A look back at the partition

[Yayavar]

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.)

+1

[Supratik]

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?

I have no reason to believe that JLN had racial bias. JLN's worldview should be seen in the context of his family being loyal officials under Muslim ruling elite and his Fabian socialism leaning coming from his education in England. However, his prime concerns were UP where his family was settled and Kashmir from where his lineage is. Punjab and Bengal were peripheral to him. Part of the difference in response towards Bengal and Punjab may have been the reaction of the population to partition. The Punjabis retaliated and ethnically cleansed the Muslims and it may have been perceived by the leadership that unless they were helped the situation could deteriorate and spread to other regions of Northern India. JLN specifically convinced the Muslim leadership in UP not to migrate to Pakistan even though many wanted to. In Bengal there was no large scale retaliatory violence. The Bengalis responded differently by turning left. As I have mentioned previously everyone in the world was blamed except the Congress coterie and ML. This was a master stroke of brain washing. IMO due to lack of violence they were disregarded. Eventually the enemy became someone within and hence you see the left wing anarchy of the 70s. I would give more credit to the IG regime as far as interests of the Bengali community are concerned.

[Rahul M]

>> ok, will read. Bengal did have a greater left leaning presence even prior to independence from what I know.

that left is not this left. the same guys also slept with a gita under their head. leftism was used as a means to an end, not an end in itself. in a situation where most industry was british owned and operated and even those that were not british were busy supplying the allied forces, leftist trade unionism was an expression of anti-colonialism.

coming to JLN, bengal and punjab were treated differently post partition. we can only speculate why.
perhaps bengal was punished for supporting SCB. may be it was hoped that a bengal caught up with its own problems would not throw up national level leaders who could challenge his supremacy. if so that worked out to plan.
or may be it was an adoption of british attitude who really felt the sneaky bengalis got under their skin.

or may be he simply forgot about refugees from east bengal ? I am sure some here would consider that the only likely and rational explanation.

[Sanku]

or may be he simply forgot about refugees from east bengal ? I am sure some here would consider that the only likely and rational explanation.

The "chanakyaan" brigade you mean?

[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?

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.

I find it curious that you did not read my posts around those pages - and still had impressions of JLN "bashing". how do you form impressions without actual reading? Or are you saying that you formed impressions by reading selective posters only? In that case how can you rely on your impressions?

My posts were specificall complained against because they were "long posts" and supposedly copy-paste [but then if you claim things without actually quoting you will be accused of not putting in supporting material] - and they dealt with actual statements/actions etc. If merely mentioing such stuff appears to be "bashing" then not much remains to be said. My posts dealt specifically with instances and comparison of statements/actions on ground to show up the obvious contradictions.

If you have noted I did not add any post about remembrance or memoriums specifically about Bhagat Singh. This is a hug eand deeper emotional issue - and at some stage this remembrance process will have to be restarted. In the process we will have to have second or third or n-th look at all the claims and supposed contributions of various individuals and groups. Many times I have clashed here with other opinions where this or that individual was put up as the "bravest" or "extra-courageous" simply because of what he was or what his profession was. If you search out - you will see that I have specifically challenged most of them - saying that there are mnany others, and countlkess millions in fact - whose contribution towards independence was comparable and perhaps more than icons.

If the icons themselves lacked humility, at least their hagiographers should have some humility on their behalf. But this memorium is a larger issue than Partition and hence I do not see it as apprpriate perhaps to take it into the direction that you are indicating. Bhagat Singh and others around him cannot be the bush which one can beat to somehow justify apprortioing of blame for Partition and related injustice or bekasur khalas for individual icons.

[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.

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.

I mentioned the UNSC thingie because - as I pointed out - it wa snot important for the issue at hand for UNSC. It was an illustration of the possibility that people around JLN or JLN himself might have made statements that contradicted reality or truth or documents. I also mentioned that fiasco over the Bose papers. Time and again we have tantalizing indicators that the truth or documentary evidence might have been suppressed, destroyed and Indians were lied to. This has a bearing on what we were discussing about Partition.

As for Azad, I quoted him extensively. With another poster the debate started out not because of whether MKG condoned anything - but because JLN was being kept out of the picture of decisions and initiatives regarding Partition - and all the game shifted on to Sardar's shoulders. My posts and quotes started out by pointing out that Sardar, upto July, was dissenting from MKG who on the otherhand wanted a blanket obstruction of CMP.

[surinder]

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?

It is to be understood that using Bhagat Singh's name is a synonymous with all the ones you mention (it is just a name to personify the type of movement we are talking about). Similarly, Bose is the name of a slightly different idea. Obviously when we say Bose, we don't mean to ignore Mohan Singh or others.

Is there some sort of bias that causes us to forget these other folk?

You are illustrating what I wrote ...


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.

[A_Gupta]

Some of Sardar Patel's correspondence, showing what he thought of the Cabinet Mission Plan, grouping, the Muslim League, etc.

http://observingliberalpakistan.blogspo ... patel.html

[A_Gupta]

A comment by Sardar Patel on Direct Action Day
http://observingliberalpakistan.blogspo ... ction.html

[Yayavar]

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?

It is to be understood that using Bhagat Singh's name is a synonymous with all the ones you mention (it is just a name to personify the type of movement we are talking about). Similarly, Bose is the name of a slightly different idea. Obviously when we say Bose, we don't mean to ignore Mohan Singh or others.

Is there some sort of bias that causes us to forget these other folk?

You are illustrating what I wrote ...


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.

You are not understanding what I wrote. Some on this thread have complained about MKGs name being the most prominent in independence struggle. I gave examples to illustrate how it is that MKG/Nehru/Patel are the three that are usually mentioned and not all the others and the masses. It is but another facet of your observation.

What you pointed out in your comment is that post-independence the INC policy has been to selectively distinguish congress leaders as pan-indian and others regional. I had even upped your/rudradev comment when I saw it.

[brihaspati]

Most interesting. Again all the thinking was being done by Sardar on CMP, grouping. Somehwat less by MKG. Absolute and total silence from JLN. Does it imply he thought nothing?

But still until the letter of July - the sequence posted on "liberalpakistan" - there is onlee criticism of details or lack of details, antipathy or opposition to grouping plans, grumbling about lack of multiple possible interpretations - but not outright rejection of CMP. There is still talk of things to be moved to the Constituent Assembly.

This is completely in line with the earlier quoted sequence - that supposedly showed sardar's enthusiasm and initiative for "Partition" - but only managed to show tacit acceptance of CMP as a working proposition, with lots of clarification and specification to be extracted, but not yet, not yet a rejection - until July.

Again, no explanation of the curious proposition from Sardar to get Jinnah and JLN to sit one-on-one onlee to settle the gov sharing details. No explanation as to why the unilaterally Partition enthusiast and strong proponent of Partition - would propose such a one-on-one if he knew that JLN would be anti-Partition. No explanation as to significance of the statement that if the two men - MAJ and JLN could decide on the gov share - Sardar would be okay with it.

As for Direct Action Day - a rather tame statement that Direct Action type action would onlee ruin and destroy ML rather than give it success. Obviously, in this case Sardar then proves to be a wrong predictor. ML does succeed in its objectives. However the underlying thrust of the letter is illuminating. Sardar does not think of ML as likely to be successful given its current tactic? If he wanted Partiion so desperately - he would be delighted in ML success, and despair in ML failure - isnt it? He is not despairing in ML failure and he does not want the ML to succeed! Now that is not contradictory in the chief initiator and planner of Partition from the congrez side?

Curious : no statement from JLN on or about Direct Action day? The silence from JLN over all these issues as represented on CMP website, or liberalpakistan being quoted - is really growing deafening.

P.S It seems that Mountbatten's endorsement of VPM as supposedly the right-hand-man of Sardar is kosher - but no other statements of Mountbatten on VPM has been found yet! Most interesting! I guess we have to be patient.

[devesh]

regarding different treatment meted out to Punjab and Bengal, it's a simple matter of geography and location. ultimately, Punjab is right next to Delhi. and "Delhi" would have felt the need to be "secure" by appeasing the Punjabis. the influence of Punjab is felt in Delhi so, perhaps, the "Delhi" was simply being prudent and appeasing the aggrieved in this case. but the Bengal, there is no need for such appeasement. "Delhi" would have seen it as "border territory" protected by 100's of kms of distance between Delhi and Bengal. and of course, this territory is richly populated with RoP power centers and other networks which will be "on guard" to keep any "trouble" from reaching "Delhi" from the "troublesome Bengalis".

[brihaspati]

^^^Probably also seen to be well-integrated into and a vital part of the army [Sikhs]. Bengali identity within the army [when one had regional/subregional/community/faith based unit identities] and Bengalis in general were few and far between within the army. I know JNC would be mentioned. But then again few and far between.

[ManuT]

Can I ask, would Partition would not have happened if it was known Jinnah was dying.

There is some evidence to suggest, his Doctors kept it a secret {there has been a mention of it on Page 17 of this thread}.
It is likely he knew, after all his Doctors asked him to visit mountains and take rest. Whether it was a tightly kept secret or not i.e. the fact remains that he died of TB soon after, so the question remains, would Partition have happened if it was known Jinnah was terminal.

Of course Congress(I) has wrapped itself up as INC and the dynasty as the direct descendents of MKG. (IG contested her initial elections under the name I.N-G) and that complaint is valid. But, IMO, the blame for Partition and the killings should rest undisputedly with Jinnah in the demand for Pakistan, only then the futility of lives lost in the creating Pakistan can seen, and if he have to shape the future.


Also, I say that, I guess, there is a difference between pacifism and what masks as pacifism. In this, IMO, MKG was a pacifist. There are a couple of living legends who we can't call cowards. Then we have a history of mere mortals mocking tyrants before being killed that possibly can't be construed as cowardice either. I haven't read "the complete works" but here a is a quote from Lt Gen L P Sen's book. It is only to see a slightly different shade. This is regarding the events of 1 Nov 1947, the day he was promoted and ordered to leave for Kashmir.

As I was leaving General Russell's house, I received a message to the effect that Brigadier Thapar would be awaiting me at the southern entrance to South Block of the Secretariat. When I arrived he informed me that Mahatma Gandhi wished to see me and be given an Intelligence briefing. We drove to his residence and I told him everything that was known to us. He listened most intently and when I finished and asked whether he had any questions he would like answered, he replied "No, no questions". After a few seconds of silence, he continued: "Wars are a curse to humanity. They are so utterly senseless. They bring nothing but suffering and destruction". As a soldier, and one about to the engaged in battle in a matter of hours, I was at a loss to know what to say, and eventually asked him: "What do I do in Kashmir?" Mahatma Gandhi smiled and said: "You are going in to protect innocent people, and to save them from suffering and their property from destruction. To achieve that you must naturally make full use of every means at your disposal." It was the last time that I was to see him alive.

[Yayavar]

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.

I find it curious that you did not read my posts around those pages - and still had impressions of JLN "bashing". how do you form impressions without actual reading? Or are you saying that you formed impressions by reading selective posters only? In that case how can you rely on your impressions?

My posts were specificall complained against because they were "long posts" and supposedly copy-paste [but then if you claim things without actually quoting you will be accused of not putting in supporting material] - and they dealt with actual statements/actions etc. If merely mentioing such stuff appears to be "bashing" then not much remains to be said. My posts dealt specifically with instances and comparison of statements/actions on ground to show up the obvious contradictions.

Brihaspatiji,

JLN is not very popular here. For all other impressions you might be taking from my posts, I too have found him wanting in multiple areas. The idea, at least for me is to understand where various charges are stemming from and which ones have real substance - at least enough to understand against generic collective "wisdom" I've heard all my life. And yes, your posts have bee quite long sometimes which can contribute to side-stepping them. I'll read them over the weekend as they are more relevant to this discussion now (at least for me).
In my previous comment nested above I've listed the statements or implications that I've been trying to fathom or dispel to some extent. I've highlighted the statements in bold in the nested comment above.

If you have noted I did not add any post about remembrance or memoriums specifically about Bhagat Singh. This is a hug eand deeper emotional issue - and at some stage this remembrance process will have to be restarted. In the process we will have to have second or third or n-th look at all the claims and supposed contributions of various individuals and groups. Many times I have clashed here with other opinions where this or that individual was put up as the "bravest" or "extra-courageous" simply because of what he was or what his profession was. If you search out - you will see that I have specifically challenged most of them - saying that there are mnany others, and countlkess millions in fact - whose contribution towards independence was comparable and perhaps more than icons.

If the icons themselves lacked humility, at least their hagiographers should have some humility on their behalf.

We are very much on the same page on the above.

But this memorium is a larger issue than Partition and hence I do not see it as apprpriate perhaps to take it into the direction that you are indicating. Bhagat Singh and others around him cannot be the bush which one can beat to somehow justify apprortioing of blame for Partition and related injustice or bekasur khalas for individual icons.

You are reading more than has been written.

See my response to Surinder above on what I have stated. I do not think you will be in disagreement.

[Supratik]

regarding different treatment meted out to Punjab and Bengal, it's a simple matter of geography and location. ultimately, Punjab is right next to Delhi. and "Delhi" would have felt the need to be "secure" by appeasing the Punjabis. the influence of Punjab is felt in Delhi so, perhaps, the "Delhi" was simply being prudent and appeasing the aggrieved in this case. but the Bengal, there is no need for such appeasement. "Delhi" would have seen it as "border territory" protected by 100's of kms of distance between Delhi and Bengal. and of course, this territory is richly populated with RoP power centers and other networks which will be "on guard" to keep any "trouble" from reaching "Delhi" from the "troublesome Bengalis".

I don't think distance had anything to do with it. JLNs principal motive may have been to prevent further ethnic cleansing in the region around Punjab. It had spread to Delhi, and parts of Rajasthan, UP and Bihar. He cannot be accused of communal partisanship as we have no evidence that he ever identified himself with the majority population along community lines. In Bengal it was largely a one way ethnic cleansing, so less motivation to intervene.

[Atri]

If Sindh too were partitioned, The Indian Sindh would have got worse treatment from JLN than WB. Sindh was not partitioned because the Sindhi Hindus played quiet and when it became too much, left. If they had kept pot boiling from 1944-45 onwards, the muhajirs wouldn't be directed in Sindh by Pakjabis, making the fight tough. Partitioned India deserved her share of Sindhu river and Sindh Province. It is all about nuisance value. Sikhs retaliated (although they weren't allowed to bloom to their complete potential). In Bengal too, the retaliation was widespread, the fact that larger percentage of Bengal remained in India as compared to Punjab. But Bengal was severely weakened by Gora Angrez Churchill in 1943 famine preempting the support victorious SCB might receive. The kala angrez JLN followed the suite.

[Samudragupta]

This went on into the early 50's on both sides of the new border.

What happened on the other side of the Border???

[devesh]

interesting observation regarding Sindh. I have read somewhere that Eastern Sindh had heavy Hindu population and several districts were Hindu majority. the Eastern 1/3 of Sindh should have been in India. that was another blunder. the weakness seems to have stemmed from the fact that MKG/JLN and the coterie were hesitant to take up the "hindu" stance. the way that ML thugs were polarizing Muslims, the only potent force to oppose that was to take up the "saffron" stance by "hindu" leadership. only such a move could have mobilized and energized the masses. the reluctance to take up that issue resulted in psychological weakness as well as the weakness in maintaining "rights" based on historical narratives. the "hindu" stance was the only one which could provide justification and muscle to any claims on the lands if Bengal, Punjab, and Sindh, and even Kashmir. it is important to maintain a link with historical narratives to bolster any claims made on these lands. when "hindu" leadership fails to take up the "saffron" cause, then we see a weakening of these claims and also delusions in the minds of "second rung" leaders and even commons.

[surinder]

What you pointed out in your comment is that post-independence the INC policy has been to selectively distinguish congress leaders as pan-indian and others regional. I had even upped your/rudradev comment when I saw it.

I probably did not understand the thrust of your comments. Sorry. Thanks for upping my comment, I appreciate it.

[surinder]

As for Direct Action Day - a rather tame statement that Direct Action type action would onlee ruin and destroy ML rather than give it success. Obviously, in this case Sardar then proves to be a wrong predictor. ML does succeed in its objectives.

Brihaspati beat met to it. The letter by Patel says at http://observingliberalpakistan.blogspo ... ction.html is tame and has tone of helplessness.

"If they follow the same method of arson, loot, murder and anarchy, they may be able to inflict hardship on the non-Muslims but eventually that way will without doubt lead the League organisation to ruin and destruction." Patel had poor predictive abilities. ML succeeded beyond wildest dream to make the 10th largest country in the world, get 1/3 of India, and the 2nd largest M country. Few would call it a failure.

Then Patel says, " am not sure that your Governor will allow any violence or disturbance to take place, because he is much too clever not to understand his own responsibility and his own reputation would be at stake. He will no doubt try his best to keep the Ministry in office but he will not allow his own reputation to suffer."

Wrong again: Patel does not recognize that Brutish are here to exploit, not to make reputations. They don't care a fig about reputations. He is appealing and pleading at the non-existent sense of honor in the Governor. He does not know that the Brutish are actually encouraging the volence.

"... I hope things will ultimately straighten themselves. ..."

Did they?

[Supratik]

Nothing much was done for the Sindhis either as they were docile and did not forcefully demand territory or indulge in
communal retaliation. Most Sindhis are self-made and that too many have done well in distant countries.

[surinder]

How was Bengal treated badly by JLN/INC or British vis-a-vis Punjab during partition?

[devesh]

not during partition. during partition both regions were thrown to the wolves. it's behavior after partition that might show difference.

[surinder]

Much is made of MKG's philosophical leanings towards peaceful methods. But even there he did not seem to have followed it to its logical conclusions. If had taken his own ideas and followed them to the hilt, that would have been a potent weapon against the British.

Many decades before MKG was born, there was a movement in Punjab which seemed remakably similar to the Satyagrahi Gandhian model. This was the Naamdhari Sikhs (also called "Kookas"). They wore simple whito clothes, often khadi type cloth. Shunned western dresses. They boycotted British goods. They boycotted British government. Essentially were forceful, but peaceful. They considered British rule illegitmate, and that is the crux. They did not use thier courts, thier post offices etc.

The Brutish response to them was outrageously harsh. Their Guru Ram Singh was exiled to Burma by UK and died. Members of their clan were blown from the mouths of cannons. If you think about it, it was a grisly sigt to see people being blown up, their body parts and blood and gore flying. But the law abiding brutish did it anyways.

They undermined British rule, deligitimezed it. The Naamdhari story is not well known. Partly because INC does not want to give up the patent. Part also because main stream sikhs consider Namdharis to be heretical.

Bottom line, it shows how even non-cooperation movements can successful, if pursued honestly and fully.

MKG & INC never challenged Brutish rule and its fundamental validity. They did not once raise a call for all Indians in army, police, ICS, babus, clerks, workers to not work for the Brits. MKG's non-violence never made him come in the way of Brit recruitment to army. He never seriously tried to undermine British strength. Heck, INC gladly fought elections under the British, much before 1947. They wanted to be power so badly, that they couldn't wait for independence.

MKG was more politically astutute than he is made to be. He understood that he cannot survive and challenge anything that diminsishes British power.

British rule in India was fragile. Bhagat Singh/Bose type of movements are not even needed to oust them. They were really needed to arouse the Indians themselves. If suddenly *all* the indains do not show up for work at their government jobs (civilian, army, police), British rule in India would collapse in hours.

I cannot but conclude that there is more the MKG story than meets the eye.

[Yayavar]

The story is the scale. There were movements and resistance but one or the other part of India or even the same region was not participating. The mass movement started slowly and caught on across the country on a much larger scale. The babus, police, army etc. were with the government or regional rulers or were selectively from a given grouping. The mass movement got everyone involved and that is where the strength lay.

[member_19686]

interesting observation regarding Sindh. I have read somewhere that Eastern Sindh had heavy Hindu population and several districts were Hindu majority. the Eastern 1/3 of Sindh should have been in India. that was another blunder. the weakness seems to have stemmed from the fact that MKG/JLN and the coterie were hesitant to take up the "hindu" stance. the way that ML thugs were polarizing Muslims, the only potent force to oppose that was to take up the "saffron" stance by "hindu" leadership. only such a move could have mobilized and energized the masses. the reluctance to take up that issue resulted in psychological weakness as well as the weakness in maintaining "rights" based on historical narratives. the "hindu" stance was the only one which could provide justification and muscle to any claims on the lands if Bengal, Punjab, and Sindh, and even Kashmir. it is important to maintain a link with historical narratives to bolster any claims made on these lands. when "hindu" leadership fails to take up the "saffron" cause, then we see a weakening of these claims and also delusions in the minds of "second rung" leaders and even commons.

Thar Parkar was the district with a slight Hindu majority or so I heard.

Karachi city itself was Hindu majority.

The fate of Hindu Sindhis was being decided when a decade earlier Sindh was separated from Bombay province, at that time Savarkar had warned them to oppose it as they would be a minority in the new province.

When we find that in spite of all these facts it is precisely the Congressites who
accuse the Hindu Mahasabha for having done nothing for, the Hindus in Sindh that the
necessity arises of reminding the Congressites that , was it not the Congress which insisted
on and brought about the separation of Sindh from the Bombay Presidency ? And was not
that the original sin ? The Hindu Mahasabha fought tooth and nail against the separation of
Sindh warning the Congressite Hindus that such a step would only lead to untold miseries of
the Hindus : that it was a part of the Moslem conspiracy to separate Sindh so as to lay the
foundation-stone of their pet Pakistan scheme : that wild, fanatical and murderous gangs of
Moslems who always prowled about the borders of Sindh would pounce upon the Hindu
minority and even the most polished Moslems throughout India would not raise a finger to
save the latter but would wait for the moment when the Hindus were either wiped off or
evacuate Sindh en masse leaving it a pure Dar-ul-Islam a Moslem territory. But in spite of
this opposition of the Mahasabha the Congressite Hindus voted for the separation of Sindh
just to please the Moslems ! And now it is the Congressites who are demanding from the
Hindu Mahasabha the explanation of what it was doing for the Hindus in Sindh !! The
incendiary who first set the village on fire is now demanding from the citizens an explanation
of the fact why they could not exert themselves more in putting down the fire ! The Working
Committee of the Congress, while everyday brought harrowing news of anti-Hindu outrages
in Sindh did not utter a single word in condemnation of it. Nor was a single meeting held
throughout India by the Congress to protest against it. It was only when the Hindu
Mahasabha activities brought sufficient pressure upon the Government to take stringent
measures and pressed the Government to scrap up the Moslem Autonomy that Maulana Azad
was hurriedly dispatched by Gandhiji to Sindh. But with what leading objectives in view ?

But Maulana Azad’s Mission was not so much to
Safeguard the Hindus as to stabilise the
Moslem Ministry

He did not formulate any scheme to recompense of safeguard the Hindus nor did he
issue any condemnation or frame any charge-sheet of the Moslem atrocities. His whole
anxiety under Gandhiji’s instructions was to exhort the Moslems to form a stable Government
so as not to give any excuse to the Hindu Mahasabha to force the hands of the Government
to re-annex Sindh to Bombay or empower the Governor to resume the administration in his
own hands. If the Moslems fail to form a stable Government in Sindh how were they going to prove to the British Government that they would be able to rule their would-be Pakistan
as efficiently as the British ? That seemed to be the anxiety which drove Maulana Azad to
Sindh. For, one fails to understand how a stable Government of those very Moslem parties
who have been responsible for the plight of the Hindus upto this time could improve the
condition and safeguard the life and property of the Hindu minority there. A stable
Government of these Moslem parties may as well prove more dangerous to the Hindus than
otherwise. The temporary cessation of crime in Sindh is the result of the direct pressure
exercised by the Governor and the consequent hunt of the Moslem criminals which had
already been initiated before Maulana Azad stepped into Sindh. Not a stable Moslem Ministry
or any other measure serving only as an eye-wash can ever be an effective way of protecting
the legitimate rights of the Hindu minority in Sindh or ensure peace and order. The annulling
of the Moslem autonomy in Sindh and the re-annexation of it to the presidency of Bombay
can alone secure that objective.

http://www.savarkar.org/content/pdfs/en ... n-v002.pdf

GM Syed was then with the Muslim league and made many anti Hindu speeches whipping up hatred against Hindus. He thought him and his fellow Muslims could grab all the property of the Hindus and did not foresee that the incoming Mohajirs would take it all.

[devesh]

The
incendiary who first set the village on fire is now demanding from the citizens an explanation
of the fact why they could not exert themselves more in putting down the fire !

+1 to Savarkar for saying the obvious...

[ramana]

Looks like the Brits were working on a long term plan to divide India by gradually hiving off regions and create new majority areas. Unfortunately then as now if anyone calls the Brits out they are termed extremists or now saffornists.

[devesh]

Kashmir, Kerala, Assam all are going through the same process. if not stopped, Assam and Kashmir will go the '47 way. Kerala can't go anywhere but there will be a little Islamic Republic where GoI rule is nonexistent.

[svinayak]

Kashmir, Kerala, Assam all are going through the same process. if not stopped, Assam and Kashmir will go the '47 way. Kerala can't go anywhere but there will be a little Islamic Republic where GoI rule is nonexistent.

We need a spring revolution of our own inside India.

[devesh]

there is one glass ceiling that needs to be broken:
treating Muslims as if they were somehow "separate" and "distinct" from rest of Indians. if marauding, murdering warlords could convert Hindus by the lakhs into Islam 100's of years ago, then the Hindus have every right to question the legitimacy and humanity of such an act and take steps to convert them back. same with the Christians. if Hindus can be converted by violence, coercion, and deception, then the Hindus have every right to convert them back.

we need a revolution that can achieve the above, by hook or crook. that is when the nature of regimes in India will change.

[svinayak]

Looks like the Brits were working on a long term plan to divide India by gradually hiving off regions and create new majority areas. Unfortunately then as now if anyone calls the Brits out they are termed extremists or now saffornists.

This process of regionalism (1885), ML/Muslim nationalism (1905 ), aryan dravidian false theory (1900),Kashmir problem (1948), sub altern studies(1975), language controversy(1950),fake center state problems(1957) they have tried it all.
The creation of Burma 1937, Sri Lanka 1940, Nepal 1920s, Tibet 1920 are similar to this strategy.

British are the only people who know the Indian people.
They have been relentless and every decade they have done something.

Once when I had a conversation one British guy revealed that they find Indians to support these ideas. Even if they are few in numbers, that is all they need to keep this going.

[Supratik]

MKGs greatest achievement was to unite Indians across various divisions towards a single minded focus on gaining independence.
He can be called the Garibaldi (Italian unifier) of India although the methods were different. This had never been achieved previously in the subcontinent. JLN merely inherited the fruits of his efforts. There were many around MKG who made similar sacrifices. Where he erred was in judging the intensity of the Pakistan movement and the inevitable communal violence.

I will also add Patel's name. He finished the job that MKG started.

[member_20317]

Looks like the Brits were working on a long term plan to divide India by gradually hiving off regions and create new majority areas. Unfortunately then as now if anyone calls the Brits out they are termed extremists or now saffornists.

This process of regionalism (1885), ML/Muslim nationalism (1905 ), aryan dravidian false theory (1900),Kashmir problem (1948), sub altern studies(1975), language controversy(1950),fake center state problems(1957) they have tried it all.
The creation of Burma 1937, Sri Lanka 1940, Nepal 1920s, Tibet 1920 are similar to this strategy.

British are the only people who know the Indian people.
They have been relentless and every decade they have done something.

Once when I had a conversation one British guy revealed that they find Indians to support these ideas. Even if they are few in numbers, that is all they need to keep this going.

The problems that you have mentioned will come back in some other form and keep coming back till one of the two or both happen:

1) Hindus band up together and take up leadership of India and Indian civilization in a more conscious manner; or
2) The opponent gets destroyed or at least gets way laid.

To my mind both are actually happening, though seemingly at a slow pace.

At this point we need to keep in mind two things:
1) The size and times of the Indian civilization are such that a faster pace in this direction, carries with it the risk of being too fast for our own good; and
2) This change must keep going, we need to ensure that the critical mass does not blows away its energy into a sub-critical mass.

[Yayavar]

MKGs greatest achievement was to unite Indians across various divisions towards a single minded focus on gaining independence.
He can be called the Garibaldi (Italian unifier) of India although the methods were different. This had never been achieved previously in the subcontinent. JLN merely inherited the fruits of his efforts. There were many around MKG who made similar sacrifices. Where he erred was in judging the intensity of the Pakistan movement and the inevitable communal violence.

I will also add Patel's name. He finished the job that MKG started.

Yes, exactly. That is what I meant by scale as well - he involved everybody. I recall my grandmother telling me how she sat in Satyagraha for Gandhi during her early years. She had leave everything and run to this side of the partition line. Still she remembered Gandhi's impact very positively.

The other primary element was social reform. He succeeded to a large extent though not entirely and it was carried on by others. Some aspects of it got politicised and we have the current quota system.

[brihaspati]

I hope we are not moving away from Partition proper to the impact of MKG on the nationalist movement. See once again we carry on from our guruvaadi/avataarvadi traditions which are oh-so-carefully used by interested coteries to get into power and advantages!

We do not say the more and more Indians were thinking of the nation from teh nationalist viewpoint and a large number of them found echoes, rightly or wrongly - of their own thoughts in the the various complicated twists and turns in the congrez and other non-congrez nationalist movements.

MKG did that, did this - it was MKG who aroused and mobilized the "masses". This is a really weird historiography. At other times we will say - oh the masses were not ready, and so even if so-and-so leader gave such a wonderful based on even more wondrous visions - they were simply not "implemented". A mobilizing leader would be able to mobilize independent of the the masses willing or not - especially if he had singlehandedly lit the prairie fire apparently before?

Singling out MKG as the key to the "nationalist movement" of the 20's is like a sudden snatching of an item from the conveyor belt of thousands of items. One must look at the other people around the time, and the political ancestors of the leadership at that stage. Tilak, Besant, Malavyia, Chintamani, Bhupendranath, and yes even a Jinnah, or a Wazir Hassan, or a certain "rajah" of Mahmudabad, or a Mazarul Haque, and Reading's pet "moderate" Sapru, or a similar moderate and close to Reading, certain gentleman, called Motilal Nehru.

To see mobilization in a single magical name - is a kind of Victorian wallowing in reconstructed medieval knighthood romance, misty, glamourous and vague - and far from reality. Moreover it is also a great deal of suppression of the great deal of opposition to MKG's movement, the refusal of various components of the nationalist movement that had been nurtured for at least 15 years before in active politics by Tilak, Aurobindo [the so called extremists] and the moderates Lal+Pal, to unequivocally accept the utility of "non-cooperation" a la MKG.

Remember that two things ended MKG's nation-rousing the first time around - the performance le encore of the Moplahs that dashed MKG's brand of "Islam" myth, and the Chaurichaura violent reaction.

After that MKG's political career should be most interesting to track in details. But before that - a lot of history has to be passed, which is now in the silent zone it seems. What about people looking up the Lucknow Pact [not just from wiki please], who tried what, and then what happened at the 1928 Calcutta meeting where congrez ever-tried-to-work-hard-accommodating-Muslims leadership sat mum? Was that discussion about "parity" and not about joint electorates? even in "parity" and weighting - were there compromises proposed? who proposed conceding what? [saffrom bashers could have found some material here - but they do not mention it because then who remained silent would also have to be listed - and that does not sound good for the whitepaint we are now fed!].

MKG was virtually out of politics by the end of 20's. His rather dramatic comeback is an interesting sequence in its own right. But this is widening the scope of "Partition" way beyond manageable perhaps.

[ramana]

Tell us about CY Chintamani please?

[brihaspati]

This went on into the early 50's on both sides of the new border.

What happened on the other side of the Border???

I wrote it in the context of continuity of armed resistance. In the 40's this transformed into land reform movements, anti-taxation [especially in the tebhaga movement] movements. In 42, Midnapore virtually went the armed resistance direction - and maintained the self-gov structures in the face of horrendous atrocities by the BIA. I have personally met old-timers who remember as children hiding out in paddy fields and seeing the women "used" or "abused" and men killed - with grain stores and houses deliberately targeted and torched. Well people will say public memories of atrocities are not necessarily reliable - and such a denial is usually undertaken when protected images get tarnished.

However the resistance did continue and was never suppressed. Congrez volte face and the behaviour of certain congrezmen around together with biz-interests - had such a negative reaction on the populace that they actually turned around against the cong in post-independence India - earliest among all districts of WB, in Midnapore.

Across the border, the tebhaga movement continued with its violent agrarian agenda even post Partition. The activists of this movement basically influenced the continuing student movement which began to turn increasingly militant and leftist around Dhaka uni, and also in Rangpur. It was the same political grouping that gave birth to the language "uprising" with a very militant attitude. This movement in effect continued throughoput the 50's and 60's providing the bulk of the militant student and youth activists who were crucial in the organization of a significant portion of the "mukti vahini". The leftist student militancy got in touch with their counterparts in WB and got their first weapons and explosives training from them. [Apart from that organized by a section of AL at Tripura - but even these organizers were coming from leftist militancy].
A large portion of this was represented by sections within the army such as Col. Taher - who was tried in camera and hanged by court martial under Zia - after Taher was probably duped by Zia into contributing to the conditions by which Sheikh was removed. Taher's "statement" is available - which called for essentially a leftist militant overthrow of the then BD state - as the legitimate end-goal of the movement that had started long before '71.

[brihaspati]

Sindh and Bombay divorce was a demand of the congrez. But the real Sindh story was more complex - on one part, there were the sindhi feudals and landlords, who were all Muslims. On the other hand the commons were divided into Muslim and non-Muslim. Feudals were always working to preserve their feudal privileges.

In fact both the United Party structure in Punjab and the Syed group in Sindh were motivated by landed aristo interests to take the cover of provincial autonomy. They were opportunists who opposed the pre-28 mainly Shia dominated marginal-in-muslim-politics ML, when it suited them, and opposed conservative muslim groups like those under Shafi, when it suited them, and opposed the congrez when it suited them.

The key problem in both the current Paki land and east Bengal was the incomplete destruction of landholding patterns and feudal elite by the EIC.

In a future integrated India - therefore the first target should be land-reforms in both. Even in pak we should hold out the promise of land reforms and land to the landless and the marginal farmer in Pak. We kick off a lot of clay feet then on which Pak stands.