A look back at the partition

[wig]

the Mirpur massacre of 25/11/1947 an editorial written by By Dr. Ram Chander Sharma
in the daily excelsior a newspaper published from Jammu, is worth reading in full

After the Timur massacre of Delhi in 1358, the massacre of Mirpur a bustling trade centre and historic walled city of Jammu and Kashmir now in Pak Occupied Kashmir on 25th of Nov. 1947 was the worst massacre of Indian history.
The population of Mirpur swelled from 10000 to 25000 with Hindus and Sikhs migrating form nearby areas and Jhelum. A garrison of Maharaja Forces were stationed in the town. People made the fortified defences on the roof tops and on the ground by digging trenches and groups of youths were assigned the job of vigilance round the clock with primitive weapons. Many advances of the enemy were repulsed till the town fell on 25th Nov 1947. Pakistan army started using modern weapons and artillery to break the walls of town. There were no supply as the town was already cut off by the fall of Bhimber in October itself; the only hope was the air dropping of supplies of food and ammunition by air till the reinforcements of Indian army reach to push away the enemy. Frantic massages were sent to Jammu over the wireless by Maharaja Forces to Jammu but in vain. Many of the forceful attacks of the enemy were repulsed. A major attack was carried out by the enemy on 23rd of Nov 1947 from the main eastern gate and was repulsed by the death squads of Mirpuri youths in hand to hand fight. In a bad luck the only wireless equipment with the state forces broke down and the fresh stronger attack by the enemy forces on 24th morning frightened the state forces who left the battle scene with the information to the civil population to move to safer places. The ensuing fierce fighting through out the next night put the enemy at bay till morning when they broke the western gate of the city next morning by using heavy artillery. The blood thirsty Pak army and tribal marauder entered the city around 8 a.m. in the morning. Under chaos and confusion people ran around terrified and the city was set on fire by the invaders. Soon poison was distributed to the women to end their lives and not to fall into the hands of enemy. Many who didn't get the poison were done to deaths with swords by their fathers and bothers. The dance of death continued till afternoon and at the end of day 18000 people were slaughtered in most barbaric way of the human history by Pak army and tribls. Five thousand people most of them women and children were taken hostages and taken to Alibeg Gurudawara Sahib which was converted to a concentration camp. Only 2000 people could reach Janger on foot and then escorted by Indian army to Jammu refugee camp. The hapless women and young girls abducted went thorough worst sex orgies of rape and violence. The whole of Mirpur was latter dugout to loot the wealth worth billions of Rupees beside gold and silver.

The other towns of Jammu province as Rajouri fell on 10th of Nov. where the population swell from 6000 to 11000 with the influx of refugees from the adjoining villages. Most of population was done to death and less than 100 could escape the jaw of death.

http://www.dailyexcelsior.com/

[Airavat]

^^^^Mirpur refugees await relief

This once blooming town was ultimately submerged into the Mangala dam of Pakistan. After three to four days’ wearisome foot march, the survivors of Mirpur reached the Indian Army camp at Jhangar. Although no one among us was lucky enough to have escaped with all his family members, they were, in fact, better off than the rest, who fell to the enemy bullets, were captured and held as captives at the Alibeg camp.

It is an irony of fate that the demands of Mirpuris are still in the melting pot. It is not the case that they are without sympathisers or well-wishers. A former Chief Justice, Dr Mehr Chand Mahajan, was Prime Minister of J&K when Mirpur was captured. He was married at Mirpur and most of his relatives had sacrificed their lives during the attack.

From the memoirs of Mehr Chand Mahajan, Looking Back:

"We requested the prime minister of India to give us arms and ammunition, four battalions of infantry, an armoured unit and a few tanks. The PM sent for the C-in-C and the Chief of General Staff. One of them came to Pandit Nehru's house after dinner and we sat in conference for three hours. The chief said that the arms needed by us could not be spared, and the battalions we needed were busy elsewhere in the work of evacuation.

I continued, however, sitting dharna at the PM's house and eventually succeeded in getting a Gorkha battalion flown to Jammu and another battalion sent there by road........Before this battalion could march on to the relief of Mirpur, the Pakistanis captured that town, murdered a number of persons, and looted all the property there. The citizens flew to save their lives. A number of them somehow managed to reach Jammu. Most of the young people and influential men were killed either by the raiders or by the local Muslims. Some of my very near relations were among the killed as they were not able to get away in time."

The dance of death continued till afternoon and at the end of day 18000 people were slaughtered in most barbaric way of the human history by Pak army and tribls. Five thousand people most of them women and children were taken hostages and taken to Alibeg Gurudawara Sahib which was converted to a concentration camp.

Mahajan further describes why these captives could not be saved:

"Ghulam Abbas, the leader of the communal Muslim Conference had been put under arrest (by Maharaja Hari Singh). Sheikh Abdullah met him a number of times in the jail and suggested that he should be released . I was against his release as he had indulged in pro-Pakistan activities. Sheikh sahib thought otherwise. A considerable number of persons from Mirpur had been kept in a camp by the Pakistanis......Abbas promised Sheikh Abdullah that he would see that all the Mirpur prisoners in the camp were released and sent to Jammu.......as soon as he reached Sialkot, he made a thundering speech full of venom against India. Of course the prisoners of Mirpur were not released".

[Airavat]

In fact the whole Pakistani invasion could have been prevented had PM Nehru accepted Maharaja Hari Singh's accession offer in September. The Nehru ideologues have since then cleverly tried to shift the blame on the Maharaja, but the truth was well-known to the earlier generations. Even on BR there is widespread ignorance on Hari Singh's September accession offer.

x-post from JLN thread

Could you elaborate more on what accession offer was made in September? Did the Maharaja make some offers that Patel, Menon and Nehru found too hard to grant given that they did not want to treat one State differently from the other?

The Pakistani invasion began way back in September in the Jammu region. The various units of the J&K army were besieged in towns like Mirpur, Kotli, Jhangar, Rawlakot, Poonch, etc where they withstood the Pakistani invasion till November when they were relieved by the Indian Army. In late October the Pakistanis invaded the Kashmir region, whose story is well known, but the battles and massacres (of Hindus and Sikhs) in Jammu region are less well known. The coup in Gilgit and the invasion of Baltistan (siege of Skardu) and Ladakh are also less well known.....these took place in October-November.

On the accession offer Mehr Chand Mahajan writes (page 126 of Looking Back):

"In Delhi in company with Sardar Baldev Singh, the Defence Minister, I saw Sardar Patel the Home Minister on 19th September.....I also met Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the Prime Minister of India, and I told him the terms on which the Maharaja wanted me to negotiate with India. The Maharaja was willing to accede to India and also to introduce necessary reforms in the administration of the State. He, however wanted the question of administrative reforms to be taken up later on. Panditji wanted an immediate change in the internal administration of the State and he felt somewhat annoyed when I conveyed to him the Maharaja's views."

Another book worth reading on the whole Partition saga, and the J&K war, is "The Shadow of the Great Game" by NS Sarila, who in 1947, was ADC to Mountbatten.

Sarila writes:

"The most formidable obstacle in Pakistan's path was Maharaja Hari Singh. He had absolutely no desire to accede to Pakistan. It was no secret to Jinnah that the replacement of Pandit Ramchandar Kak as the Prime Minister of J&K by Mahajan in the middle of September 1947 signified that Hari Singh had decided to accede to India....

....Meanwhile, the matter of the state's accession to India was being delayed only because of Prime Minister Nehru's insistence that the Maharaja hand over power to Sheikh Abdullah and install a fully representative government before any further step could be contemplated. Hari Singh was unwilling to do so."

[svinayak]

^^^^Mirpur refugees await relief

This once blooming town was ultimately submerged into the Mangala dam of Pakistan. After three to four days’ wearisome foot march, the survivors of Mirpur reached the Indian Army camp at Jhangar. Although no one among us was lucky enough to have escaped with all his family members, they were, in fact, better off than the rest, who fell to the enemy bullets, were captured and held as captives at the Alibeg camp.

I met somebody in a Kashmir event and he recalled his child hood in Mirpur and Skardu.
He recalls all the events and people around the entire area and how it was changed at the partition.

[Varoon Shekhar]

India and Indians should also take very strongly to task the dry, cold, dishonourable, slimey British writers/commentators of that period, and their acolytes in the present. Whether it is Ian Stephens, L.F Rushbrook-Williams, Ian Morrisson( Times of London correspondent), Alistair Lamb, Owen Bennet-Jones, Christina Schofield, Patrick French, William Dalrymple et al, there is barely a mention of the horrific massacres of non-Moslems in Skardu, Mirpur and other places in POK, or in Jammu, where they wax eloquent about the killings of Moslems by the Dogras and RSS.

And what is keeping Indians from pointing out that there was British connivance with these atrocities, at some level or another? Why should Indians have to hear stuff about "Hindu-Moslem", "India-Pakistan", as if the British were squeaky clean in the whole process.

[Airavat]

Pakjabi Christian convert family's role in Partition

Professor Samuel Burke was born at Martinpur, a small Christian village near Faisalabad (previously Lyallpur). which is now the third largest city in Pakistan. His grandfather had converted to Christianity and his father, the headmaster of a school, wrote poems under the pseudonym Burq ("lightning" in Urdu), which was adopted as the family's surname. He rose to be a High Court judge and, in the closing phase of British rule in India, served as chairman of the three-man election petitions committee for the Punjab, set up to consider appeals against the results of the general election of December 1945 that had pitted the Congress Party, supporting a united India, against the Muslim League, campaigning for an independent Pakistan.

The West Pakistan government offered him a ministry to represent the Christian minority, but he chose to join the newly created Foreign Service. He was given charge of the two most important portfolios: India (with which innumerable partition disputes were in progress), and the United Nations (where the Kashmir dispute was being debated in 1948). In 1952, he was transferred to Washington as counsellor, but was soon promoted to the rank of minister.

Because of recurrent crises with India, Pakistan had decided to request military assistance from the United States, and to earn American goodwill Burke and his English-born wife, Louise, undertook nationwide speaking tours, his own Christian faith helping to undermine negative stereotypes about his country. His efforts soon began to bear fruit. In the food crisis of 1953, the US promptly shipped a large quantity of wheat to Pakistan as a gift.

Burke was appointed to his final diplomatic posting, as High Commissioner in Canada (1959-61), when he signed an agreement for the peaceful uses of atomic energy that enabled Pakistan to buy uranium from Canada. Burke retired from Pakistan's Foreign Service to take up a new chair in south Asian studies at the University of Minnesota. His books include Foreign Policy of Pakistan, and he also advised on the compilation of A Historical Atlas of South Asia. Burke continued to write after he and his wife moved to England, where he died this month, aged 104.

[Pranav]

Pakjabi Christian convert family's role in Partition

Ismailis and Ahmedis played a disproportionate role in creating Pakistan. Not sure what can be said as regards Christians.

[svinayak]

Pakjabi Christian convert family's role in Partition

Ismailis and Ahmedis played a disproportionate role in creating Pakistan. Not sure what can be said as regards Christians.

It is all about favors. During the colonial rule a large percentage of the elite got favors and benefits from ruling class.
This class only survived on favors and loyalty and it help generations in the family.
When the partition was agreed they had to make a decision for which side of the line had butter(or more butter).
One of the activities of the Muslim league was to convince all the key people that the butter was in their side of the line.
They has a system and a plan to go after rich families and key influential people who could influence the British and the west. This was their system of survival and to this day Pak state follows the same system in diplomacy.

[chetak]

Dated article but still something that proves that the pakis know the truth in their heart of hearts and yet continue to resent us for our progress, liberalism and increasing power while they rapidly ski downhill as a national policy.




http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.as ... 2004_pg3_4

Monday, August 30, 2004

LETTER FROM LONDON: Demons from the past —Irfan Husain

Whether we like it or not, neither geography nor history can be changed. While both countries have engaged in rewriting the past to suit their respective agendas, the facts cannot be erased. Both Muslims and Hindus have to live together as neighbours, and in India, as citizens

In a tranquil place like St Andrews, there are not many distractions, so I have been reading lots of history and trying to reflect on its lessons. For some time now, I have been interested in the dynamics of Hindu-Muslim relations, and the impact of ancient enmities and grievances on current Indo-Pak relations.

We have forgotten much of our past, but it nonetheless affects our daily lives.

For instance, when we now think of the Afghan city of Kandahar, we equate it with the Taliban. But its original name was Gandhara, and it was a part of the ancient Buddhist civilisation with its capital city in Taxila. Swat, Peshawar and the Kabul Valley were all included in this thriving, peaceful community that had absorbed Mediterranean culture brought to the subcontinent by Alexander, and before him, by Greek mercenaries and traders.

While it was no utopia, it was a stable, prosperous civilisation that threatened none of its neighbours, and has bequeathed us a wealth of artefacts that attest to its high level of cultural development.

The reason I mention this period of history is to try and understand the bitterness that must exist in many Hindu minds over the Muslim conquest of their country. In his Story of Civilisation, Will Durant writes: “The Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest in history”. While historical events should be judged in the context of their times, it cannot be denied that even in that bloody period of history, no mercy was shown to the Hindus unfortunate enouh to be in the path of either the Arab conquerors of Sindh and south Punjab, or the Central Asians who swept in from Afghanistan.

The Muslim heroes who figure larger than life in our history books committed some dreadful crimes. Mahmud of Ghazni, Qutb-ud-Din Aibak, Balban, Mohammed bin Qasim, and Sultan Mohammad Tughlak, all have blood-stained hands that the passage of years has not cleansed. Indeed, the presence of Muslim historians on their various campaigns has ensured that the memory of their deeds will live long after they were buried.

Seen through Hindu eyes, the Muslim invasion of their homeland was an unmitigated disaster. Their temples were razed, their idols smashed, their women raped, their men killed or taken slaves. When Mahmud of Ghazni entered Somnath on one of his annual raids, he slaughtered all 50,000 inhabitants. Aibak killed and enslaved hundreds of thousands. The list of horrors is long and painful.

These conquerors justified their deeds by claiming it was their religious duty to smite non-believers. Cloaking themselves in the banner of Islam, they claimed they were fighting for their faith when, in reality, they were indulging in straightforward slaughter and pillage. When these warriors settled in India, they ruled as absolute despots over a cowed Hindu populace. For generations, their descendants took their martial superiority over their subjects for granted. When the British exposed the decadence of the Moghuls and seized power, the Muslims — especially the aristocracy — tried to cut deals with the new rulers to ensure that they would be treated differently from the Hindus.

It has been argued by some historians that Pakistan was really created to ensure that the Muslim ruling class would not be subject to Hindu rule in an undivided India. But having created Pakistan, the ruling elites promptly started lording it over the Bengalis of East Pakistan. What, after all, is the point of being descendants of Tughlak, Aibak and Mahmud if there is no under-class to persecute and exploit?

This, then, is the Hindu perspective of the Muslim invasion of their country. After centuries of first Muslim and then British rule, they are finally in charge of their destiny. For the first time in modern history, Indians feel that they can play a role on the world stage in keeping with their numbers and the size of their country.

Pakistan, especially its establishment and military, is smarting from successive military defeats and the steady diminishing of its international image. Due to their long domination of much of India, the Muslim elite in Pakistan feels it has some kind of divine right to be treated on a par with India.

With this psychological and historical baggage, both sides are unable to engage constructively with each other. Many Hindus feel they have centuries of humiliation to avenge. And a substantial number of Pakistani Muslims are secretly convinced that they are inherently superior to the Hindus.

One irony, of course, is that contrary to their wishful thinking, the vast majority of Muslims in the subcontinent have more Hindu blood in their veins than there is Arab, Afghan, Turkish or Persian blood. Many of the invaders took Hindu wives and concubines. And many Hindus converted to Islam to further their military or civil service careers. As a result of this intermingling, despite proud boasts of pure bloodlines, most Pakistanis have many Hindu ancestors.

This reality makes the Hindu-Muslim divide all the more bitter, for it pits brother against brother. And as students of Moghul history are aware, this is perhaps the bloodiest kind of conflict. By ties of consanguinity, culture, geography, and history, there is far more that unites than divides Indian Hindus and Muslims. But the politics of self-interest, too often garbed in the banner of faith, has pushed them far apart.

Why resurrect these ghosts from history? Because until we have confronted the demons from our past, we cannot understand the dynamics of contemporary events. As India and Pakistan go through the intricate steps of peace talks, each side needs to know what makes the other tick.

Whether we like it or not, neither geography nor history can be changed. While both countries have engaged in rewriting the past to suit their respective agendas, the facts cannot be erased. Both Muslims and Hindus have to live together as neighbours, and in India, as citizens.

A study and understanding of the past will promote better understanding between the two communities. It is important that Hindus grasp the central fact that their Muslim neighbours cannot now be held responsible for the persecution of their ancestors, and Muslims must face the fact that they are not the political heirs of the emperors Babar and Akbar.

Time is a great leveller; it is also a great healer.

The writer is a freelance columnist

[Karna_A]

One irony, of course, is that contrary to their wishful thinking, the vast majority of Muslims in the subcontinent have more Hindu blood in their veins than there is Arab, Afghan, Turkish or Persian blood. Many of the invaders took Hindu wives and concubines. And many Hindus converted to Islam to further their military or civil service careers. As a result of this intermingling, despite proud boasts of pure bloodlines, most Pakistanis have many Hindu ancestors.

The founder of Pakistan, Iqbal was from a Hindu Brahmin family.
http://kashmirblogs.wordpress.com/2009/ ... relations/

He acted like Shakuni. To destroy the muslim upperclass forever as a revenge against his grandfather's forced conversion, he devised a convoluted country from acronyms. The original(and appropriate) name proposed was PakSHITan, though its not too far now from its well thought of name.
The country has become like an Iron Man, only thing is its got only Shit inside. The unfortunate neighbors have to constantly smell the horrible smell. Now the smell reeks the whole world. Only the chinks with Gunpowder in their noses, and others with camel dung can tolerate them and that also so they are as far as possible from them.

The only reason world is wary of killing this Iron man is that it'll splatter its shit all over, and its a matter of time when world finds that better than this rusted iron man leaving its dirty footprints all over the world.

[Pratyush]

Guys,

I am in the middle of reading the book The Man Who Devided India by Rafiq Zakira. The picture that is being painted of the Quaid is distinctly unflatering. It is a sad commentary that such a man was allowed to claim himself as the voice of all the pre partition Indian Muslims. When he claimed no more then a hand full of votes.

Also he (Rafiq Zakira ) blames Maluna Azad for his failings as well, as per the book the Maulana could have taken down Jinnah but he did not follow through the initial attack he made on Jinnah. If the maulana had followed through. Then he may have succeed in detaching a substantial portion of Muslims from the League. Weakening them. This is the assessment of Rafiq Zakira.

But the primary blame for partition is to be born by Jinnah and Jinnah alone as per the author. It was his insatiable Ego. Which made him want to be seen as an equal of Gandhi. Without having even a fraction of his ability and mass appeal.

Some people have said that if Nehru had agreed to two muslims in the UP cabinet partition could have been avoided(Maulana Azad is notable for saying this in his book India gains indipendence.). The author contradicts the Maulana and one of the men ( Chaudhary? In his book the Road to Pakistan? Also contradicts the Maulana ) that it would have made a difference to Jinnah. That partition could have been avoided. By that point of time Jinnah was too far gone to be moved by such gestures.

Also the description of the deliverance day and the speech of BR Ambedkar on that occasion in Mumbai (Bombay). Paints Ambedker in a negative light ( I have not read the concerned speech by Ambedker himself.)

The remaining chapters deal with the negotiations for and the aftermath of the partition along with one chapter on the Mush. Will comment on that tommorow.

[SSridhar]

Also he (Rafiq Zakira ) blames Maluna Azad for his failings as well, as per the book the Maulana could have taken down Jinnah but he did not follow through the initial attack he made on Jinnah. If the maulana had followed through. Then he may have succeed in detaching a substantial portion of Muslims from the League. Weakening them. This is the assessment of Rafiq Zakira.

I have read Rafiq Zakaria's book. His book is a must read for anybody who wants to understand Jinnah. But, on the issue of blaming Azad alone, I would differ.

I suggest that you also read Maulana Abul Kalam Azad's book (written in 1957 much before Zakaria's) titled, "India Wins Freedom" (Orient BlackSwan, ISBN 9788125005148).

Azad says that it was Gandhiji who, by attempting to have an understanding with Jinnah and arranging a meeting with him on the Hindu-Muslim issue, committed a political blunder. Gandhiji also elevated Jinnah to a high pedestal by addressing him "Quaid-e-Azam". Jinnah published this letter soon in the press leading Muslims to believe that If Gandhiji himself addressed him so, it should be true. They developed a new respect for Jinnah at the time 'when large sections of Indian Muslims were doubtful about Jinnah and his policy', in the words of Azad. "It gave a new and added importance to Jinnah which he later exploited fully", again in the words of Azad. I think what he was referring to is the insistence by Jinnah to Lord Wavell in the Simla Conference that the INC can appoint only Hindus to the Viceroy's Executive Council and Muslim members can only be nominated by the Muslim League. This led to the breakdown of the conference etc.

On the whole, I find Azad's approach, when he was the President of the INC, were practical and realist, whether it was the Quit India movement, siding with the British in war efforts, Cripps mission etc.

[Pratyush]

SS,

Once I finish this one I will start with the Maulana's book.

Thanks

[ramana]

Also there is tendency of the writers of that age to focus on small faults and blow them out of proportion.

Maulana Azad was quite all round guy unlike Jinaah who was single dimensioned.

I don't care fro Rafiq Zakaria, a Nehru family hack, of what he thinks about Indian leaders.

[Yayavar]

SS,

Once I finish this one I will start with the Maulana's book.

Thanks

It is good and the new edition has the pages that were withheld in the first (Maulana's stipulation).

[svinayak]

Maulana Azad was quite all round guy unlike Jinaah who was single dimensioned.

What he was saying was that Jinnah was not a natural choice. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad' had better chance of being the leader and would have taken even larger section of the pre partition muslims together and then bargained more.

Jinnah being small minded shortened the life of Pakistan since majority muslims are not in Jinnahs Pakistan. Even now majority Muslims even now do not want to identify with Jinnah in the sub continent.

Did MKG had a long term plan in endorsing Jinnah?

A Hindu leader MKG actually influenced the appointment of the leader of the Muslim league.

[Prem]

[quote="Acharya.
Did MKG had a long term plan in endorsing Jinnah?[/quote]


Lets say Jinnah was a true patriot.

[ramana]

Maulana Azad could never command the population fo the Western British India. He wasn't a rabid , antediluvian and mad mullah but a reasonable scholar and a historian. He was no Shah Walliullah or Sirhindi type nutcase. All those guys are wannabe, crytpo-Prophets. They all wanted to become new defacto Prophets in Indian sub-continent. All hardliners are that onlee and thus unIslamic.

[svinayak]

Maulana Azad could never command the population fo the Western British India. He wasn't a rabid , antediluvian and mad mullah but a reasonable scholar and a historian. He was no Shah Walliullah or Sirhindi type nutcase. All those guys are wannabe, crytpo-Prophets. They all wanted to become new defacto Prophets in Indian sub-continent. All hardliners are that onlee and thus unIslamic.

He could 'pretend' and then ML could have been led into a united India keeping the British out of the mutual understanding.

Churchill and his emissaries built their own network inside the ML and its financiers and made sure that the labor govt does not relent to INC. This will become apparent when the time line of the negotiation from 1940 to 1947 is built.

Did Churchill get connected to Jinnah after 1940 or they were in touch from 1900-1930s is something we need to find out. The entire relationship between Churchill/Tories with Muslim league has to be figured out to find a solution to the 'current' problem.

Internal politics of Britain in WWII played an important role in the partition of India.
Internal rivalry between UK and USA in the 1940s played a role in the partition of India.
Geo -politics of the period 1945-1950 of the WWII played an important part of the partition of India.

[Mauli]

Maulana Azad was quite all round guy unlike Jinaah who was single dimensioned.

A similar Sufi saint who died a mere 79 years before Waliullah’s birth, was Ahmad Sirhindi (1564-1624). He was always foaming at the mouth against Akbar’s policy of peace with the Hindus. He proclaimed himself the Mujaddid-i-alf-i-sãnî, ‘renovator of the second millennium of Islam’. Besides writing several books, he addressed many letters to several powerful courtiers in the reign of Akbar and Jahangir. His Maktûbãt-i-Imãm Rabbãnî have been collected and published in three volumes. According to Professor S.A.A. Rizvi, “‘Shariat can be fostered through the sword’ was the slogan he raised for his contemporaries.”7

A few specimens should suffice to show the quality of this man’s mind. In letter No. 163 he wrote: “The honour of Islam lies in insulting kufr and kafirs. One who respects the kafirs dishonours the Muslims… The real purpose of levying jiziya on them is to humiliate them to such an extent that they may not be able to dress well and to live in grandeur. They should constantly remain terrified and trembling. It is intended to hold them under contempt and to uphold the honour and might of Islam.” In Letter No. 81 he said: “Cow-sacrifice in India is the noblest of Islamic practices. The kafirs may probably agree to pay jiziya but they shall never concede to cow-sacrifice.” After Guru Arjun Deva had been tortured and done to death by Jahangir, he wrote in letter No. 193 that “the execution of the accursed kafir of Gobindwal is an important achievement and is the cause of the great defeat of the Hindus.”8

Sirhindi ranks with Shah Waliullah as one of the topmost sufis and theologians of Islam. Referring to his role, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad has written in his Tazkirah that “but for these letters Muslim nobles would not have stood by Islam and but for the efforts of Shaikh Ahmad, Akbar’s heterodoxy would have superseded Islam in India.”9 Later on, when K.A. Nizami published a collection of Shah Walilullah’s letters addressed to various Muslim notables including Ahmad Shah Abdali, he dedicated it to Maulana Azad. The Maulana wrote back, “I am extremely happy that you have earned the merit of publishing these letters. I pray from the core of my heart that Allah may bless you with the felicity of publishing many books of a similar kind.”10 That should give us a measure not only of ‘Muslim Revivalism’ but also of many Maulanas who masqueraded as ardent nationalists in order to fight the battle for Islam from within the Indian National Congress.

http://voiceofdharma.org/books/muslimsep/ch6.htm

[surinder]

A story that many might know happened in Rawalpindi.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VljaL0UOG-E&NR=1

Very touching. If you can understand Punjabi, then it is heart-rending. Seeing a 70 year old man recall the events of how the partition drama was played out on the hapless.

[SBajwa]

A story that many might know happened in Rawalpindi village.

The village is "Thoh Khalsa" in Capital region of naPakistan. The village name is still the same. check the map

http://www.maplandia.com/pakistan/f-c-t ... ha-khalsa/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoha_Khalsa

Though the name is still "Khalsa" but there are no Khalsas living in the village.

[pran]

A story that many might know happened in Rawalpindi.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VljaL0UOG-E&NR=1

Very touching. If you can understand Punjabi, then it is heart-rending. Seeing a 70 year old man recall the events of how the partition drama was played out on the hapless.

Very touching ...
I heard first hand accounts from my dad who was 13 year old at that time and survived a village massacre on the eastern side of this partition while hiding under water breathing through the stem of a colocasia plant that grows on the banks of rivers and ponds. He later moved to India from Chandpur(Comilla) and and left me a memory of his life and struggles of those times.

[surinder]

SBajwa, I was sure I had read about it in the past, and after reading the Wikipedia link you posted, i was reminded where. I read this account in Urvashi Butalia's, "The Other Side of Silence", a good book on Partition, incidently.

I don't know if it is the same incident, but there is another one where women jumped into a well. Nehru visited that well after partiton.

Pran, from my family comes many such incidents. One such is where a women called "Chachi Ji" by the whole mohalla was known to have thrown her infant daughter while fleeing from newly-created TSP when a gang was going to approach. There is another where a group of men & women were fleeing the Musleim mobs and were in a field. In the dark they heard and saw a gang approach. Fearing that they are about to be attacked by the mob yelling gowd is great, they quickly slay all their women and prepared to fight the mob. The mob, apparently, had not seen them and did not attack them. The women had been killed in vain.

[Anindya]

If you go to the URL below, you will see several instances of women jumping into wells to avoid violation.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/704

[Prem]

Almost every second family in Punjab has similar story of loosing family members and the willing sacrifices of women to avoid violation of their body. Rape is a big weapon in the hands of ROPErs and used very frequently since there is no sin in raping Kuffar women . OTOH, Indics are complete opposite to this kind of behavior where one 's own family will punish the culrpit if he ever indulge in this kind of violation. TNT has so much truth build into it yet our PSers deny this self evident truth and hide the facts.

[surinder]

^^^

There are two observations:

1) The huge array of cases involving women saving their honor by dying indicates that the people of the area knew what it means when women are captured. People do not do these unless compelled by circumstances. These people knew the preference of certain faiths to do certain nasty things to women. This is the historical, cultural knowledge that our political correct INC-driven history seeks to erase. It is discouraged and considered to communal to simply state this fact.


2) Reading partition violence reports/literature, it is obvious that ordinary street thugs had support and encouragements of the senior ML leadership. The thugs were not brave men rising to the occasion and brazenly demanding Hindu/Sikh girls---they were acting on what they were told by ML leadership. The ML leadership was in turn acting on what was told to them by the British. The 1947 violence had a direct link to the British aiding and abetting it.


From this link by Anindya:

I met after this meeting Disney, the Anglo-Indian Deputy Commissioner, and told him about the panic felt by Hindus and Sikhs at the contemplated Muslim attack. But he only gave vague assurances that all was well. But we felt that all was not well.

I accidentally saw in the secret drawer of the D. C’s Indian Christian stenographer a long list containing the names of all prominent Sikhs of the town and of some Hindus.

The million plus British Indian army could have been called, if there was even the slightest desire of the British to quell the riots. There was no effort to resettle the Hindus-Sikhs. In fact, if there is any action and alacrity shown, it is towards evacuation and resettlement in India proper.

The British lost not even a single life in 1947, unlike 1857.

I hold the British singularly responsible for this massacre.

[Pratyush]

Guys,

I have been trying to locate this book "India Wins Freedom" (Orient Black Swan, ISBN 9788125005148). for the past one month but have not been able to locate it in NCR. Cab some one help me with the Ebook of the same.

Its on google books as a preview.

It is also online on India Wins Freedom (The complete version) as complete text but cannot be downloaded.

[brihaspati]

The British seemingly were working on a definite plan :
(1) They penetrated successfully each and every armed resistance groups with a very few exceptions. All of a sudden they suddenly failed to have insiders and agents within ML which was actively preparing for an armed confrontation using demobilized Muslim soldiers from the BIA after the war - is unbelievable.

Question - Is the significant role of ex-BIA muslim soldiers in organizing and leading the armed gangs of ML an indicator of a covert plan from the British to physically liquidate opposition to its carving out plans for India? The continued links between active duty British army officers in some cases of Muslim led atrocities in the north-west an indicator of a plan that had been hatched much earlier? Were the soldiers actually working under instruction from higher command and MI that changed the direction that the ML was taking during the war years? That the whole Partition was stage managed by the British Intelligence?

(2) Only two provinces were significantly affected initially, and a third affected after the experiment proved successful in the first two large ones.

Question : Were the British clearing the rump India of two populations most likely to prove difficult politically for whoever they selected to continue the "British" state structure and coercive machinery based at Delhi?

(3) The Congress proved more or less intransigent for almost all of the War. Things changed suddenly at the close of the war. There appears to be nothing more than a virtual capitulation to British demands and manipulations on key issues on which Congress had resisted "violently" and obstinately just a couple of years before - including Partition.

Question : What pressure point did the British find in the 2-3 years from the sudden but typically Gandhian "withdrawal" of mass agitations in the second half of 1942 to end of 1945, that made Congress so pliable - on such points as the Partition? Was it the possible fear of loss or lack of control over the Indian part of the army from Congress side? Was the Congress afraid that the British state machinery that would be important to establish control over the country could itslef be destroyed by a popular uprising where politically motivated lower strata of the army and disgruntled or opposing political forces within the country led?

[I have already pointed out in the JLN thread that according to most positive estimates - at most only 17% of all adults in India were eligible to vote in the provincial legislatures and the last elections that was the primary legitimization basis for Congress and the Constituent Assembly - moreover even within this only the rich, landholder and higher educated male dominated in proportion].

Personal fears ? Like the threat of a "Bose" reappearing? Could the legend of Bose itself be partly a result of British highlighting? Why did British intelligence fail to prevent Bose's departure through India and NW - it was a pretty long journey! Was it actually necessary to allow or facilitate this move to ship him out of the country? INA itself appears to have been penetrated by the Brit intelligence in Singapore. For Bose it would have been much easier to slip out through "east" - what made him or encouraged him to try Berlin (and USSR)? Was the legend of his living on deliberately encouraged to keep the pressure on those who felt nervous at the prospect of Bose's return?

[svinayak]

(3) The Congress proved more or less intransigent for almost all of the War. Things changed suddenly at the close of the war. There appears to be nothing more than a virtual capitulation to British demands and manipulations on key issues on which Congress had resisted "violently" and obstinately just a couple of years before - including Partition.

Question : What pressure point did the British find in the 2-3 years from the sudden but typically Gandhian "withdrawal" of mass agitations in the second half of 1942 to end of 1945, that made Congress so pliable - on such points as the Partition? Was it the possible fear of loss or lack of control over the Indian part of the army from Congress side? Was the Congress afraid that the British state machinery that would be important to establish control over the country could itslef be destroyed by a popular uprising where politically motivated lower strata of the army and disgruntled or opposing political forces within the country led?

Did the British use the power of money and promise of long term support to INC as a incentive for them to accept the "freedom"

[ramana]

Bji, One has to layout the events since 1850 Lord Dalhousie and his Doctrine of Lapse which started the growth of the EIC territory.
- Lord Macaulay and his bringing Maxmuller
- 1842 First Discovery of Indus ruins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilization)
- 1856 Crimean War, Italian unification movement
- 1857 war
- 1860s WW Hunter and his analysis of Muslims
- Founding of Aligarh, Doeband, INC
- Growth of Bengal Revolutionaries
- 1905 Partition of Bengal
- 1906 Founding of Muslim League
- 1911 Imperial Durbar and shift of capital form Calcutta to Delhi
- 1914-1919 WWI
- Irrigation projects in West Punjab
- 1920s Understanding of Indus Valley civilization
- Swadesh movement
- 1939-1945 WWII
- 1947 Partition
- 1947 INC rise to power

Following the Partition of India, the bulk of the archaeological finds were inherited by Pakistan where most of the IVC was based, and excavations from this time include those led by Sir Mortimer Wheeler in 1949, archaeological adviser to the Government of Pakistan. Outposts of the Indus Valley civilization were excavated as far west as Sutkagan Dor in Baluchistan, as far north as at Shortugai on the Amudarya or Oxus River in current Afghanistan.

Add the points made by surinder and you that the area was cleaned out of potential recalcitrants by Partition.

[svinayak]

Bji, One has to layout the events since 1850 Lord Dalhousie and his Doctrine of Lapse which started the growth of the EIC territory.
- Lord Macaulay and his bringing Maxmuller
- 1842 First Discovery of Indus ruins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilization)
- 1856 Crimean War, Italian unification movement
- 1857 war
- 1860s WW Hunter and his analysis of Muslims
- Founding of Aligarh, Doeband, INC
- Growth of Bengal Revolutionaries
- 1905 Partition of Bengal
- 1906 Founding of Muslim League
- 1911 Imperial Durbar and shift of capital form Calcutta to Delhi
- 1914-1919 WWI
- Irrigation projects in West Punjab
- 1920s Understanding of Indus Valley civilization
- Swadesh movement
- 1939-1945 WWII
- 1947 Partition
- 1947 INC rise to power

From 1911 till 1930 the capitol New Delhi was built according to the masonic principles.
Only after 1930 - Iqbal and Jinnah decided to commit to Pakistan and joined ML full time.
ML wanted assurance from the British that they will be supported long term. They knew by 1920 that new map of the country will be done with Delhi, Agra and Lucknow being the region for their 'country' and AMU the center of their intellectual elite.

Following the Partition of India, the bulk of the archaeological finds were inherited by Pakistan where most of the IVC was based, and excavations from this time include those led by Sir Mortimer Wheeler in 1949, archaeological adviser to the Government of Pakistan. Outposts of the Indus Valley civilization were excavated as far west as Sutkagan Dor in Baluchistan, as far north as at Shortugai on the Amudarya or Oxus River in current Afghanistan.
Add the points made by surinder and you that the area was cleaned out of potential recalcitrants by Partition.

The AIT and the new history was promoted to create a mfg history to re build a fake history. It has been quite successful

[A_Gupta]

K.M. Munshi had the following to say (1957)(The End of an Era - Hyderabad Memoirs)
(emphasis added)

"The Indian National Congress, the architect as well as the instrument of Indian nationalism, was for several decades dominated by Mahatma Gandhi and his devoted band of followers, both Hindus and Muslims. It exercised great self-restraint. But for it, Muslim separativeness would have led to the growth of fierce Hindu aggressiveness.

When the transfer of power from the British to Indian hands became a clear possibility, the separativeness which dominated certain sections of Muslims found expression in their growing demands. They wanted separate electorates; communal weightage; then, a balance of Hindu-Muslim provinces in the Federal government; later, a claim to equality of representation with the Hindu community. ...Ultimately when freedom was at hand, this separativeness took the shape of a blunt refusal to live in the same country and a determination to establish a separate homeland......

....Once Pakistan was conceded and the Congress installed in office in New Delhi, communal fanaticism lost its hold over vast sections of the Hindus. The fanatic impulse among most of the Muslims who remained in India was also curbed, at least on the surface.

But these new developments created little impression on the North Indian Muslims of Hyderabad....The Ittehad, inspired and dominated mostly by the Indian Muslims was also aided by local adventurers. Its natural ambition, therefore, was to build a modern fascist centre of communal aggressiveness in India on the crumbling edifice of the State....Their object, scarcely concealed, was to establish Islamic domination, with or without the aid of Pakistan, first of Hyderabad, then of the South and ultimately of the whole of India.

Had this attempt succeeded, it would have precipitated so powerful a Hindu sentiment as to have spelt the end of a free democracy in India. It would have also arrested its march towards a modern democratic state. The end of the Ittehad, therefore, served to bury this potential catastrophe once for all.

...If Hyderabad had remained unintegrated with the rest of India, the country would have felt outraged. The communal fascism of the Ittehad would have developed into a civil war between the communities. The Muslims of India, who had been accepted as an integral part of our democratic society, would have come to be looked upon as hostiles.

...By the Police Action, the people of India not only met an internal challenge; they fulfilled the destiny which had been denied to them by the accidents of history.

With the close of the Hyderabad episode, therefore, an era came to an end.

I read this as teaching in part that self-restraint - the curbing of aggressiveness - is a necessity that the Indian leaders recognized, and so they actively cultivated this. It may have made them appear weak at times, but they were into conflict avoidance.

Mr Jinnah, on the other hand, called for Direct Action. Of course, he himself insisted that Direct Action be peaceful, but he knew what his community was thinking. Letters to Jinnah were about "where will we get ammunition for direct action?", "will Mussalmans abroad help us?" and so on.

[svinayak]

http://www.cfr.org/interactives/CG_Paki ... /timeline/

Check the timeline for Muslim League

[brihaspati]

A_Gupta wrote
I read this as teaching in part that self-restraint - the curbing of aggressiveness - is a necessity that the Indian leaders recognized, and so they actively cultivated this. It may have made them appear weak at times, but they were into conflict avoidance.

It is wonderful to play self-restrained when the costs are not being directed at self, isnt it? The wonderful self-restraint that urged Bengali Hindus to calmly face liquidation and not to resist their women being raped - somehow could no longer be adopted when "Kashmir" became a target. What happened to self-restraint then?

There have been many a cowardice, and cynical hidden hatred or distaste or jealousy for regions/languages/communities/rivals that have masqueraded under lofty words and statements. The test comes when real reactions come out and steps taken or not taken. Same self-restraint should have been shown about the Hyderabadi and nizami Razakars. What a pity and what a fall from lofty self-restraint - which was to be shown only when Sikhs and Bengali Hindus were massacred or raped.

Mr Jinnah, on the other hand, called for Direct Action. Of course, he himself insisted that Direct Action be peaceful, but he knew what his community was thinking. Letters to Jinnah were about "where will we get ammunition for direct action?", "will Mussalmans abroad help us?" and so on.

So self-restraint was aimed at preventing "fierce Hindu" revival, and thereby allowed Jinnah and the Pakistan project to succeed. Is the claim that a "Hindu revival" would have automatically prevented growth of democracy and modernization justified or reasonable? No one disagrees that pre-Islamic and even non-Buddhist India advanced tremendously in technology, science, and representative forms of government and democracy as feasible in that age and period of social development. So that bit about "Hindu" would automatically prevent democracy/modernization is solidly along the denigration that Islamist or Christianist imperialism always preached about "Hindus".

[svinayak]

Is the claim that a "Hindu revival" would have automatically prevented growth of democracy and modernization justified or reasonable? No one disagrees that pre-Islamic and even non-Buddhist India advanced tremendously in technology, science, and representative forms of government and democracy as feasible in that age and period of social development. So that bit about "Hindu" would automatically prevent democracy/modernization is solidly along the denigration that Islamist or Christianist imperialism always preached about "Hindus".

Being Hindu is backward, not progressive and will not promote democracy and representative forms of government is part of the image the British built and continued after independence. This colonial false perception is part of the EJ groups also.

[A_Gupta]

FYI, in its Working Committee Meeting, New Delhi, 10-11th feb 1940, the All India Hindu Mahasabha "was of the definite opinion that it [the communal problem in India] should be immediately referred for settlement to the League of Nations".

[A_Gupta]

Karma is a she-dog. At a time when Pakistan is double-crossing Uncle Sam, it is appropriate to go back in time. As per Volume XIII of Z.H Zaidi's Jinnah Papers, item 190, a resident of Trinity Lodge, Karachi, Agnes St. Ives-Currie, wrote to Jinnah on 24 June 1946:

"The American soldiers, whom we entertained every Sunday on the Scotch Church lawn after the service, asked me how they could tell a Muslim from a Hindu. I told them that a Muslim stands straight in front of you, looks straight in your face and gives you a straight answer. The Hindu wriggles about like a snake, never look straight in the face, or never gives you a straight answer. They assured me they would always be able to tell a Hindu from a Muslim by my description."

Now hopefully they realize that the Pakistanis are lying to them looking straight in the face.

[RajeshA]

"The Hindu wriggles about like a snake,.."

Discomfort with outside pressure

".. never look straight in the face,.."

Discomfort at lying

".. or never gives you a straight answer."

Acknowledges, that there are no easy answers!

"I told them that a Muslim stands straight in front of you,.."

Always willing to do the others bidding

".. looks straight in your face.."

That is how one lies unashamedly

".. and gives you a straight answer."

Since one doesn't plan to fulfill any part of the bargain, all one needs to do is to name the price and to make a promise, one does not intend on keeping!

[A_Gupta]

http://observingliberalpakistan.blogspo ... ndian.html

Jinnah's interview with Norman Cliff, of the News Chronicle, March 30, 1946; on the eve of the Cabinet Mission negotiations.