Bharat Rakshak

ShauryaT wrote:And Shudras became Kshatriyas! I have my own view of what was caste, in medieval and early India but when you get a chance please go through these materials among others. If you approach the official history books with some skepticism and shed the foreign views from which they are written from and adopt an Indic view of the issue, they will make a lot more sense.

Thanks again.

Being prone to existentialism, I am averse to Gospel Truths or blind faith and hence, maybe a sceptic.

I get overwhelmed by gushing exuberance over ideas that appear unconvincing and history, be it Indic or otherwise tends to be agenda driven and the perception is of the one who is writing or narrating.

For instance, the Germans have been trashed in WWII. But the real truth?

The Battle of Agincourt is taken to be a great victory for the smaller English Army over the French, but then it is also believed that the French Cavalry was impeded because there had been a heavy downpour bogging them and making the easy targets for the English archers. Tell it to the English and they will say it is balderdash. Why I used this example is because I read this a few months earlier and it has become indelible in my mind as to how the victors can change history or suit it for their own purpose and then it becomes the Gospel Truth.

I don't wish to veer this thread off the track and so I will not elaborate. To my mind all these Indic and stuff is another overdrive as much as the feeling that Muslims were not holding large swathes of area and that they were no conquerors and Hindus had not been vanquished.

I rather face the truth and the British days and its effect on the Partition are close to time; and there are still people alive who can state the reality of the events as they saw them. Hence, to believe that the Muslims preferred not to integrate with the Raj and thus were left out of the race for empowerment, (while the Hindus did) and that not being a factor for their (the Muslims) high insecurity of being swamped by the Hindus, is too much of a spin!

Sudhras became Brahmins?

That again is news. Though OT (and I hope I have the other posters indulgence) I thirst for knowledge that is verifiable and not myth and this also excites and so I would love to know.

I commanded Mahars and they are quite political and aggressive about all this, but they did not mention this. I am sure Ambedkar who has trashed Hinduism would have mentioned since he has left no stones unturned to ensure their place in the sun!

I believe when I have facts that are verifiable as far as feasible and not mere statements.

RayC wrote:I believe when I have facts that are verifiable as far as feasible and not mere statements.

There is nothing new in what ShauyraT posted RayC, only suppressed. The cross movement of castes slowed down in Islamic times and ceased completely in British.

Even Shivaji and the and the Maratha's were not Kshyatirya to begin with in the classic sense of caste, which status a lot of Maratha's claim now.

As far as verifiability is concerned I think its Agincourt in reverse, all our history is the british history and to some extent Mughal history, it is the other history which has not been given due recognition, however we are going OT here and need to get to some other thread to continue this.

Sanku

I am not contesting that Brahmins became Ksatriyas or the Scheduled Caste became Brahmins. Who knows?

I want proof so that should I say so in public and not in a forum, I am not laughed in the face!

I want proof.

Without proof, it is bogus.

I would also concede that I know little, but then statements passed should be backed up for people like me, who are here not to pass time, but to get educated!

All this Indic and non Indic does not impress. They are, as far as this thread is concerned, is merely conjectures and as it appears to laymen like me, merely agenda driven!

I understand the Mahar psyche since not only commanding them, I have had interaction with the Republican Party to appeal to them to help my troops and have had long discussions. Therefore, I am amazed that they or anyone else never mentioned that the Sudhra had become Brahmin. After all, for politicians it is a huge brownie point!

Aside, in jest, many have said that the Shudras have become "Constitutional Brahmins" since they have many privileges. Is that what is being meant?

I want all to forgive me for my trespasses, but when I find something that is not the general belief, it is something I start delving into since knowledge is what I desire.

I have requested some Moderators who are software savvy to make another thread on this.

RayC wrote:Without proof, it is bogus.

But you have to read the book to look at the proofs in question, Brig RayC. Once you read them we can discuss if they are bogus or not. That will be a full discussion in itself. It can not be contained in a few throw away lines.

All this Indic and non Indic does not impress. They are, as far as this thread is concerned, is merely conjectures and as it appears to laymen like me, merely agenda driven!

Well the fact remains that what we know commonly of history is definitely agenda driven (look into the distorted history thread for references by the writers of the history on their agenda even in modern India), unfortunately onus of proof gets on the party which paints a different picture.

I have requested some Moderators who are software savvy to make another thread on this.

There already is one in the General discussion forum. You may want to read up the pages which already exist or at least scan through them, it is heavy going.

Which book?

Yes all the Hinduvta and Indic stuff is heavy reading since I do not have the background knowledge.

If I had it would be fun.

But thanks all the same!

While I am fiercely a nationalist, yet I would like to do with without an agenda, be it religious or political and instead just for my Nation!

I understand it is getting OT and you are good enough to remind me so, gently as a gentleman.

So be it! Amen and Amin!

I think that if we keep to the words of this thread ,a look back at Partition,from hindsight we can see how the founding fathers of both India nd Pak completely misread the future.Both Nehru and Jinnah firmly believed that India and Pak would be "best of pals",coming to each other's aid if attacked or threatened.Nehru and other Congresswallahs also believed that eventually Pakistan might want to unite again,perhaps under a loose federal structure.If that was the case,why then was Nehru and his compatriots so opposed to a looser federal structure of independent India which was Jinnah's first option? The truth is that Nehru wanted to be first PM of independent India and a "command economy" where his writ ruled.The age and tiredness of the leaders too was an important factor.They wanted to see results in their own lifetime.Nehru wrote later that perhaps they had made a mistake,an honest admission of his role in getting India partitioned.

It is for the people of India and Pak to now carve out an arrangement whereby both nations can live at peace with eacy other.One problem is that we still have old men at the helm of affairs in both countries,who have memories of Partition and their lost lands,relatives,etc.,which cloud their vision.ABV made the most honest attempt at Indo-Pak peace with his gambit,which that bandicoot,Gen.Mushar-rat destroyed at Kargil.Fundamenatl to achieving peace is non-interference in each other's internal affairs,something that Pak must learn first.If it were not for the return of the imperialists,the US and NATO forces in Afghanistan,who are propping up another mischievous Paki administration,that wants their proxy the so-called "good" Taliban (meaning the ruthless Islamist monsters under thier control),Pak might see good sense in making peace with India.At the moment however,with US support and the chicanery of the Anglo-Saxons playing the Great Game again,more tension and conflict is the most likely result.

>>>Without proof, it is bogus.
That is a far leap. If there is no proof, then one can not say it is bogus either. It could be a theory or opinion without substantiable evidence. One could also say it is just a belief or faith (again unsubstaniable paradigm comes into the picture). The usage of 'bogus' in such cases only means that there is already preconceived notions on the particular subject.

SwamyG wrote:>>>Without proof, it is bogus.
That is a far leap. If there is no proof, then one can not say it is bogus either. It could be a theory or opinion without substantiable evidence. One could also say it is just a belief or faith (again unsubstaniable paradigm comes into the picture). The usage of 'bogus' in such cases only means that there is already preconceived notions on the particular subject.

No let that argument be, just turn it around and ask for the "proof" of the more accepted historical theories, the result shall be fascinating.

Sociologists such as Bernard Buber and Marriott McKim describe how the perception of the caste system as a static and textual stratification has given way to the perception of the caste system as a more processual, empirical and contextual stratification. Other sociologists such as Y.B Damle have applied theoretical models to explain mobility and flexibility in the caste system in India.[37] According to these scholars, groups of lower-caste individuals could seek to elevate the status of their caste by attempting to emulate the practices of higher castes.

Flexibility in caste laws permitted very low-caste religious clerics such as Valmiki to compose the Ramayana, which became a central work of Hindu scripture.

According to some psychologists, mobility across broad caste lines may have been "minimal", though sub-castes (jatis) may change their social status over the generations by fission, re-location, and adoption of new rituals.[38]

Sociologist M. N. Srinivas has also debated the question of rigidity in Caste. In an ethnographic study of the Coorgs of Karnataka, he observed considerable flexibility and mobility in their caste hierarchies.[39][40] He asserts that the caste system is far from a rigid system in which the position of each component caste is fixed for all time. Movement has always been possible, and especially in the middle regions of the hierarchy. It was always possible for groups born into a lower caste to "rise to a higher position by adopting vegetarianism and teetotalism" i.e adopt the customs of the higher castes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_in_India

It's even incorrect to say inter caste marriages were not allowed. Fact is one cannot marry within the same Gotra or it's adjacent jatis/ gotras. Look up some of those ads in papers and see for yourself. The best proof of Caste mobility is modern India. You don't need to refer to a scholar, you can see the proof around you and in this forum also. Caste differences vanish mysteriously in one generation when people move from village to city. Village caste issues are mostly land based ones. Fights over ownership and class based issues. It vanishes when deprivations are removed. Ever seen a market for Brahmin only restaurant? Or Kshatriya only restaurant? Even in small towns..? None.

' Why Jinnah was buying Air India’s shares in March 1947 ’

Imagine the undisputed leader of Muslim League, which was fighting for separate Muslim state, was buying the shares of Air India Ltd in the month of March, 1947. Almost five months before India was divided on the basis of religion.

That it is a well-known fact that by March 1947, both the Congress and the Muslim League were agreed that India would be partitioned. In the light of this fact, how can one explain Jinnah writing to his share brokers and estate agents that very month buying 500 shares in Air India Ltd. And showing keen interest in the purchase of "Sandow Castle", described as "a large property near Bombay with 18 acres of land and with an unrestricted view of the sea".

Jinnah, a Khoja Muslim from Gujarat, was very money minded person and not at all frugal as his community is known for.

Historian Zafar Iqbal, who has researched Jinnah extensively in his stint as an IAS officer in Mumbai, says that there was nothing wrong for him to buy shares of Air India or any other company in normal times.

“ I was really surprised and rather baffled that he was buying shares of the then blue chip company like Air India Ltd.It was really unexplainable what prompted him to buy shares when it was sure that he would have leave India for Pakistan within couple of months,” Zafar Iqbal said. It may be recalled that Air India was the Tata group company when Jinnah was buying their shares. It was looked after by great JRD Tata,a friend of Jinnah.

This startling fact about Jinnah’s keen desire to buy Air India’s shares is revealed in Jinnah Papers: Pakistan - Struggling for Survival, 1 January - 30 September 1948, Editor-in-Chief Z.H. Zaidi; Qauid-i-Azam Papers Project, Government of Pakistan; distributed by Oxford University Press, Pakistan. That Jinnah was very money-minded person was also once confirmed by Mrs.Dinesh Nandni Dalmia, noted novelist and wife of Seth Ramkrishan Dalmia.

She once told this writer that Jinnah used to discuss only money matters during his meetings with her husband. Both were great pals. Politics was big no. Mrs. Dalmia met Jinnah many times and she was very much there when Jinnah decided to sell his 10 Aurangjeb Road mansion to legendary Ram Krishna Dalmia

Deleted. ramana

{For those who are wondering, NO, I do not find this post or the sentiments expressed therein to be acceptable on any civilized forum. But out of respect for the admins who started/ are interesting in continuing this thread, I am deferring to them for action to take. I have reported the post.}

All who try to reconstruct the Partition as a problem of the past, best not revisited and forgotten - or worse still, "take lessons" and "move on" - are either confused to a high degree or succumbing to a propaganda as old as the British in India.

Partition is very much a problem of the present and of the future for the following reasons:

(a) The driving forces behind the Partition have not gone away and are very much alive and kicking. These are Jihadi aspect of Islam, the British (and as a political inheritor - the Anglo-Saxon "world") strategic interests in IO and the Indian subcontinent, Saudi and Sunni push for world domination and preferably reviving a Caliphate in anticipation of peaking oil - to derive alternative means of survival by the older Caliphate style control of trade networks bewteen the east and the weat, a vast pool of non-Muslim elite and intellectuals who fall into the British started trap of believing in the fairy tale of their own cultural, political, and military impotence and emasculation.

(b) Partition remains two different narratives for India and Pakistan. For Pakistan, it was a victory, a symbol of national identifcation and justification for existence, a redeeming of Islamic pride in being able to loot, rape, and commit genocideof the non-Muslim, but an incomplete and unfinished national project also. Partitions serves as the elixir to treat all diseases in Pakistan. It is a justification for all that is worth protecting in TSP from the Islamic viewpoint, and also the clue as to why because of its incomplete nature - Pakistan has all its problems even now.

For India, it is something to be erased from memory, as demanded by Nehruvian shortsightedness. Which means not facing up to the real causes of the Partition, and not recognizing the continuing factors that drove Partition in the first place. But this attitude could also hide a much deeper fault of the Indian thought process as established by the colonial regimes. This is a refusal to challenge regime claimed versions of history - especially where such versions are constructed to protect the image of individuals, because political power in India is allowed to be based on "heritage" and "legacy". The Congress will forever be touchy about anything that goes against Nehru - becuase current and future legitimacy of Congress in politics is dependent on the continuous genealogical heritage from Nehru. The BJP has been drifting towards a similar stance - where it has tried to approipriate the heritage of MKG and Patel.

Reanalyzing Partition ruthlessly from the Indian side is also a political struggle for the present and future of the Indian political framework - to get rid of the false premises of current Indian politics that is drifting towards personality cults.

^^ Don't know what to say, but yesterday and today too, we posted similar posts on different threads. On similar issues. I posted something similar to that effect on the tsp thread..

Partition was a natural product, it had to happen. It happened 63 years ago. JS would have maken a mark if he wrote why 65 years hence we cannot or can prevent another partition. That would be more meaningful..his analysis is disonest. It does not take Islams doctrines in purview.

Philip wrote:
I think that if we keep to the words of this thread ,a look back at Partition,from hindsight we can see how the founding fathers of both India nd Pak completely misread the future.Both Nehru and Jinnah firmly believed that India and Pak would be "best of pals",coming to each other's aid if attacked or threatened.Nehru and other Congresswallahs also believed that eventually Pakistan might want to unite again,perhaps under a loose federal structure.If that was the case,why then was Nehru and his compatriots so opposed to a looser federal structure of independent India which was Jinnah's first option? The truth is that Nehru wanted to be first PM of independent India and a "command economy" where his writ ruled.The age and tiredness of the leaders too was an important factor.They wanted to see results in their own lifetime.Nehru wrote later that perhaps they had made a mistake,an honest admission of his role in getting India partitioned.

Did Jinnah misread the future? Why did the bonhomie of palhood diasppear immediately after 1947? Why was J&K attacked? Or was that tuberculosis had reached the last stage and MJ was not able to keep his promise of palhood? Seems unlikely. Or was it that "higher force" was working to get a foothold of the strategic areas for future toehold in the subcontinent and safeguard the the Indian Ocean and the oil wells from the Soviets? In any case the brit and paki plans converge. It would be interesting to see what were the secret dispatches between brits and pakis in the 1947-48 period. N.S.Sarila seems to have some answers to these questions.

The concept of "loose" federation meant that provinces and princely states had the right secede away in the coming decades. A sure recipe for disaster and fuel for future civil wars, isn't it? But irrespective of "partition" or "loose federation", the brits had their strategic goal safeguarded - i.e., a toehold in the Indian subcontinent. So while JLN may have been gushing at prospects as future "world" statesman and partying with Edwina, Patel and V.P.Menon immediately saw through the "loose federation" trickery. Otherwise, Cahudhary Rahmat Ali would have been laughing in his grave, since his dream of DINIA would have been achieved.

What is JS's analysis, harbans, and why is it dishonest?


1 ) Consider, what reasons are there for us to analyze partition?

A ) Is it just a historical analysis, without assuming/ thinking it can never happen again?
B ) Is it a historical analysis, assuming/ thinking it can happen again?
c ) Plain historical analysis without any assumptions at all.

It's not C, as JS himself eliminates saying it's not an academic venture.
If it's A then it's not a complete analysis. Nothing to rave about. Nothing to learn from.
I haven't read anwhere if he's discussed the B option in any excerpt. I think you've read the book, so fair enough to ask you has he?

Whenever we discuss something so drastic as the partition, i think doctrinal factors must be taken into account, for what motivates a pork eating, whisky guzzling 'hypocrite' to become a bastion for partition. I have not read an excerpt so far on him delving into doctrinal imperatives that were quite dominant in the partitioning. The doctrine is the DNA, the doctrine is the RNA, the charter which governs every individuals relationship with another.

He joined the Congress Party and for a while worked for Hindu-Moslem unity. In 1921, he abandoned the Congress to build the Moslem League and to work for a separate government for Indian Moslems. The walls of his meeting halls blazed with such slogans as: "Make the blood of slaves boil with the force of faith!" and "Make the small sparrow fight the big hawk!" He would stalk into meetings wearing his "political uniform"—native dress with a black astrakhan cap—and whip the Moslems into a frenzy. Sometimes, in his fury, his monocle would pop out of its socket. After meetings, he would go home, change to Western clothes and be again the suave Western lawyer.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... -1,00.html

One never can explain that, without delving into doctrine. Thats not what JS has done. And it's not an academic exercise either.

Also...

“I am an Indian first second and last.”
Advice to young Raja of Mahmudabad
Circa 1925

Mohammed Ali Jinnah

Partition was not a clash of ego and personalities. These were natural byproducts of a clash of doctrines.

harbans wrote:

Sociologists such as Bernard Buber and Marriott McKim describe how the perception of the caste system as a static and textual stratification has given way to the perception of the caste system as a more processual, empirical and contextual stratification. Other sociologists such as Y.B Damle have applied theoretical models to explain mobility and flexibility in the caste system in India.[37] According to these scholars, groups of lower-caste individuals could seek to elevate the status of their caste by attempting to emulate the practices of higher castes.

Flexibility in caste laws permitted very low-caste religious clerics such as Valmiki to compose the Ramayana, which became a central work of Hindu scripture.

According to some psychologists, mobility across broad caste lines may have been "minimal", though sub-castes (jatis) may change their social status over the generations by fission, re-location, and adoption of new rituals.[38]

Sociologist M. N. Srinivas has also debated the question of rigidity in Caste. In an ethnographic study of the Coorgs of Karnataka, he observed considerable flexibility and mobility in their caste hierarchies.[39][40] He asserts that the caste system is far from a rigid system in which the position of each component caste is fixed for all time. Movement has always been possible, and especially in the middle regions of the hierarchy. It was always possible for groups born into a lower caste to "rise to a higher position by adopting vegetarianism and teetotalism" i.e adopt the customs of the higher castes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_in_India

It's even incorrect to say inter caste marriages were not allowed. Fact is one cannot marry within the same Gotra or it's adjacent jatis/ gotras. Look up some of those ads in papers and see for yourself. The best proof of Caste mobility is modern India. You don't need to refer to a scholar, you can see the proof around you and in this forum also. Caste differences vanish mysteriously in one generation when people move from village to city. Village caste issues are mostly land based ones. Fights over ownership and class based issues. It vanishes when deprivations are removed. Ever seen a market for Brahmin only restaurant? Or Kshatriya only restaurant? Even in small towns..? None.

We are talking about the past as to why the Hindus and Muslims were mutually exclusive leading to union of mind and motive, resulting in one of the factors for the Partition.

What you say is right and what we see today.

Yet, since the issue has been raised, there are X Hindu Hotels, and Y Muslim Hotels, not just in small towns, but also in cities. Further, in South India, Non Veg restaurants (small) are known as Military hotel!!

You can't marry in the same gotra and in present times, the girl has to be 'adopted' by most probably the uncle so that the gotra change.

Coorgs are a quite distinct lot.

As far as the Partition is concerned, it appears that the teas leaves were correctly read and whatever happened, maybe is for the good.

^^ Ray ji, i was just giving a supportive POV to this statement b Sankiji.

There is nothing new in what ShauyraT posted RayC, only suppressed. The cross movement of castes slowed down in Islamic times and ceased completely in British.

It is not true that marriages between Hindus and mUslims did not take place. But the Islamic regimes, including most "enlightened ones" viciously intervened and forbade marriage of Muslim women to Hindu men. They demanded, abducted, and forced Hindu women to get married to Muslim men. In fact the famous "Sufi" founder of Azmeer Sharif actually married because he had dream that chastised hime fro being without a wife, and he simply married the abducted daughter of a local Hindu rajah who was captured on a night attack by a Muslim army commander (an indication that the oh-so-peaceful Sufi success could have been closely relaed to proximity of Islamic armies).

There was one brief period in Kashmir, when a Muslim sultan gave his daughters in marriage to Kashmiri Hindu nobles of his court, although it is not vey clear that there were no hidden conditions of conversion. However, the reaction in edicts and firmans of Jehangir and ShaJahan indicate that conversion was not included in the condition, and they were outraged at this.

The Islamic regimes enforced this one way traffic of women from the Hindu into the Muslim. Why is it so difficult to unerstand that the Hindu might have simply internalized the effects of the trauma the Islamic rulers visited upon the family and community if a Hindu man dared to marry a Muslim woman without converting first - that they closed themselves off to marital interaction?

Ibn Battuta gives eye-witness accounts of the Sultan’s arranging marriages of enslaved girls with Muslims on a large scale on the two Ids – “First of all, daughters of Kafir (Hindu) Rajas captured during the course of the year, come, sing and dance. Thereafter they are bestowed upon Amirs and important foreigners. After this the daughters of other Kafirs dance and sing and the Sultan gives them to his brothers, relatives sons of Maliks etc. On the sixth day male and female slaves are married.” Ibn Battuta writes: “At (one) time there arrived in Delhi some female infidel captives, ten of whom the Wazir sent to me. I gave one of them to the man who had brought them to me, but he was not satisfied. My companion took three young girls, and I do not know what happened to the rest.”

In medieval India, beautiful women captives of Muslim warfare were kept mainly as sex-slaves called kanchanis, kanizes and concubines. Muslim nobles exchanged them widely and frequently and Hindu nobles shared in this practice of “taking” Muslim women. In the Delhi Sultanate, according to Nizamuddin Ahmad, “Musalman” women were taken by the Rajputs and sometimes taught the art of dancing and singing and were made to join the “akharas”. Muslim women from the palace of Malwa Sultan entered, between 1512-1518, the household of his nayak or captain Medini Rai. Sultan Mahmud Sharqi (1436-58 ) was accused of handing over Muslim women to his “kafir” captains. Similarly, the Muslim ruler of Kalpi and Chanderi, shortly after 1443, had made over Muslim women to some of his Hindu captains. Malwa was not an exception. In Kashmir, according to Jonraj, Shah Mir had gone to the extent of marrying his daughters to his Brahman chiefs.

Muslim military power being more effective, Islamic rulers in general discouraged Hindus from taking Muslim women. Sher Shah, represented by modern Hindu historians to be a “liberal”, broke his treaty with Puran Mal of Raisen because of the latter’s “gravest of all offences against Islam” in keeping some Muslim women in his harem. The Mughals demanded and freely married Hindu princesses (The liberal Jahangir writes this openly in his autobiography), but there is not a single instance of a Mughal princess being married to a Rajput prince. Akbar discouraged all types of inter-communal marriages. When Jahangir learnt that the Hindus and Muslims intermarried freely in Kashmir, and both give and take girls, (he ordered that) “taking them is good but giving them, God forbid”. And any violation of this order was to be visited with capital punishment. Shahjahan ordered that the Hindus in Kashmir could keep their Muslim wives only if they converted to Islam. Therefore, under him, 4,000 to 5,000 Hindus converted in Bhadnor alone. (there are similar references in Gujarat and Punjab)

Hindus sometimes rescued Hindu girls forcibly married to Muslims. Many Hindu Rajas and elite kept Muslim women in their seraglios, sometimes as a symbol of revenge and continued to capture Muslim women wherever they felt strong. Khafi Khan and Manucci both affirm that the Marathas used to capture Muslim women because, according to them, “the Mahomedans had interfered with Hindu women in (their) territories”.

There are some interesting connections within the basic factors identified in a previous post. Here is a window into the thinking of the leadership at the time through the interview of

Ram Parkash Kapur, 75. Interviewed on 20 October 1999 at his residence in Delhi. Mr
Kapur comes from an affluent upper class family of publishers and entrepreneurs of
Lahore. He is a publisher and an industrialist and lives in Delhi.
.....
I tell you what happened during those days. Nehru was in Lahore just before the 14th
of August. He met with a number of Hindu notables at the residence of Bhim Sen Sacchar. In
the meeting he was told by all those who were present that circumstances were such that no
Hindu will be able to stay on in Pakistan. Panditji replied that Hindus had lived under the
Mughals in the past; they could do it now under the Muslim rulers of Pakistan. My father
said: ‘Panditji at that time, Hindus lived in an undivided India and the Mughals ruled in an
undivided India. They could not have thrown out all Hindus from such a state. Now the
situation is completely different. You are completely cutting off a part of India and giving it
to Pakistan. Here, they want to establish an Islamic state and not simply a Muslim kingdom.
In such a state Hindus will never be safe and they will not be wanted. You should not have
agreed to the division of India.’ Panditji showed visible signs of irritation and replied: ‘You
people don’t understand anything. You do not want the British to leave.’

The problem with Nehru was that he never wanted to go into the details. Moreover, he
wanted to become the prime minister. He therefore accepted the idea of Pakistan and made
Gandhi also concede such a demand. I sometimes think that although Mamdot and Shaukat
were good friends of my father, the riots in Lahore would not have taken place had they really
opposed them. At some point they must have connived at the attacks on Hindus. They wanted
to rule in Pakistan unchallenged by others.

One view, therefore, connecting the issues of intransigence and domination is simply that, the leadership feared the british will delay or won't leave if they continued to not have a solution. Splitting was better than nothing; some reasoned that was good enough, others reasoned that we could get back at some point in time. Some, like Nehru, even suggest, at least through this oral tale, that Hindus should NOT have a problem living their lives under Muslims. A stage was set and I will only examine a few cities in the west where top-down were demands to "hold on," "have no fear" so that the brits could be dispatched. Bottom up, an islamization was growing, rapidly, and these two met in the villages and muhallas of Punjab.

In Gandhi's own words, paraphrased, ...leave us to God. If that's impossible...leave us to civil war. Well, that is exactly what happened in the end. Next up, I will try to see how "century old peaceful coexistence" was turned inside out. That is a complex story in of itself.

S

Some interviews from Noakhali, east bengal:
http://eastbengal.org/noakhali.pdf

To convert the entire Noakhali District into Dar-ul-Islam the first thing that was needed was to break the pillars of the Hindu society. So the Muslims attacked those Hindus who
were influential economically, socially and politically. Swami Tryambakananda of Bharat Sevasram Sangha had told about his eye witnessing of the experience as —
“In 10th October there was a meeting at Begumgunj Bazar in the Muslim area. The main speaker was Golam Sarowar. In front of 15,000 people he used vile language to attack the Hindus. The Police station In-Charge himself was present there but he did not take any action. After his speech the excited mob attacked the Hindu shops. These were looted and burned. They the mob divided into three groups and went away.”
One of the groups attacked the local Zamindar Surendra Kumar Bose’s house. He was killed mercilessly. Then the mob set fire to the office building. A number of women and children were inside the building, they were burned to death. Those who were able to come out were hacked to pieces.

Another group attacked the house of the president of Noakhali Bar Association, Rajendralal Roy. But here the Hindus were united and the Muslim mob was defeated. The furious mob struck at the nearby villages and desecrated the Hindu temples. In the meantime Rajendralal Roy made a written request to the Begumgunj Police Station for help but he did not get any support. Next day at around eight another group attacked his home. Again using his gun he turned them away. He bravely defended his home from three such attempts. But the fourth time the rioteers succeeded. Under the orders of Golam Sarowar the ex-M.L.A. of Muslim League, Rajendralal Roy was killed and then his family was put to death. The head of Rajendralal Roy was exhibited on a silver platter and presented to Golam Sarowar. Under his orders, two of his lieutenants received the two beautiful daughters of Rajendralal Roy as their prizes.
The killing of Rajendralal Roy and Surendranath Bose was well analyzed by the brother of Rajendralal Roy, Prof. M.L. Roy. He was a professor in a College. His analysis was that “The Mussalmans wanted to convert the entire Noakhali District. That is why they attacked those who could fight back. That is the only reason why my family was killed.”52

Gandhiji was asked to take the responsibility of the safety of the Hindus of Noakhali. But he refused to come, because “Ever since I heard the news of Noakhali, indeed ever since the bloodbath in Calcutta, I have been wandering what my duty is God shall show me the way.”59
Not only had he refused to comment on the incitement made by the Suhrawardy Government for the riots, he made it clear that he will only speak at the Congress Working Committee session at Delhi on 23rd October.60
This cowardliness of Congress and Gandhiji was taken up by the Muslim League Government. In a press conference Suhrawardy said “We don’t see any sign of complete disturbance. Generally speaking, there are a few houses which had been damaged.61
In 24th October, a press release was given by the Muslim League. In it they said “There had been no instance of a communal attack on one by another. Only some anti-socials were trying to create disturbance. No instance of rape or violation of women had been recorded. The media was falsely putting up a hue and cry.”62 Jinnah also concurred: “All are false.”63

The then Congress President Acharya Kripalani toured Noakhali and said in his words: “The riots and terrorism at Noakhali and Tripura has a special point which must be noted. The entire thing was done under trained leadership and well planned. Roads had been cut and uses of guns were everywhere. Many anti-socials had been brought from outside. Many thousands of Hindus had been forcibly converted. Thousands and thousands of Hindu women had been raped or forcibly married. The sacred places of the Hindus had been desecrated. Not even the children were shown any mercy. The state government was totally silent and the viceroy had refused to step in.”65

The viceroy had not only refused to do anything but also had commented that the violation of Hindu women in the hands of Muslim were very ‘Normal’. ‘Normal’ because “Large scale abduction of Hindu women (by Muslims) was quite natural since Hindu women were more handsome than Muslim women.”66

To save the Hindus from Muslim attacks Gandhi presented a fantastic Ahimsa formula to the Hindus. He called “the Hindus not to die helplessly. But they are to die without a murmur. Only then the riots will stop.”
He also put forward a call to the raped women not to fight the rapists. “The women must know how to die … women (should) face death bravely and without a murmur. Then only would the terrible killing now going on, stop.”67
This absurd theory was challenged by Congress President Acharya Kripalani. He had been touring the riot area at that time. He called “from what I have seen and heard the day before and yesterday. I am clearly of the opinion that whatever the Government’s provincial or central, may or may not do, every Bengali, male or female, has to defend him or herself.”68

This absurd theory was challenged by Congress President Acharya Kripalani. He had been touring the riot area at that time. He called “from what I have seen and heard the day before and yesterday. I am clearly of the opinion that whatever the Government’s provincial or central, may or may not do, every Bengali, male or female, has to defend him or herself.”68
He also said: “though I am a believer in Ahimsa (non-violence) but still I salute Rajendralal Roy. Each Bengali must know about the fight he and his family put up for two days to keep the attacking mob at bay.”69
In opposing the barbarous attacks on the Hindus of Noakhali, different places of India held movements. In Bombay (Mumbai) the shops stayed closed in sympathy to the dead Hindus. In Banaras the students boycotted classes; Bandhs were observed at Delhi and Patna. In Delhi, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and even in the Muslim League dominated Sindh there was Black Deepavali. The Sikhs and Hindus did not observe the age-old custom of lighting diyas (ceremonial lamps).

samuel wrote:One view, therefore, connecting the issues of intransigence and domination is simply that, the leadership feared the british will delay or won't leave if they continued to not have a solution. Splitting was better than nothing; some reasoned that was good enough, others reasoned that we could get back at some point in time.

Most of the colonized world saw independence come around the years 1946-1950. None had the honor & good luck of having INC, MKG, or JLN to lead them, which means that this was an irrelevant factors---Independence could come even if we did not have these said leaders or their ideology to guide us. Almost all the freedom-gaining nations were not divided, nor was the transfer of power so violent. But that aside, JLN is either lying or had poor judgment---British would have left even if they INC had not aggreed to Partition, aggreeing to Partition was hardly a pre-requisite to Independence.

Now if we are talking of getting Independence (before the mob of other nations go it) then there could be a case. Like Ireland in 1930, or Afghanistan before that. But INC could not get us that freedom.

Abhi_G wrote:Some interviews from Noakhali, east bengal:
http://eastbengal.org/noakhali.pdf

The viceroy had not only refused to do anything but also had commented that the violation of Hindu women in the hands of Muslim were very ‘Normal’.”

Which Viceroy was that?

(Again notice the inaction of the British, the inaction impotence of the British was to repeat in the Partition riots in the Punjab.)

Abhi_G
I am surprised about the Acharya Kripalani quote. In the west, according to news paper reports cited in a previous post, he was saying "stay home," but may be the timeline is such that he finally saw it for what it was.

Surinder -- I agree. Something doesn't add up here. People were being asked to accept, adjust, hold on, so that that one goal could be accomplished. Who was rushing it and why? Was the fear a direct action month or year that lead us, eventually, to hundreds of thousands of deaths?
S

As I have said in a response to Sarma before, the stony silence of otherwose locquacious Nehru & Gandhi is most intriguing. To me that is an evidence that they have something to hide, something they are not proud of. Some backroom understandings were undoubtedly reached, which we don't know about.

Once again, leaders are judged by their ability to project & predict. It is obvious to anyone looking at the independence dates of the indentured nations of Asia & Africa that British departure was all but assured. Claiming that as the reason is bogus.

Secondly, note that Nehru would refuse to collaborate with Bose to eject British, but would give up 1/3 of India to get the British out. What a poor choice.

Samuel-ji

The pdf refers to the Amrita Bazar Patrika which is one of the oldest newspapers from Kolkata. As far as I know it was nationalist to the core. The paper is out circulation since 1986.

harbans wrote:^^ Don't know what to say, but yesterday and today too, we posted similar posts on different threads. On similar issues. I posted something similar to that effect on the tsp thread..

Partition was a natural product, it had to happen. It happened 63 years ago. JS would have maken a mark if he wrote why 65 years hence we cannot or can prevent another partition. That would be more meaningful..his analysis is disonest. It does not take Islams doctrines in purview.

JS should have touched upon the future in 2009 after discussing the past 65 years ago.
Did the INC leadership in 1947 ever imagine that after 54 years (2001) the same western powers would be at the door step and actually occupy land of Pakistan and Afghanistan. If they had any inclination would they have discussed partition.

harbans wrote: 1 ) Consider, what reasons are there for us to analyze partition?

B ) Is it a historical analysis, assuming/ thinking it can happen again?

I haven't read anwhere if he's discussed the B option in any excerpt. I think you've read the book, so fair enough to ask you has he?

I am still reading the book, its a bit thick you know, even if written in a easy conversational style, however he has already mentioned in both print and the recent interview his motivation -- he thinks and claims that partition is an unfinished agenda, for a wide variety of reasons, he was primarily driven by the question "why did we have it and what it did it actually achieve" he then says this lead him to conclude that we have to be careful about the future for the same reasons as past.

So he did not start with a assumption, he started with a personal quest for answers and he says his learning can also act as warning to India.

Whenever we discuss something so drastic as the partition, i think doctrinal factors must be taken into account, for what motivates a pork eating, whisky guzzling 'hypocrite' to become a bastion for partition.

As I said still to early to tell, but he talks of doctrinal and social issues, the first 100 pages are Islam up to Jinhaah period, and the next hundred pages are still exploring early Jinaah and his reaction to doctrine+social milieu.

There were lots of potential pressure points-
(1) possibility of a still living Bose
(2) loss of loyalty of sections of the armed forces - the British perception of this was already there
(3) the need to decimate the troublesome provinces which could be potential challenges to Nehru's personal authority
(4) the concept of regional identifications that thought of Gujarat and UP as the core (the Krishna-Pandava motif perhaps - to keep out Magadha and Madra-Gandhara from dominance) only and Punjab and Bengal to be periphery
(5) extreme fear of the "activist" Muslim and trying to keep them away
(6) lots of damaging material actually collected or concocted by the British secret services on the triumvirate or people closely associated with them

samuel wrote:Next up, I will try to see how "century old peaceful coexistence" was turned inside out. That is a complex story in of itself.

JS has a very intresting take on this, he quotes that we all lived in religious harmony in such and such period 1917-19 but had huge riots in 23,234,26 and 27.

He then says we had delicate Hindu-Muslim compact, of course barring some hick ups and proceeds to justify it by quoting some examples (running into pages) of the few instances that were broken.

It is bewildering in places, he gives pages of example of one thing and then proceeds to say thus we see how good the compact was -- its truly amazing that is.

But anyway there appears to be frivolous compact in the undivided British India (lot of compact in the non British India)

Here, then, is the opinion of another interviewee, from same source.

Pran Nevile, 75. He began his career as journalist, then joined the Indian Foreign
Service and later worked for the UNCTAD. He is author of, Lahore: A Sentimental
Journey. He lives in Delhi.
The communal tension in Punjab and Lahore was fomented by Muslims from UP and Bihar

I was born in Mohalla Molayan, Sutar Mandi inside Lohari Gate. It was a mixed area. We
lived in a Hindu mohalla. Next to us was a Muslim mohalla. There was a woman, Mehtab
Bibi, who used to sew ladies’ clothes. My mother and my sisters had their clothes sewn by
her. At that time, Hindus and Muslims did not eat together, but my father had many Muslim
friends and the men would meet together to discuss, drink and make merry. The womenfolk
followed the orthodox codes and restrictions more strictly. During marriage and other
cermonies the Muslims would send fruit to our homes but not cooked food or sweets. On the other hand, Muslims would eat at our place. These rules were accepted as given and normally did not result in resentment or tension. <An issue of Muslim resentment to Hindu customs arises, but that at another point>

On the other hand, Muslim fruit-sellers, milkmen, vegetable sellers and so on supplied
most of the daily needs in the Hindu localities. When Muslim women entered a Hindu locality
they would lift the veil as a matter of course. Everyone knew how to conduct himself/herself
in such situations.

The inner city of Lahore was indeed a paragon of communal amity and
understanding. <given previous statements, this conclusion is not obvious, but has been repeated by many many interviewees> Later we moved to Nisbet Road. I studied in the D.A.V. School and then at the
famous Goverment College. Government College was truly a centre of cultural freedom and
free mixing among the communities. Its intellectual spirit was cosmopolitan. Hindus were in a
majority, but the number of Muslims had gradually been increasing. Muslims were the landed
gentry of Punjab and for a long time they were not keen on education. The Hindus took to
education much earlier. Later the British began to reserve seats for Muslims. This began in
the 1920s and gradually more Muslims were admitted to the medical and engineering colleges
and they entered the services.

After the Pakistan Resolution of March 1940, Muslim students from UP began to
come to Punjab. They started to poison the atmosphere in Lahore, but until 1946 things
remained calm. The UP Muslims felt that if a Muslim homeland was created they will be the
ruling class. They did not think that Punjabi Muslims would be any match for them.
The
Calcutta Killings and the riots in Bihar added fuel to the fire.
Among the Hindus and Sikhs there was a fear that Lahore could go to Pakistan
because in the district as a whole Muslims were in a majority. In the city proper, Hindus and
Sikhs were in a majority. There were only two buildings on the Mall, which belonged to the
Muslims; Shah Din Building and Ghulam Rasool Building. The latter was in fact under
mortgage to some Hindu. Hindus and Sikhs owned the rest. In Anarkali also it was mainly
Hindus and Sikhs who owned the shops and businesses.

I had joined service in Delhi in 1946, but my parents were in Lahore when the riots
started. One day in June, my father was coming back on a tonga (horse-driven carriage) from
a visit to Mughalpura. A Muslim mob recognised that he was a Hindu from the way he wore
his turban. They were about to attack him when one of them, to whom my father had once
done some favour, stopped the others. In fact he accompanied him all the way to Beadon
Road, where it was safe. Although my immediate family members could leave Lahore safely,
many of my schoolteachers and professors were killed.

My father was in the postal department. He actually opted for Pakistan. When things
became really bad his Muslim friends persuaded him to leave Lahore for the time being and
return when law and order had been restored. On 14 August he boarded the train for Amritsar.
His friends accompanied him to the railway station and found him and my mother seats in a
compartment where many Europeans were sitting. They arrived in Amritsar safely, but for
some three weeks we did not know anything about their whereabouts. My father could never
recover from the shock of leaving Lahore. He was posted in Ambala Cantonment, where he
died in 1954 a heart-broken man at the age of 58.

Jinnah was not basically communal. None of the leaders expected riots of such a
magnitude to take place.

But what explains this view of "all was well and good" by many a interviewee? By what standard? Was resentment within Muslims un-noticed, unheeded? At any rate, the precipitous action came by immigrating muslims from east probably before 40, but certainly around it. Several people highlight this. Worse, as we shall see there are connections to a splinter group of deobandis, those holding up the Muslim League and doing the "ground action" for Jinnah. One theory would try to "absolve" Jinnah of the jihadi approach, but as we shall also see, this is a most suspect hypothesis, his boozing not withstanding. And that is precisely where I am not sure, without the benefit of reading JS' book, how he arrives at this conclusion, too.

S

PS: Sanku, I'd love to get a copy of this, and will rely on your interpretation and articulation till that happens...thanks much.

Interesting insight into the partition of India. Sorry if already posted.

History of Independence & partition of India

Common impression in India and the world is that Atlee and Labour Party were good and wanted to give independence to India after WW-II, but due to differences among Indian leaders, they had to divide the country. This belief is based on British version and is totally false. History books written in Britain, US, and even in India are based on this version. The truth is England did NOT want their raj to end in India. Atlee, Cripps, Labour Party and Churchill wanted British raj to continue in India. The British propagated this version to hide their guilt. One million Indians were killed and 12 million were forced to migrate leaving their homes, where they had lived for centuries due to British plan to partition India. This false version of Indian history is very injurious to India. It is high time that we learn our true history, so that we can defend ourselves and will not repeat old mistakes. Independence was not due to goodwill of England but due to balance of military force.

To understand the history of 1946-1948 period, it is necessary to know a few ideas. Mao said that political power comes from the barrel of a gun. This has been always true in the past, and will remain so in future. Idealism has no place in politics which concerns with power – how to get it and how to use it after getting it. Imperialism used the principle of “divide and rule”. As this became unpopular, imperialism changed its form into neo-imperialism. Divide and rule became “divide and dominate.” The US developed this method of neo-imperialism in the 19th century in South America. Gandhiji used to describe the British policy of divide and rule as monkey justice from an Aesop’s fable. Nehru had written in 1934 in “Glimpses of World History, “it is quite possible that Britain’s visible hold over India might go before long, and yet the economic control might remain as an invisible empire.”

On December 21, 1945 Viceroy Wavell met Bevin and Alexander in London. He writes that Bevin like everyone else hated the idea of leaving India, but Bevin had no alternative to suggest. Bevin said that America was very much worried about India and did not want England to leave India, because of its commercial interests. All this proves that the British and even US did not want the raj to end in India. Many examples can be cited to prove the same point.

There were many reasons put together why Britain had to give India independence. Gandhiji’s Satyagrah movements in 1920s and 1930s, the widespread Quit India movement in 1942, formation of Indian National Army by Subhas Chandra Bose in South East Asia, trial of INA officers, then mutiny of Indian navy and air force, expansion of Indian army to 2.5 lakh to fight expected Japanese invasion of India made Wavell realize that he could not trust the loyalty of Indian army and England could not rule India militarily. To control India militarily, British policy had been to have one British soldier to two Indians in the Indian Army. This changed due to wartime expansion from 210,000 troops to 2.5 million, making Indian army preponderantly Hindu with number of British troops remaining at 70,000. Moreover England had become very weak economically and militarily after war ended. Only one year after it’s declaration of war against Germany in September 1939, it found it had spent most of its gold and dollar reserves. It had to depend on the US for money and arms to carry on the war. Britain’s worldwide empire was based on naval supremacy. After the war the British Navy was not the strongest. Atom bomb appeared as a weapon of war, but Britain did not have atom bombs. Naval ships could be destroyed by aeroplanes.

Hence Wavell made a blueprint of Pakistan in December 1945 and sent it to Secretary of State for India in a most secret letter. This letter has been now made public. The letter reveals that partition was necessary to protect British interests in Asia and NOT Muslim interests as believed in India and Pakistan. Aim was to protect Near East from Soviet expansion to Indian Ocean and oil wells there. The English had been working on creation of Pakistan since1888.

The Cabinet Delegation was sent to India in March 1946 ostensibly to help Indians to become free but really to make Indians agree to Partition. To further this aim, the English made Jinnah start communal riots to prove that Hindus and Muslims cannot live together and the country had to be divided. One million lives were lost in communal riots during 1946 – 1947. Though the British were powerless to control India, they had enough power to create trouble before leaving. Indian navy was much weaker than Royal Navy, which could blockade India and prevent import of many necessary items. To defeat Congress demand for a free united India, they threatened Congress that they would leave India in more than 500 pieces. Sardar Patel had become in charge of Home in provisional national government in September 1946. He read all secret government papers and found how the British were intriguing to make India very weak before departure. He decided that it was better to accept India in two parts rather than many in December 1946. He made VP Menon make a blueprint of partition, which was different from Wavell’s partition plan. It was this plan, which was ultimately adopted in August 1947. Gandhiji had realized the harm to India from partition and declared that partition would take place over his dead body. After hearing Patel’s arguments, Gandhiji agreed to partition on condition that it would be a partition between two brothers. The wily English defeated Gandhiji’s wish by creating Kashmir problem so that the two nations would keep fighting. Patel explained later in November 1947 the logic for acceptance of partition. He said that with Partition 80% of India would be free. India would develop economically and militarily and then take the other 20%.

Partition took place on August 14 and 15, 1947. All top civil and military officers were British in Pakistan. They made a plan for Pakistan to attack Kashmir with some tribesmen and Pakistan Army men in mufti to invade Kashmir on October 20. This made Maharaja and National Conference of Shiekh Abdullah ask for India’s help. After accepting accession, Indian army was sent to prevent the Pak invaders from occupation of Kashmir. As the fighting was going on, Mountbatten asked Congress leaders not to attack Pakistan but to complain to UN. Gandhiji, Nehru and Patel were against Mountbatten’s suggestion, but Nehru had to agree as Britain reduced supply of arms and petrol to India to put pressure to agree to go to UN. As expected, UN, dominated by US and England did not declare Pakistan as an aggressor, but appointed a mediator (i.e. justice monkey). Pakistan was never declared an aggressor and it continues to occupy parts of Kashmir.

To say that Jinnah created Pakistan is a joke. Jinnah had no gun to get political power. Jinnah was ignorant and it allowed the British to use him as a stooge to divide the country. Later Jinnah himself realized his mistake and wanted India and Pakistan to unite just before his death. Jinnah may be called second Mir Jafar.
---

Is the above article correct ?

Brihaspati wrote:

(2) loss of loyalty of sections of the armed forces - the British perception of this was already there

There seems to be some kind of gentleman's aggreement, a clear understanding, that INC will never encourage revolt/mutiny in BIA, it will never honor or request or convass with the Indains in BIA, it will never interfere with BIA recruitment & operations nor give any cause to BIA Indians to mutiny. British were very sensitive to a military challenge. So even after the British left, India (or Nehru) would not accomodate the INA soldiers in IA ranks. Patel encouraged the Indian officers in BIA to remain loyal to British. INC was very much a lapdog in dealings with the mutinous navy men in 1946.

(4) the concept of regional identifications that thought of Gujarat and UP as the core (the Krishna-Pandava motif perhaps - to keep out Magadha and Madra-Gandhara from dominance) only and Punjab and Bengal to be periphery

Could you explain this in more detail. I normally don't think of Gujrat at the core of curent India. To me core of current India is UP, Bihar, MP, Rajasthan (Basically Hindi speaking Indo-gangetic belt.) The theater of action of Krishna & Pandavas was in UP, Haryana, Punjab.

(6) lots of damaging material actually collected or concocted by the British secret services on the triumvirate or people closely associated with them

This seems logical, but do we have some hints or evidence that there was some intelligence material to blackmail the INC freedom fighters? I am not saying I don't beleive it (I do), but some hard evidence will be far batter than a strong hunch.

If, we asked, how is Jinnah absolved of fomenting and sustaining "hindu-muslim" divide, it is not clear what the answer is, it is certainly NOT YES. If we asked, did JLN and MKG put India and India alone first, that leaves us uneasy. The answer, even through a mere hundred or so narratives, appears to be NOT EXACTLY.

How, as those fighting the British, were they so dependent on what the British would or would not choose to give them? Why, putting a facade of Hindu Muslim unity did they shoot themselves in the foot and not come to a conclusion that we needed a different approach to a) keep india united, b) Kick the british out? Did they think it was not possible to do both, by them that is? Would they have failed to produce a united india if British simply packed up and left a "federation" or just "used, as is"

samuel wrote:How, as those fighting the British, were they so dependent on what the British would or would not choose to give them?

What we have to understand that is that Congress was not a party for fighting with the British at all. Its genesis and its existence in 1920s was to actually pertpetuate the British rule and their way of doing it was to encourage the participation of natives and ask the Britishers that they can get much better governance as well as solution to unhappiness in the Indian masses by coopting them and giving them a higher share.

The origin and the tactics of the congress were the loyalist, lets work within the system to improve it approach.

It was the theoretical Zion/Neo of the matrix.

The credit does go to Gandhi in a big way for breaking the mold and taking it mainstream, to become a large vechile for all Indians of all persuasion and hues.

Yet the origins are the strange thing, they keep a inexorable hold on the destiny of the entity. Congress by and large continued to expect that they will ask and the British will give will be the working model.

surinder wrote:

samuel wrote:One view, therefore, connecting the issues of intransigence and domination is simply that, the leadership feared the british will delay or won't leave if they continued to not have a solution. Splitting was better than nothing; some reasoned that was good enough, others reasoned that we could get back at some point in time.

Most of the colonized world saw independence come around the years 1946-1950. None had the honor & good luck of having INC, MKG, or JLN to lead them, which means that this was an irrelevant factors---Independence could come even if we did not have these said leaders or their ideology to guide us.

Or it could mean that the empire was held together by India, and India did the heavy lifting for all the colonies (expect Ireland, they did their own)

Gandhi's suggestion to Hindu victims in Noakhali according to the New York Times report....psy-ops or a premonition of things to come.

QUIT NOAKHALI OR DIE, GANDHI WARNS HINDUS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noakhali_riot

Shravan looks very plausible. The immediate goal was to get rid of the British and the latter were doing their best to ensure their stay in some part of "India" even if its Pakistan. Olaf Caroe, in the Great Game book by Brobst, is quoted as saying the "India " they need is what is now TSP.

Abul Kalam Azad in his book recounts how every divisive move was counterd to prevent further rancour. Looks like the British ace in the hole was their officers in charge of TSP and the Kashimr invasion the effects of which is still there even now. The rancour increased because of this invasion and latter terrorism.

Another factor keeping the embers of this wound is the Anglo-Saxon support for TSP in its intransiegence. The knowledge that they have their backing is what pushed the TSP mulims to do those atrocites and contiune in their uncivilized behaviour even now.


surinder, Lt Gen P.S. Bhagat was in-charge of Gandhiji's security during his confinement in Pune and was advised by him to stay on in the Army as India needed people like him once she gained Independence.

samuel wrote:There are some interesting connections within the basic factors identified in a previous post. Here is a window into the thinking of the leadership at the time through the ’ Panditji showed visible signs of irritation and replied: ‘You
people don’t understand anything. You do not want the British to leave.’

One view, therefore, connecting the issues of intransigence and domination is simply that, the leadership feared the british will delay or won't leave if they continued to not have a solution. Splitting was better than nothing; some reasoned that was good enough, others reasoned that we could get back at some point in time.

Nehru was given a option by the British that freedom will not come if the demands of the ML was not met or discussed. This is the blackmail that British had on India and Indian leadership had to decide.

Jinnah was given an assurance by the British that ML will supported if ML has a separate Pakistan or ML is inside the United India.

surinder wrote:As I have said in a response to Sarma before, the stony silence of otherwose locquacious Nehru & Gandhi is most intriguing. To me that is an evidence that they have something to hide, something they are not proud of. Some backroom understandings were undoubtedly reached, which we don't know about.

Once again, leaders are judged by their ability to project & predict. It is obvious to anyone looking at the independence dates of the indentured nations of Asia & Africa that British departure was all but assured. Claiming that as the reason is bogus.

Secondly, note that Nehru would refuse to collaborate with Bose to eject British, but would give up 1/3 of India to get the British out. What a poor choice.

It is correct to suspect some behind the scene understanding during the partition and independence since British were still around in the world having just won the WWII with America as the leading power to take over the British role in the world.

The power group which is behind the Allies which won the WWII is also behind the UK govt during the partition negotiation. They may have given assurance to Nehru and INC that they will be supported for 50 years in all major international world body such as UN and Nehru will be given a global voice and platform for his vision. This high publicity to non-alignment movement and Nehru must be seen from this context.

UK may have also given assurance to India from threats by any neighbors or threat from the former colonial powers. India kept a low defense budget till 1965 war and could do so only under certain assumption. Keeping Bose out of the freedom movement was also a negotiated agreement with the British leadership so that armed struggle is avoided.

What about the money and treasure the Viceroy transferred to Great Britian in 1940-1942 to support the sagging British Pound? These were called "Sterling reserves". India was owed ~ $15B by Great Britain(per Dean Rusk or some such US envoy) which was never repaid. Yes there were antique and surplus ships and wepaons that were sold to India in the 50s , but this was paltry compensation for the "sterling reserves" that were lost to GB. In one sense the latter "Hindu rate of growth" of the post Independence decades was because of the empty Exchequer that India was left with. So in addition to the land and people sacrifice India bought her freedom from the British.