A look back at the partition

[brihaspati]

viv ji,

let's not jump so fast on what Sardar might have been thinking. it's not so simple. it all sounds sweet when we hear things like "gangrenous part needs to be cut off" or "wise man saves half when he sees the whole thing dying" and other stuff like that.

Patel, it seems, was advised by British intelligence working under him that if Patel thought of being more forceful with the Muslims, then India would "loose" North West India. Patel simply responded that if the British thought the Muslims could be persuaded by "generosity", then they didn't understand the "Muslim mind".

what does this tell us? for Patel to make such a candid statement, it surely must mean that he was not only aware of the virus of Islamism but perhaps was even calculating the future projection of the Muslims in the subcontinent. he must have realized by that stage that whatever form Partition takes, it was necessary for the Hindus/Sikhs to give a fitting answer to the Muslims via a show of force and violence, if necessary, to convince them to be happy with whatever concessions/land they got and not have any further future designs.

Patel very clearly understood that once the virus of Islamist expansionism was planted in the Muslim mind, appeasement would not work. This is a very significant pointer. We should remember this.

devesh ji,
the spin on this Sardar quote - and probably the reason why it is quoted so often, is to try and interpret the statement as "sardar was already willing to lose NW India". Even when accusing others of trying to interpret motivations by hindsight, this underlying thought process is doing exactly such a stretching spinning exercise. A straightforward implication of the statement is that sardar is merely saying that "giving in" will not be a guarantee of "not losing NW India", i.e., even by giving in NW India could still be lost. The retort does not mean that he is prepared to accept such a "loss". Moreover there would be no point in such a retort - if he had already decided to give NW India up. On the other hand he is indicating that he is not prepared to give up the "pressure". The "pressure" for what ends is something which is not discussed to its logical conclusions. Pressure so that NW India secedes? Pressure to not to give in to ML demands? Why exactly those ML demands were to be resisted - exactly to prevent secession and formation of independent units!

[brihaspati]

Yes, and it lends credence to the general view that the Sardar determined the most prudent action and convinced all, including Gandhi, that partition would have to be accepted.

As I pointed out, the General was merely repeating what was the official regime version of events. However, I do feel bad for poor Gandhiji - who is now being declared to have been "convinced" by Sardar! Ah sardar again - its sardar who convinced everyone about "Partition" - no one else was agreeable, especially not JLN nor MKG.

MKG remained unconvinced. Sardar dissented from him - at first when MKG obstructed acceptance of CMP, and then when Partition was virtually solidly and undeniably confirmed. There is no indication that MKG acknowledges "convincing" by others. He undertook to speak on behalf of the WCC - even while he mentioned that it was CWC proposal and not his.

[ManuT]

Commenting about his thought process around the time Kakori Conspirators were hanged,  in "Why I am an Atheist" by Bhagat Singh written days before his hanging (age 23) in 1931.

(Unfortunately only a few of his writings, smuggled out from his cell, and distributed by various means remain. The intent is not to misquote him, but to relevantly quote him, as the subject matter his writing about evolution of his beliefs.)

"Up to that period I was only a romantic idealist revolutionary. Uptil then we were to follow. Now came the time to shoulder the whole responsibilty. Due to the inevitable reaction for sometime, the very existence of the Party seemed impossible. Enthusiastic comrades-nay leaders began to jeer at us. For sometime I was afraid that some day   I also might not be convinced of the futility of our programme. That was a turning point in my revolutionary career. "Study" was the cry that reverberated in the corridors of my mind. Study to enable yourself to face the arguments advanced by opposition. Study to arm yourself with arguments in favour of your cult. I began to study. My previous faith and convictions underwent a remarkable modification. The Romamce of violent methods alone which was so prominent among our predeccessors, was replaced by serious ideas. No more mysticism, no more blind faith. Realism became our cult. Use of force justifiable when resorted to as a matter of terrible necessity: non-violence as policy indespensible for all mass movements. So much about methods." (goes on to describe marxist ideas)

--
edited a couple of typos

[Sanku]

^^^^

Such clarity.

[ManuT]

This is still 1931, TNT has not entered the narrative yet, and the mass killings have not happened for another 16 years.
He, Bhagat Singh, is fighting for the only India that he knows.


Sir ji this will be slightly OT but just to give a meaure of the man.

"...At such testing moments {death}, vanity if-any evaporates, and man cannot dare to defy the general beliefs, if he does, then we must conclude that he has certain other strength other than vanity. This is exactly the situation now. Judgement is already too well known. Within a week it will be pronounced. What is the consolation with the exception of the idea that I am going to sacrifice my life for a cause? A God-believeing Hindu might be expecting to be reborn as a king, a muslim or a christian might dream of the luxuries to be enjoyed in paradise and the reward he is to get for his sufferings and sacrifices. But what am I to expect? I know the moment the rope is fitted around my neck and the rafters removed, from under my feet. That will be the final moment- that will be the last moment moment. I, or to be more precise, my soul, as interpreted in the metaphysical terminology, shall be finished there. Nothing further. A short life of struggle with no such magnificient end shall be the reward if I have the courage to take it in that light. That is all. With no selfish motive, or desire to be awarded here or hereafter, quite disinterestedly have I devoted my life to the cause of independence, because I could not do otherwise. The day we find a great number of men and women with this psychology who cannot devote to anything else than the service of mankind and emancipation of the suffering humanity; that day shall inaugarate the era of liberty. ..."

[Yayavar]

Yes, and it lends credence to the general view that the Sardar determined the most prudent action and convinced all, including Gandhi, that partition would have to be accepted.

As I pointed out, the General was merely repeating what was the official regime version of events. However, I do feel bad for poor Gandhiji - who is now being declared to have been "convinced" by Sardar! Ah sardar again - its sardar who convinced everyone about "Partition" - no one else was agreeable, especially not JLN nor MKG.

MKG remained unconvinced. Sardar dissented from him - at first when MKG obstructed acceptance of CMP, and then when Partition was virtually solidly and undeniably confirmed. There is no indication that MKG acknowledges "convincing" by others. He undertook to speak on behalf of the WCC - even while he mentioned that it was CWC proposal and not his.

Quite possible that the General is repeating the version he has heard. At the same time he was in the thick of the things though not in the working committee.
MKG remained unconvinced or reluctantly gave in (as I had suggested earlier in the thread) can continue to be debated. It certainly does not imply or mean that he or Patel or others were against Hindus/Sikhs, or had a thing against Pumjabis and Bengalis. That has been implied by some posts in the thread and it is good to dispel such disruptive notions. Things did not work out but it was not deliberate enmity to any part of people of India. There were mistakes and errors of judgement which can be analysed, rued and taken lesson from.

[brihaspati]

viv ji,
disagree about "all" leaders being free of ethnic or sub-regional biases or power-hunger. At least in one case - - when obvious relative valuation of lives are taking place based on religion, [JLN's contrary and completely contradictory as well as deceptive policy statements on treatment of "rioters" come up with respect to Noakhali and Bihar, as well as subsequent statemnets and policy on "Bengal" or even so-called "majority vs minority on accession" - subregional preferences are obvious].

I am sure you will get the repeated posts on "Bengal+Bengali+Bihar+JLN+Partition+riots+Noakhali+refugees+Kashmir" here on this forum, where this has been repeatedly pointed out. Is it that important to preserve devotional worship and a kind of Abrahamic claim of immunity from any critical comment on divinity - so as to ignore these repeated pointers to events+deeds+words from specific icons about these issues? Even when surely you have read about them repeatedly on thsi forum based on actual statements and actions on ground?

[brihaspati]

By the way folks, you can look up and confirm what Sashi Tahroor has written in his book on "constructing" Nehru - regarding the so-called great mystery about so-called US offers to India for UNSC membership. Tharoor apparently writes that he has been told by diplomats who have been privy to documents at the time, that showed that such offers were made. But in 1955, I think JLN made a statement in the parliament - flatly denying that any such offer had been made - on a specific query.

Now one of them must have been telling a lie then - either Tharoor or JLN. If not Tharoor directly then he is at least guilty of subscribing to rumour without proof. The important thing here is not about the so-called offer - but the curious pattern that we cannot ignore about the possibility of truth being hidden, and being blamed later on the yeevil baboos. Surely, baboos would have no role here in "implementing" acceptance or rejection of "offers" had they been really made. Or did they? If baboos had a role then their having a glance on what was offered gains credence.

Again and again, curiously, we have this strange dance of macabre ghostly presence and absence of documents wherever JLN is concerned. Files about Bose - rest with JLN, and then his secretary Yunus. These files then become inaccessible. Files available at a certain stage are reported to be lost/destroyed at a later stage, or too sensitive to be ever made public. Again and again, some higher divinity - completely above mere mortal Indians [who are however completely qualified to authorize rashtryia power - democracy means power comes through people, yadda yadda] decide what is good for Indians to know and what is not good for them to know - and hiding or destroying files [just as the Brits did before they left or Nazis did when they lost] seems to be a wonderfully characteristic business around or by people around this particular icon of ours.

What does it make us feel - that he or people around him had nothing to hide? How do we trust then statements or official blame-games and hagiographies about apportioning of blames about Partition? Especially when we see such consistent attempt to downplay any role of JLN in controversial or disputed decisions [even MKG to an extent] - like for pages and pages we see the attempt to put all initiative on Partition from the congrez side onlee on Sardar, sardar onlee, onlee sardar [JLN had no role, MKG was "convinced" by sardar]. It was sardar who convinced every creature on Indian soil - every crow and owl and rabbit roaming around on Indian soil about the need for Partition!.

[SBajwa]

Why aren't any more memorials created for Shaheed Bhagat Singh? He along with like minded people should be on the face of Indian currency too.

[devesh]

^^^
+1. the streets of Delhi should have names like "Anushilan Marg" in memory of the fallen heroes. one of the things that is floating around in my head is, a future regime needs to add a lot of architecture to Delhi. from the Parliament, as you make your way outwards, in concentric circles there should be statues of prominent icons of India history, including the various heroes of the 20th century who fell to the struggle against the Britishers.

right now, Delhi is planned in this way, the concentric circles acting as "cross-roads". at every such node, there should be a reminder of past heroes and patriots. Chanakya, Shivaji, Ranjit Singh, Nalwa, Madhavrao Scindia, Maharana Pratap, Madan Mohan Malaviya, Sardar, Bose, Bhagat, Kartar Singh, Pulin Das, "imagined" figures of (Chandragupta Maurya, Chandragupta, Samudragupta, Skandagupta, Chach), Krishna Deva Raya, Veerapandya Kattabomman, Ravindranath Tagore, Rajendra Prasad, Hemchandra Vikramaditya, and many many many more.....these came to mind on quick notice. but there are a lot more people who should be memorialized for their contributions and service to the country.....instead of naming streets after Aurangzeb!

[Prem]

Why aren't any more memorials created for Shaheed Bhagat Singh? He along with like minded people should be on the face of Indian currency too.

If indian can use fair and lovely,mental Gora can use the trick of brown and bubbly and become Kaala Angrez and these Kaale Angrez are still in Delhi in cahoot with Suffie saints . To understand GOI aim, any personality whose memory cause the boil in the blood od sons of soil must be banished from Indian memory or to be replaced by Gandhi /Nehru compost.

[Yayavar]

viv ji,
disagree about "all" leaders being free of ethnic or sub-regional biases or power-hunger. At least in one case - - when obvious relative valuation of lives are taking place based on religion, [JLN's contrary and completely contradictory as well as deceptive policy statements on treatment of "rioters" come up with respect to Noakhali and Bihar, as well as subsequent statemnets and policy on "Bengal" or even so-called "majority vs minority on accession" - subregional preferences are obvious].

I am sure you will get the repeated posts on "Bengal+Bengali+Bihar+JLN+Partition+riots+Noakhali+refugees+Kashmir" here on this forum, where this has been repeatedly pointed out. Is it that important to preserve devotional worship and a kind of Abrahamic claim of immunity from any critical comment on divinity - so as to ignore these repeated pointers to events+deeds+words from specific icons about these issues? Even when surely you have read about them repeatedly on thsi forum based on actual statements and actions on ground?

Brihaspati ji

Neither irrational bhakti to one's heroes nor irrational demolishing of other icons is proper . That has and is my point.
The years of India's freedom struggle and partition were intense and different folk reacted differently and often with different agenda. Eventually like ants pulling it moved in the right direction but often the individual ants did pull in contradictory directions. It does not seem reasonable to extrapolate this division to imply evil and devious intent to various leaders or contradictory movements.

JLN's errors of judgement wrt national security, Kashmir etc. have been pointed out many a times on this forum. And I wont defend them. I'm curious where he demonstrates - and I'll certainly look for it myself too - he demonstrates sub-regional or ethnic bias strong enough to be unmindful of loss of life and property in those parts or ethnic groups.

[nachiket]

^^JLN's disastrous policies post-independence may be explained away as "errors of judgement", but JLN valuing lives of Hindus and Muslims differently during the partition riots as mentioned by Brihaspati ji, is definitely not a mere "error of judgement".

[brihaspati]

viv ji,
disagree about "all" leaders being free of ethnic or sub-regional biases or power-hunger. At least in one case - - when obvious relative valuation of lives are taking place based on religion, [JLN's contrary and completely contradictory as well as deceptive policy statements on treatment of "rioters" come up with respect to Noakhali and Bihar, as well as subsequent statemnets and policy on "Bengal" or even so-called "majority vs minority on accession" - subregional preferences are obvious].

I am sure you will get the repeated posts on "Bengal+Bengali+Bihar+JLN+Partition+riots+Noakhali+refugees+Kashmir" here on this forum, where this has been repeatedly pointed out. Is it that important to preserve devotional worship and a kind of Abrahamic claim of immunity from any critical comment on divinity - so as to ignore these repeated pointers to events+deeds+words from specific icons about these issues? Even when surely you have read about them repeatedly on thsi forum based on actual statements and actions on ground?

Brihaspati ji

Neither irrational bhakti to one's heroes nor irrational demolishing of other icons is proper . That has and is my point.
The years of India's freedom struggle and partition were intense and different folk reacted differently and often with different agenda. Eventually like ants pulling it moved in the right direction but often the individual ants did pull in contradictory directions. It does not seem reasonable to extrapolate this division to imply evil and devious intent to various leaders or contradictory movements.

JLN's errors of judgement wrt national security, Kashmir etc. have been pointed out many a times on this forum. And I wont defend them. I'm curious where he demonstrates - and I'll certainly look for it myself too - he demonstrates sub-regional or ethnic bias strong enough to be unmindful of loss of life and property in those parts or ethnic groups.

I thought iconoclasm also has to be given its space in Indian thought! Since at least three of the most valuable ideologies that have overwhelmingly contributed to and tremendously shaped Indian civilization, with at least two of them having legal special status and recognition - were and still are openly iconoclastic - there should be no problem with at least iconoclasm in theory.

Only the concept of nation is sacrosanct as an icon - I will concede. But nation is not-equal to persons. As for evidence of what I am pointing at - I have already given the keywords to search for the relevant posts on the forum.

[Supratik]

JLN's errors of judgement wrt national security, Kashmir etc. have been pointed out many a times on this forum. And I wont defend them. I'm curious where he demonstrates - and I'll certainly look for it myself too - he demonstrates sub-regional or ethnic bias strong enough to be unmindful of loss of life and property in those parts or ethnic groups.

You have to study post-partition Bengal to get the idea. JLN was more considerate about Punjab because the Punjabis would
have beaten them up. By comparison Bengalis were considered meek and so were ignored. It is unlikely that the Congress will
ever come to power in Bengal in the near future.

[devesh]

it's not about "week". it's about the notion that they are "troublesome" and "problematic". and both areas were/are agriculturally fertile and could support large populations and industries, i.e. potential to be rich economic bases. this would have inflamed the insecurities of the Islamist networks and the Hindu elite who have long been content with allying themselves with these networks in the UP areas. there is a reason why even after the Marathas made forays into this territory, they still reverted back to the Islamist power centers as soon as the British started venturing into the area. and JLN of course had his base in this region. his opinions and preferences would have been colored by his base, no doubt. and in their opinion, both Punjab and Bengal, especially b/c of the non-Muslim assertiveness, would have been considered "bothersome".

[Yayavar]

JLN's errors of judgement wrt national security, Kashmir etc. have been pointed out many a times on this forum. And I wont defend them. I'm curious where he demonstrates - and I'll certainly look for it myself too - he demonstrates sub-regional or ethnic bias strong enough to be unmindful of loss of life and property in those parts or ethnic groups.

You have to study post-partition Bengal to get the idea. JLN was more considerate about Punjab because the Punjabis would
have beaten them up. By comparison Bengalis were considered meek and so were ignored. It is unlikely that the Congress will
ever come to power in Bengal in the near future.

It does seem to be that JLN is the primary person who is found to be wanting and that to specifically towards Bengal. Can you provide specific pointers? I'll certainly follow up on this angle.
Congress was in power during JLN's tenure and afterwards too. It is only after 1977 that the communist party held sway until recently.

PS. Given that Bengal has produced Subhash Bose and the Jugantar revolutionaries it is hard to believe thta JLN or others thought Bengalis to be meek, but then there are stereotypes.

[surinder]

Finance is another angle to look at. The individuals & organizations in the krantikary side had to scrape through to finance their work. They had either resort to taking money by force (e.g. kakory case, or pilfering government armories etc.) or be at the mercy of donations from salt of the earth dedicated poor people.

The INC, on the other hand, enjoyed patronage of people like Birla. Birla built his empire by being a supplier to Britain's war effort. Birla used to meet Churchill whenever he went to London. You gotta see the connections. If at anytime the Brutish decided, they could have broken the backs of any contributor to INC. They did not.

The krantikaris knew the resource limitations and often had to live life as fugitives, had to forgo marriage, kids, house, family for their cause. Not to mention the luxuries of life so that meager resources can be spent on their cause.

INC Leaders were married, well-settled, had kids, large mansions, travelled well, ate well. They led settled lifes more reminiscent of American Subarbia than as their self-described "freedom fighter" tag would suggest.

[Abhi_G]

Why aren't any more memorials created for Shaheed Bhagat Singh? He along with like minded people should be on the face of Indian currency too.

No, that would put a dent to the history of the struggle where JLN and MKG duo are "solely" responsible behind India's freedom. Why throw in "problematic" people in the list?

[surinder]

"SBajwa": Why aren't any more memorials created for Shaheed Bhagat Singh? He along with like minded people should be on the face of Indian currency too.

No, that would put a dent to the history of the struggle where JLN and MKG duo are "solely" responsible behind India's freedom. Why throw in "problematic" people in the list?

INC quickly figured out a unique solution to the problem of challenges to their hagiography. Bose, Bhagat Singh, Shiva Ji, Nalua, Maharaja Ranjit Singh, Savarkar, etc. became "local" heroes. They can be respected and diefied locally, and INC let that happen. But for pan-Indian heroes, it was always MKG/JLN and a few assorted thrown in. It is left to Punjab to have a Bhagat Singh Airport, and to Maharashtra to have a Shiva Ji airport, *BUT* the national airport at Delhi is named after IG.

This creative solution allows INC to both keeps its heroes in the dominant role at the national level & it keeps the pesky locals happy. But more importantly this sub consciously sends a signal to Indians that only INC leaders had pan-Indian appeal & relevance & vision. India is India only due to them---had it not been due to them, local leaders would have taken their respective lands away from India. "National" heroes are the uniters, "local" heroes are the dividors, is the message.


It is also a self-prepetuating technique: More the INC suppresses memories of these real leaders, the more the locals from where they hailed want to emphasize, the more regional & communal these real heroes begin to appear.

[member_20317]

It is also a self-prepetuating technique: More the INC suppresses memories of these real leaders, the more the locals from where they hailed want to emphasize, the more regional & communal these real heroes begin to appear.

There's another take too. The loss of a 'local' hero to the memory of a Con Hero will only make the people commiserate with other communities robbed in just the same manner by the Congis. It will make people bitter and make them rail against the Congis in the long run.

[surinder]

^^

Very few local people commiserate. Most of them view this as a competition, my local hero was greater than your local hero. While the MKG/JLN/IG/SG/RG eath the lions share of limelight, the more the various "locals" compete for the crumbs.

This is an indian problem too---we are too competitive with each other to realize that the monkey has eaten up the whole the meal.

[Supratik]

PS. Given that Bengal has produced Subhash Bose and the Jugantar revolutionaries it is hard to believe thta JLN or others thought Bengalis to be meek, but then there are stereotypes.

As far as partition goes both JLN and MKG were living in la-la land. Partition devastated the Bengali community. Unlike Punjab
not much was done in Bengal to stabilize the situation except for Bangladesh war in 1971. Millions became destitute. The left
took advantage of the situation and directed the anger towards imperialists, capitalists, Marwaris and other Hindi speaking people,
fascists, Central Govt, etc, etc and reaped electoral benefits. The left did land reforms but much of the migrating population was educated/middle class. Anyway we ended up with at least two generations of brainwashed people. The real culprits got away with it. The Bengal Congress often had an independent mind at odds with the central coterie even during JLNs time. Otherwise may be we wouldn't have West Bengal. MB represents the core Bengali Hindu interests coupled with Hindi speakers and disgruntled Muslims.

[member_20317]

^^

Very few local people commiserate. Most of them view this as a competition, my local hero was greater than your local hero. While the MKG/JLN/IG/SG/RG eath the lions share of limelight, the more the various "locals" compete for the crumbs.

This is an indian problem too---we are too competitive with each other to realize that the monkey has eaten up the whole the meal.

These were the names you mentioned - Bose, Bhagat Singh, Shiva Ji, Nalua, Maharaja Ranjit Singh, Savarkar. Congis no doubt want us to forget about all of them but I have seen people acknowledging the first three across the board, no punctuation marks whether they understand what these three people meant by what they said. About the last three the acknowledgement is lacking merely because of poor education. Amongst the educated you will find all sorts of heros without any kind of barriers.

The acknoledgment can survive the competition. I am a Hindu and in my home state, in marriage ceremonies we have a ritual called Gotrachar, basically both sides talking big about their respective gotras, no muck raking involved.

Education here is the key.

[hnair]

but I have seen people acknowledging the first three across the board, no punctuation marks whether they understand what these three people meant by what they said.

This discussion reminded me of these two tweets I saw recently

[SBajwa]

by hnair
This discussion reminded me of this tweet I saw recently

Why would momins create a memorial for a kafir Shaheed Bhagat Singh?

[brihaspati]

viv ji,
did you make a search on the keywords I mentioned - on posts in the forum?

A very quick take : you are perhaps not aware of the details of the transition in post-independence Bengal. The first one took place when B.C.Roy displaced Prafulla Ch. in the 50's. Look up who displaced whom - and the corresponding congrez factions.

the next transition took place in 1968. Look up the "first united front ministry". This was a Leftist+"rebel/regional congrez", was shortlived - but gave a glimpse of the future. So the transition you are talking of manifested even in the electoral level from 1964 onwards. 1977 was just a culmination of several movements that were seeded in students and youth movements of the 40's.

[brihaspati]

OT perhaps, but electoral support began to erode for the congrez even from mid 50's. This is a different issue. No one talks about why and how after the first general elections, the system of dual constituency with reserved seats for "picchre varaga" was done away with. Especially given the enormous commitment to "reservations" manifested by congrez.

[ramana]

Surinder, In Andhra Pradesh even local heroes were not honored. Its all IG or RG highway, airport so on.

[brihaspati]

viv ji,
I looked up. You visited and commented on 15th Nov, 2011, in the Indian interests thread. Just around that page - I had several posts detailing the issues about deception and double dealing from JLN side - on the "treatment of rioters". Surely you had read them there?

[brihaspati]

It does seem to be that JLN is the primary person who is found to be wanting and that to specifically towards Bengal. Can you provide specific pointers? I'll certainly follow up on this angle.
Congress was in power during JLN's tenure and afterwards too. It is only after 1977 that the communist party held sway until recently.

PS. Given that Bengal has produced Subhash Bose and the Jugantar revolutionaries it is hard to believe thta JLN or others thought Bengalis to be meek, but then there are stereotypes.

It was already noted at the time that much fewer forces were needed per capita, to control the situation in Bengal [after, after, after - Muslims had done their carnage in Bengal - always after, both for the Brits and JLN when it became urgent to prevent possible Hindu retaliation] compared to Punjab. That means Bengalis did prove to be meeker than the Punjabis then.

But there were long preparations for this. Sikhs were still allowed into the army after their defeat prior to 1857. But post 1857, Bengalis proved more dangerous perhaps - becuase they proved flexible in adopting new forms of politics and mobilizations, which appeared more threatening to the Brits. Bengalis continued with armed insurrectionist line throughout the first 50 years of the 20th century. Armed insurrection did not end with Surya Sen in the early 30's, it simply went underground a bit more and resurged in the early 40's. This time it mixed mass mobilization techniques as in the land-struggles, peasant uprisings, and in 42 with direct struggles against the Brits under cover of quit-India. This went on into the early 50's on both sides of the new border.

What frightened the Brits would frighten JLN too. In fact anyone with a certain perspective about "central personal power" would feel the same. Its the fear of the emperor towards the periphery with a history of rebellion.

[Rudradev]

INC quickly figured out a unique solution to the problem of challenges to their hagiography. Bose, Bhagat Singh, Shiva Ji, Nalua, Maharaja Ranjit Singh, Savarkar, etc. became "local" heroes. They can be respected and diefied locally, and INC let that happen. But for pan-Indian heroes, it was always MKG/JLN and a few assorted thrown in....

... But more importantly this sub consciously sends a signal to Indians that only INC leaders had pan-Indian appeal & relevance & vision. India is India only due to them---had it not been due to them, local leaders would have taken their respective lands away from India. "National" heroes are the uniters, "local" heroes are the dividors, is the message...


It is also a self-prepetuating technique: More the INC suppresses memories of these real leaders, the more the locals from where they hailed want to emphasize, the more regional & communal these real heroes begin to appear.

Excellent post, very perceptive. What the INC has done is to enforce its monopoly on the idea of India; the legacies of people who had other visions for the nation are deliberately suppressed outside their locality of origin. This not only decreases their profile vis-a-vis the Nehru Gandhi pantheon, but their legacies (while genuinely pan-national) eventually become associated with parochialism of one region or another.

The wild card whom they have been unable to confine regionally is Ambedkar. The only non-INC figure who, despite INC's best efforts, finds resonance in every corner of the country among certain groups. This was originally due to the INC (and their Western masters') own social engineering... while pan-Indian-nationalists outside the INC were relegated to localized regional legacies, the SCs and STs around the country were bestowed with a fabricated "Dalit" identity, and cultivated as a pan-national vote bank FOR the INC under a garb of defending "social justice" (see IG's extension of reservations in perpetuity.)

Now the pan-national Ambedkar symbolism has acquired a momentum of its own, and the INC faces a mighty Elephant in UP (and, increasingly, in Maharashtra too... don't know how many here followed the Indu Mills story in Mumbai this past December.)

[Abhi_G]

Surinder, In Andhra Pradesh even local heroes were not honored. Its all IG or RG highway, airport so on.

Ramana, I know about the (in)famous Pattabhi Sitaramayya.

Did he not have enough leverage due to his loyalty?

[surinder]

There are institutes named after sanjay gandhi, he did not even graduate bachelors. Then there are many stadiums, clubs, organizations, mohallas, roads, named after Kamala Nehru, Kasturba Gandhi, Motilal Nehru (hey why leave him out).

I don't if they had any dogs or cats as pets, we probably might have institutes named after them too.

During IG rule, ministers routinely declared that India is Indira, and Indira is India. That has been INC's sin quo non, calling card.

[Prem]

India eagerly await for A Mule Gandhi institute of Sychophancy !!

[SBajwa]

When will we realize that Inc has taken us for a long long ride.

[Yayavar]

By the way folks, you can look up and confirm what Sashi Tahroor has written in his book on "constructing" Nehru - regarding the so-called great mystery about so-called US offers to India for UNSC membership. Tharoor apparently writes that he has been told by diplomats who have been privy to documents at the time, that showed that such offers were made. But in 1955, I think JLN made a statement in the parliament - flatly denying that any such offer had been made - on a specific query.

I've heard it often enough that JLN asked China to be included prior to India. And that is what happened. Did not know that he denied it. How does that relate to partition though?

Especially when we see such consistent attempt to downplay any role of JLN in controversial or disputed decisions [even MKG to an extent] - like for pages and pages we see the attempt to put all initiative on Partition from the congrez side onlee on Sardar, sardar onlee, onlee sardar [JLN had no role, MKG was "convinced" by sardar]. It was sardar who convinced every creature on Indian soil - every crow and owl and rabbit roaming around on Indian soil about the need for Partition!.

You are mixing two threads I believe. The one was whether MKG condoned partition and the discussion led to Sardar. If you read Maulana Azad (India wins Freedom) he blames Nehru for the negotiations falling apart. Whatever be the reason it still does not mean that any of these three or other Congress leaders wanted partition.

[Yayavar]

PS. Given that Bengal has produced Subhash Bose and the Jugantar revolutionaries it is hard to believe thta JLN or others thought Bengalis to be meek, but then there are stereotypes.

As far as partition goes both JLN and MKG were living in la-la land. Partition devastated the Bengali community. Unlike Punjab
not much was done in Bengal to stabilize the situation except for Bangladesh war in 1971. Millions became destitute. The left
took advantage of the situation and directed the anger towards imperialists, capitalists, Marwaris and other Hindi speaking people,
fascists, Central Govt, etc, etc and reaped electoral benefits. The left did land reforms but much of the migrating population was educated/middle class. Anyway we ended up with at least two generations of brainwashed people. The real culprits got away with it. The Bengal Congress often had an independent mind at odds with the central coterie even during JLNs time. Otherwise may be we wouldn't have West Bengal. MB represents the core Bengali Hindu interests coupled with Hindi speakers and disgruntled Muslims.

ok..this is a gap in my knowledge. Gandhi was gone soon after partition. Why and to what advantage would nothing be done in Bengal?

[Yayavar]

viv ji,
did you make a search on the keywords I mentioned - on posts in the forum?

I've noted Shashi Tharoor's reference. I'll look for others, but need to wait for the weekend.

A very quick take : you are perhaps not aware of the details of the transition in post-independence Bengal. The first one took place when B.C.Roy displaced Prafulla Ch. in the 50's. Look up who displaced whom - and the corresponding congrez factions.

the next transition took place in 1968. Look up the "first united front ministry". This was a Leftist+"rebel/regional congrez", was shortlived - but gave a glimpse of the future. So the transition you are talking of manifested even in the electoral level from 1964 onwards. 1977 was just a culmination of several movements that were seeded in students and youth movements of the 40's.

ok, will read. Bengal did have a greater left leaning presence even prior to independence from what I know.
However, would still need to understand how/why would it be JLN's deliberate doing out of bias? I can understand political reasons even if I dont appreciate them.

[Yayavar]

viv ji,
I looked up. You visited and commented on 15th Nov, 2011, in the Indian interests thread. Just around that page - I had several posts detailing the issues about deception and double dealing from JLN side - on the "treatment of rioters". Surely you had read them there?

I went back to search for my post on 15th nov. I did not read your posts then but do recall lots of JLN bashing ..I will go over your comments now. I know I objected to JLN bashing and counter bashing of other leaders there too .

In this thread some statements have been made - JLN being ethinically or regionaly biased against Punjabis and Bengalis; MKG the same; MKG caused Bhagat Singh and revolutionaries to be terminated. And that is what I've been trying to understand. Now it seems JLN had less of a bias against Punjabis than Bengalis (as per Supratik's post). In other words I think we might be extrapolating more than necessary and in some cases assigning blame where it does not exist. It does not of course mean that JLN did not act wrongly many a time but it would be good to understand what was a deliberate act, and if so what was a malicious act, and what was an error of judgment. I'm reluctant to write off our leaders as mere fluff because we find some wisdom in hind-sight.

Take another example, one could ask why only mention Bhagat Singh (who I admire) but what about BK Dutt, or Rajguru, or Azad or Ashfaqullah or Bismil or the earlier generation of Rasbehari bose or Jatin Das? Is there some sort of bias that causes us to forget these other folk? The same probably goes for JLN/MKG/Sardar being mentioned often and not the many other leaders. Shastri is not as often mentioned. Yes, the Congress machinery does not for electoral reasons, but it is also because he was a follower to the big three. Bhagat Singh is mentioned since he captured the imagination of the people with his actions, killing of Saunders, his escape, his balidan in the parliament. BK Dutt is not referred to much though he did suffer through 'Kala pani' for the same act of throwing the bomb in the parliament.