it is not bad. You gain acceptance, money, power, fame. Life is good. Do you think MMS, Gujral, Nayyar would have been in where they were by being uncompromising son-of-a-guns? Do we know names of the defiant, the courageous, and the unbending? They are either lying 6 feet below, or living in slums.

This simple idea does not, and cannot escape any normal intelligent and sane person. Do you know of any airport or national monument named after Rajguru or Sukhdev?

Compromise is also wonderful, now the Izalamists don't have a beef with you, they bypass your state and go for the core areas instead. Well the core asked you to suck it up, and you did. Pull out the pop corn this time.