A look back at the partition

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 May 2012 05:19

If he was a fool its one thing, when its more.

Acharya, Bringing in FSU obfuscates the issues. Its not JLN's father's problem about FSU while TSP is a nearby issue. By agreeing to the ceasefire he gave a CBM to the Pakis that IA wont threaten their Army HQs. That was his contribution.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 21 May 2012 10:48

FSU is simply there. India is also just being present in the region.

It is the British who are foreigner here and now Pak acting for the British interest is the odd state here.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 22 May 2012 09:25

Okay..slightly OT..this is about freedom struggle.

Harivansh Rai Bachhan writes in his autobiography about a gadar in Allahabad.

It is not clear when/why it happened. Some astrologers said that the angrezi sarkar is about to leave and nawabi will be back. People were advised to sharpen their weapons.

Men took their swords and went to fight. Women gathered in a few huge buildings to stay together. Doors and windows were kept tightly closed. No food was cooked because the smoke might alert the British. People inside those homes survived on sattu.

The British replied by killing men and raping women. Houses were set on fire. The gadar ended when the angrez started using cannons randomly/arbitrarily. One of the ammunitions fired from those cannons landed near Bachhan's grandfather. It impaired his movements.

After the gadar, the angrez sarkar found all Hindustanis involved in those incidents and hanged them from a neem tree. The tree soon became a holy place and people used to put flowers on it to honor the freedom fighters. The British responded by cutting the tree.

Inder Sharma · Post by **Inder Sharma** » 22 May 2012 15:39

That is about 1857. 'Gadar' is part of the fading ancestral memory in UP-Bihar.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 23 May 2012 04:38

Know its a pain : but reviving an old dilemma,
http://www.deeshaa.org/netajis-ghost-th ... s-rajaram/

From all this it may be surmised that in 1946, when it was clear that India would soon be independent, leaders in three countries—Britain (Mountbatten), India (Nehru) and the Soviet Union (Stalin)—knew that Netaji was alive and in a Soviet prison. And as previously noted, they wanted Nehru rather than a staunch nationalist like Subhas Bose (or Sardar Patel) as Prime Minister. If Subhas were available, Nehru had little chance. Even without Subhas, the Congress wanted Sardar Patel, but for reasons that are unclear, Gandhi prevailed on Patel to withdraw in favour of Nehru. It would be a different matter with Subhas Bose who had split with Gandhi in 1938. The question is-did the fact that Subhas Bose was alive in Soviet custody have a bearing on Nehru’s conduct of foreign policy? Put another way, why did Nehru pursue a policy that consistently favoured China at the cost of India’s interests?

Choosing China over India

In the year 1950, two momentous events shook Asia and the world. One was the Chinese invasion of Tibet, and the other, Chinese intervention in the Korean War. The first was near, on India’s borders, the other, far away in the Korean Peninsula where India had little at stake. By all canons of logic, India should have devoted the utmost attention to the immediate situation in Tibet, and let interested parties like China and the US sort it out in Korea. But Nehru did exactly the opposite. He abandoned Tibet to China while getting heavily involved in Korea. Nehru later complained that he had been “led to believe by the Chinese Foreign Office that the Chinese would settle the future of Tibet in a peaceful manner…” The truth is that he knew about the coming Chinese invasion for at least a year. In fact, he had himself written in September 1949: “Chinese Communists are likely to invade Tibet.” This came true in October 1950!

Even after this foreign policy disaster, Nehru continued to support Chinese interests at India’s cost. Panikkar, the Indian Ambassador in Beijing, went so far as to pretend that there was ‘lack of confirmation’ of the presence of Chinese troops in Tibet and that to protest the Chinese invasion of Tibet would be an “interference to India’s efforts on behalf of China in the UN”. This made Sardar Patel warn Nehru that Panikkar “has been at great pains to find an explanation or justification for Chinese policy and actions.”

Amazingly Nehru concurred with his pro-Chinese Ambassador. He wrote, “Recent developments in Korea have not strengthened China’s position, which will be further weakened by any aggressive action [by India] in Tibet.” So Nehru was ready to sacrifice India’s national security interests in Tibet so as not to weaken China’s case in the UN! The two greatest influences on Nehru at this crucial juncture in history were Krishna Menon and K.M. Panikkar, both Communists. He ignored Sardar Patel’s warning: “Even though we regard ourselves as friends of China, the Chinese do not regard us as friends.” Patel wrote a celebrated letter in which he expressed deep concern over developments in Tibet. He noted that a free and friendly Tibet was vital for India’s security, and everything including military measures should be considered to ensure it. Patel recognized that in 1950, China was in a vulnerable position, fully committed in Korea and by no means secure in its hold over the mainland. For months General MacArthur had been urging President Truman to “unleash Chiang Kai Shek” lying in wait in Formosa (Taiwan) with full American support. India had little to lose and everything to gain by a determined show of force when China was struggling to consolidate its hold. In addition, India had international support, with world opinion strongly against Chinese aggression in Tibet.

The highly influential English publication The Economist echoed the Western viewpoint when it wrote: “Having maintained complete independence of China since 1912, Tibet has a strong claim to be regard as an independent state. But it is for India to take a lead in this matter. If India decides to support independence of Tibet as a buffer state between itself and China, Britain and USA will do well to extend formal diplomatic recognition to it.” All this raises a fundamental question: did Nehru commit these colossal policy blunders because of his idealism, or was he influenced by the knowledge that China’s ally Soviet Union still held Subhas Bose in captivity who may be released any time? As Sandhya Jain puts it: “Since it is nobody’s case that the Congress would have suffered Nehru if Netaji were still alive, the former would logically have had to pay a price for such stupendous assistance. We will have to look very closely at the long road from August 15, 1947 as we seek the answers to these questions”. In other words, was India being made to pay for Nehru’s ambition to be Prime Minister, which was only possible as long as Subhas Bose was away from the scene?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 23 May 2012 05:10

brihaspati wrote: All this raises a fundamental question: did Nehru commit these colossal policy blunders because of his idealism, or was he influenced by the knowledge that China’s ally Soviet Union still held Subhas Bose in captivity who may be released any time?

It is also possible that all the powers were on the same page on this to make JLN the PM a hostage and be blackmailed. China was a common concern for UK. US and FSU

Rohit_K · Post by **Rohit_K** » 23 May 2012 12:49

SBajwa · Post by **SBajwa** » 23 May 2012 19:00

Very interesting!! thank you Rohit Ji!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 May 2012 20:52

RohitK, Thanks. Please start a thread with the images inline. You will be doing a great service for the old timers who left TSP.

ManuT · Post by **ManuT** » 07 Jul 2012 01:13

Posting in full

Punjab’s ‘cleansing’
By Ajmal Kamal
Published: July 6, 2012

http://tribune.com.pk/story/404683/punjabs-cleansing/

I must begin by apologising to readers for the absence of the last two Saturdays, although it was hardly my fault.

Coming back to Ishtiaq Ahmed’s book The Punjab Bloodied, Partitioned and Cleansed (OUP, 2012), what sets it apart from the usual one-sided, ‘nationalistic’, vested-interest-driven accounts of the ‘sacrifices made for freedom’, and puts it into the category of sincere attempts at finding out and facing what actually happened in cities, towns, villages and hamlets where normal human beings resided, is that he bases his conclusions on the accounts of the victims and witnesses of those events, and that he does not hesitate to acknowledge facts, even if they fly in the face of the officially sanctioned ‘truth’. In this, he is encouraged by the deeply personal pain, I am sure, that he shares with Saadat Hasan Manto, on that the ‘non-state actors’ — that acted swiftly and brutally to serve the rationally chalked out agenda of influential people above them — were never made to suffer any trial or punishment by the state they created. On the contrary, they were accorded the status of ‘freedom fighters’.

Punjab was the single province which suffered the fate of total ethnic cleansing in the wake of the bloodiest riots that took place at the time of partition. This fact became more, not less, relevant because of the subsequent developments, including the fact that in December 1971, after the 25-year-long aberration of East Bengal being a part of the uncomfortable new state ended, Punjab turned into the majority province with concentrated power at all significant levels. Punjab’s experience, and the worldview born out of it, was generalised as the ‘national ideology’ — notwithstanding that several of its features are alien to the other units of the federation.

Ishtiaq Ahmed agrees with other fact-finders that the beginning of ‘the process’ were the March 1947 massacres that took place in and around Rawalpindi. This was what triggered a chain of destruction and suffering that culminated in the attainment of the ‘national’ goals. Let me give you a sample of the evidence collected and carefully weighed by him. First an excerpt from the report of All-India Congress Committee that he quotes on page 174-5: “These were not riots but deliberately organised military campaigns. Long before the disturbances broke out secret meetings were held in mosques under the leadership of Syed Akbar Khan … ex-MLA, Capt. Lal Khan of Kahuta, Tehsildar and Police Sub-Inspector Kahuta, Maulvi Abdul Rehman and Kala Khan MLA, in which jihad… was proclaimed against the minorities and emissaries were sent out to collect volunteers from the rural areas…. The armed crowds which attacked Kahuta, Thoa Khalsa, and Nara etc. were led by ex-military men on horseback… armed with Tommy guns, pistols, rifles, hand grenades, hatchets, petrol tins and even carried field glasses…. First of all minorities were disarmed with the help of the local police and by giving assurances on oaths on the Holy Quran of peaceful intentions. After this had been done, the helpless and unarmed minorities were attacked. On their resistance having collapsed, lock-breakers and looters came into action with their transport corps of mules, donkeys and camels. Then came the ‘Mujahideens’ with tins of petrol and kerosene oil and set fire to the looted shops and houses. Then there were Maulvis… with barbers to convert who somehow or other escaped slaughter and rape. The barbers shaved the hair and beards and circumcised the victims. Maulvis … performed forcible marriage ceremonies. After this came the looters, including women and men.”
Justice Muhammad Munir who represented the Muslim League on the Punjab Boundary Commission and later served as Chief Justice… had the following to say about the riots in Rawalpindi: “The disturbances broke out in March 1947 in the district of Rawalpindi and the adjoining areas and the Muslims were the aggressors. I spoke to the Quaid-e-Azam about this telling him that it was a bad augur and he should either go himself to Pindi or send some responsible member of the Muslim League to assure the minorities that in Pakistan, if it ever were established, the will have equal rights…. He agreed with me and …replied in a bold and confident manner, ‘Let me get into the saddle and you will not hear any nonsense of the kind.’ However, he ordered Mamdot to go there personally for the purpose….” (P.173)

Ishtiaq Ahmed adds: “It is to be noted that neither Jinnah nor any other leading Muslim Leaguer issued a public statement condemning the atrocities in Rawalpindi. I have checked the main English language newspapers, the Pakistan Times and The Tribune, and found no statement by any Muslim leader on the Rawalpindi riots. In the Jinnah Papers as well, there is nothing on the Rawalpindi riots; nor did any Punjab-level leader of the Muslim League issue a condemnation.”
Published in The Express Tribune, July 7th, 2012.

ManuT · Post by **ManuT** » 07 Jul 2012 02:00

Quoting only the parts relevant to the thread.

By Haider Nizamani
Published: July 5, 2012

Jinnah, for most Pakistanis today, is the Quaid-e-Azam — the man above any sect in the Islamic Republic. As the Republic he founded increasingly becomes a place where minorities feel vulnerable, it would be remiss to forget that the founder of the country was a Shia. Born into an Ismaili family, he later converted to the Twelver (isna ashri) branch of Shia Islam. He died in 1948 and his sister, Miss Fatima Jinnah, filed an affidavit in the Sindh High Court stating that her brother was a “Shia Khoja Mohamedan”. Liaquat Ali Khan, the first prime minister of Pakistan, jointly signed the affidavit. Khaled Ahmed, in his book Sectarian War, documents in detail how the last rites of the Quaid were performed according to Shia stipulations. Jinnah’s Shia colleagues such as Yusuf Haroon and Hashim Raza attended the namaz-e-janaza (funeral prayer) at the Governor General’s House, while prime minister Liaquat Ali Khan waited outside in the adjacent room. After the Shia funeral prayer, the nascent state took the body for Sunni last rites at the grounds where now stands the Quaid’s mausoleum in Karachi. Miss Fatima Jinnah passed away in 1967 and in her case, too, private last rites were performed according to Shia guidelines and the state-sponsored namaz-e-janaza followed it.

http://tribune.com.pk/story/404111/the- ... -massacre/

Arunkumar · Post by **Arunkumar** » 07 Jul 2012 11:59

Rohit_K wrote: The album has many more images of mandirs, gurdwaras from Nankana Sahib and Lyallpur (SBajwa ji would be interested). This page and the following pages have images of paintings/weapons/chairs of the Sikh empire located in Lahore's museum.

gr8 post Rohit_K. BRF should have a seperate thread to depict life in Pakistan before 1947. It would be interesting to see how life was in karachi, peshawar, lahore etc before this madness took over.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 24 Jul 2012 07:51

Why Partition? Perry Anderson

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 24 Jul 2012 13:44

arvin wrote:
gr8 post Rohit_K. BRF should have a seperate thread to depict life in ~~Pakistan~~ Punjab, Gaandhar and Sindh provinces of India before 1947. It would be interesting to see how life was in karachi, peshawar, lahore etc before this madness took over.

There I fixed the sentence.. Yes this thread would be great idea.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Aug 2012 19:29

X-post...

SSridhar wrote:
sadhana wrote:Those provincial assemblies elected in 1937 which had elected Hindu majorities, Jinnah and Muslim League rejected within 3 months.

IOW, unless I am mistaken, Jinnah the great nationalist never in his lifetime had to accept the legitimacy of an elected Hindu majority government(ie government responsible to an elected Hindu majority legislature) whether in the provinces or at the centre.
sadhana, welcome to the board.

The feeling of desperation among the Muslim elites emanated from the Yamuna-Gangetic belt area. The Mussalman delegation that waited on Viceroy Minto in c. 1906 and extracted a promise of reserved seats as and when elections were to be held in future, or not to do anything that would put 'the conquering and ruling race' of Muslims at a disadvantage vis-a-vis the Hindus when Constitution was framed, comprised essentially of leaders from this area. The meeting so buoyed up the spirits of these Muslim leaders that within three months, the Muslim League was announced in Dacca. On their part, the British had methodically worked on the concept that there never was a single, united India in history before and the divisions among the Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, tribals and Dravidians were deep enough not to warrant a single unified nation. Such an idea to divide the nation on ethno-linguistic-religious lines was put in motion since 1857. As part of such a divide-and-conquer rule, the British acceded to the demands of the Yamuna-Ganges leaders and introduced separate Muslim electorates under the Minto-Morley Reforms of 1909.

These elites sensed, at the turn of the twentieth century, that the British were moving towards loosening their grip on India and the iron must be hit when it was hot. They knew that democracy meant that they would no longer have the unlimited powers that they enjoyed, as a class, until the British took over. Besides, they probably felt it was a double whammy for them losing power to the 'ruled class'.

Jinnah came under the influence of this group which lay centred around Aligarh but extended from East Bengal all the way upto Delhi. His own ego (which was hurt by the emergence of Gandhiji and later Nehru) coupled with his craftiness and a burning desire to settle scores irrespective of the cost were all exploited by the vested interests of the Yamuna-Gangetic belt nawabs, ashrafs, vaderas, zamindars and elites. Since the concept of Jama'at is so well entrenched in Muslim psyche, the elites of the Muslim League were able to push through their agenda easily among the Muslims, especially of their north, north-eastern and eastern belts.

As is clear from that c. 1906 meeting with Minto, the Mussalman never intended to share power with the Hindus. That explains every attempt by the ML to destabilize provincial and central governments. They were quite willing to be British subjects but not willing to suffer the ignominy of being ruled by a government which consisted of the Hindus in a majority even though Muslims would also be part therein. That was why, while the Ali brothers canvassed strongly against the British for dismantling the Ottoman Caliphate, the Yamuna-Ganges Muslim elites turned the Khilafat agitation topsy-turvy and claimed that such a failure, which led to loss of Muslim face, must not be allowed again within the country. By this, they meant the Hindus gaining power. Jinnah's opposition to the 'Khilafat Movement' (apart of course from his antagonism towards Gandhiji for simply pulling the rug from under his feet) and his submission to the Yamuna-Ganges elites should be seen in this light.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 03 Aug 2012 22:14

SSridhar wrote:As is clear from that c. 1906 meeting with Minto, the Mussalman never intended to share power with the Hindus. That explains every attempt by the ML to destabilize provincial and central governments. They were quite willing to be British subjects but not willing to suffer the ignominy of being ruled by a government which consisted of the Hindus in a majority even though Muslims would also be part therein. That was why, while the Ali brothers canvassed strongly against the British for dismantling the Ottoman Caliphate, the Yamuna-Ganges Muslim elites turned the Khilafat agitation topsy-turvy and claimed that such a failure, which led to loss of Muslim face, must not be allowed again within the country. By this, they meant the Hindus gaining power. Jinnah's opposition to the 'Khilafat Movement' (apart of course from his antagonism towards Gandhiji for simply pulling the rug from under his feet) and his submission to the Yamuna-Ganges elites should be seen in this light.

SSridhar,
There are many things during this period we need to be aware.

From 1900 to 1910 the British were debating about the Ottomoan empire and its demise.
One of the largest Muslim population was inside India and inside their empire.

They started a dialogue with the Punjabi Musalman (already within the BIA and cantonments in the Punjab/Baloch/MWFP area) to discuss a post Caliphate muslim world and a world of muslim nation states.
They had to get an agreement with tis group for a solution. Whether Indian muslims and Arab muslims were in dialgue about this plan to play against the Turkish Ottoman empire is not known but they gave the British authoritythe confidence that British could dismantle the Ottoman empire and create an alternate framework for the muslim world.

The Indian Muslim League was born out this world situation for Muslims in 1906
Ali brothe created a movement to save the Caliphate but the ML secretly had agreed to it in return for a Muslim stat
This secret split in the Muslim world is the most successful strategy of the British authority

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 14 Aug 2012 09:05

An episode with Jinnah, shedding some light on his religious beliefs in 1917.
http://thepartitionofindia.blogspot.com ... ion-4.html

yogi · Post by **yogi** » 15 Aug 2012 02:45

Why partition was a good thing for India - Swami Aiyyar

[warning: Article is full of defeatist and colonial mentality, Nehru charnamrit, and uses Churchill's imperi-racist comments as gospel of truth.]

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 15 Aug 2012 04:22

interesting things is why is Aiyar concerned with that beaten and worn drum now? one would think nobody really is concerned with that topic at present, right? why the need to reinforce "truth" at this juncture?

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 15 Aug 2012 07:02

devesh wrote:interesting things is why is Aiyar concerned with that beaten and worn drum now? one would think nobody really is concerned with that topic at present, right? why the need to reinforce "truth" at this juncture?

Swaminathan Aiyyar is Mani Shankar Aiyyar's brother, so we cannot expect anything better. But, there is a reason these people write like this now. It is to influence young Indian minds in a particular way. People who have no idea of events leading up to Partition, which almost all Indians are today, will get immensely influenced by this single article. There is no counter to this and even if one writes, it may not get published and the damage is done anyway by being the first mover. And, it has appeared in ET which is part of the ToI group which in turn is the prime mover of the 'Aman ki Asha' American programme.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 15 Aug 2012 07:17

A Pakistani once told me that every time they hear of a communal riot in India, they thank Allah that they achieved liberation from Hindu domination and hypocritical crap about secularism.

Of course, irony is lost on Indians. One of those subtle cultural things, I guess.

partha · Post by **partha** » 15 Aug 2012 07:26

Atri wrote:
arvin wrote:
gr8 post Rohit_K. BRF should have a seperate thread to depict life in ~~Pakistan~~ Punjab, Gaandhar and Sindh provinces of India before 1947. It would be interesting to see how life was in karachi, peshawar, lahore etc before this madness took over.
There I fixed the sentence.. Yes this thread would be great idea.

Check out http://www.oldindianphotos.in in addition to what Rohitji has posted.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 15 Aug 2012 10:19

I am in the middle of reading the Shadow of the great game, the untold story of India's partition. Have just finished the 6th chapter. It seems that the INC's tactical brilliance of resigning from the cabinet opposing the UK in the WW11 and the political opportunism of Jinna is to blame. With the "great" Churchill playing spoil sport.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 15 Aug 2012 10:31

yogi wrote:Why partition was a good thing for India - Swami Aiyyar

[warning: Article is full of defeatist and colonial mentality, Nehru charnamrit, and uses Churchill's imperi-racist comments as gospel of truth.]

Illustrates well how a person can be narrowly intelligent in one particular field - but a complete moron when going beyond his core competence. SA Aiyar should stick to economics if he wants to sustain his reputation.

Supratik · Post by **Supratik** » 15 Aug 2012 13:07

I actually agree with the broad conclusion of Swaminathan Aiyar that partition was good for nation building. Imagine 350 million people (by current population count - may end up more with time) hating you, your culture, religion, civilization and willing to use violent means against you inside the country. Where I disagree is that 1) it was clean (no it was not - it was messy and was not carried to its logic conclusion perhaps with an exchange of population), 2) the Nehru hagiography - others like Ambedkar had more contribution in nation building and 3) that we have a secular nation because of Nehru - (no it is not - Indic people are inherently tolerant).

sum · Post by **sum** » 15 Aug 2012 21:41

it was messy and was not carried to its logic conclusion perhaps with an exchange of population

As days are going by and more and more of the true faces are being shown, feel that this is one mistake Desh will come to repent after few years/decades time.

Varoon Shekhar · Post by **Varoon Shekhar** » 18 Aug 2012 11:26

The article by Perry Anderson "Why partition" is a very verbose, wordy exercise in attempting to understand the various motivations and behaviour of the two major contesting organisations on the eve of independence. But, as is so typical of a British colonial outlook, the British are conveniently left out in the apportioning of culpability in the horrors of partition, and of course the policies which led to that tragic event. Nor is there a bare acknowledgement of British colonial exploitation of India, both economic and political( i.e use of Indian soldiers, India as a base for operations). Anderson wants everything focused solely on the Hindu-Moslem divide. Thus the very progressive, enlightened *nature* of the Indian freedom movement finds no mention at all. The movement liberated not only the Indian subcontinent but helped to pave the way for the independence of scores of colonised countries in Africa and Asia. One wonders if Anderson pursues a similar approach when assessing progressive freedom struggles against British( and other European) imperialism in Africa and Southeast Asia.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 18 Aug 2012 19:16

Pratyush wrote:I am in the middle of reading the Shadow of the great game, the untold story of India's partition. Have just finished the 6th chapter. It seems that the INC's tactical brilliance of resigning from the cabinet opposing the UK in the WW11 and the political opportunism of Jinna is to blame. With the "great" Churchill playing spoil sport.

I think I have mentioned before that the resignation was helped along by the needs of the big-biz lobby in the 37-39 stretch. INC grassroots in the industrial belt was getting more radicalized and leftie. Being in the same org they could and were bringing pressures on respective state govs [UP+Bihar] especially, in labour conforntations with the big-biz owners. Ties of big-biz with the INC also made it difficult for them to participate in the potential tender market that would arise from the prospects of war [the peace-loving Brits had been acquiring things in anticipation of war long before Chamberlain actually went to make peace].

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 19 Aug 2012 23:35

> the peace-loving Brits had been acquiring things in anticipation
> of war long before Chamberlain actually went to make peace

B, can you explain this a little more, for those who are not that knowledeable in history and its implications.
Thanks

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 20 Aug 2012 03:44

Surinder,
in general, the Brits had begun to acquire materials of a strategic nature needed for war - metals, and been expanding industrial capacity in a specific direction in India especially from as early as 1936. I will post the nature of this effort, its connection to Indian big capital, and the internal tug-of-war that started and was very strongly going on in the backdrop to the 1937 resignations.

meanwhile, here is a curious pointer to an old material:
http://www.bl.uk/reshelp/findhelpregion ... index.html

7. Bose has now finally burned his boats with us by virtue of his association with Germany and Japan, his political future being entirely dependent upon the continued military success of the Japanese and the paralysis of British rule in India by internal revolt. Fortunately public morale and internal security in India are now fairly steady and the Japanese widely feared. Bose will undoubtedly be able to make some capital our of the economic distress and the political deadlock but unless he can win over Congress en bloc his chances of stirring up a major revolt would appear to be small. Had he arrived in East Asia last August or even during Gandhi's fast his prospects would have been much better.

This gives us a curious angle to what was going on during the war years from the Brit intel side, and what they possibly attempted in trying to gain a handle on Indian leaders. This is purportedly a most-secret doc, and hence meant for preaching to the choir - so the psy-ops angle should be ruled out trying to say that this was somehow meant to tar and feather the congrez.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 20 Aug 2012 06:47

Pratyush wrote:I am in the middle of reading the Shadow of the great game, the untold story of India's partition. Have just finished the 6th chapter. It seems that the INC's tactical brilliance of resigning from the cabinet opposing the UK in the WW11 and the political opportunism of Jinna is to blame. With the "great" Churchill playing spoil sport.

A great book and an essential read on the topic. Material that was not covered before.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 20 Aug 2012 14:28

Who orchestrated the exodus of Sindhi Hindus after Partition ? - By Haider Nizamani

The prime minister, Liaquat Ali Khan, was angry with Khuhro when he went to see him on January 9 or 10. Liaquat said to Khuhro: “What sort of Muslim are you that you protect Hindus here when Muslims are being killed in India. Aren’t you ashamed of yourself!” In the third week of January 1948, Liaquat Ali Khan said the Sindh government must move out of Karachi and told Khuhro to “go make your capital in Hyderabad or somewhere else”. Liaquat said this during a cabinet meeting while Jinnah quietly listened.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 21 Aug 2012 08:39

Remembering Ashfaqullah who kissed gallows with a smile

And the fact that the festival was celebrated within days after the country's 66th Independence Day makes it imperative to recall the contribution of Muslims, especially revolutionaries, such as S. Ashfaqullah Khan who made the ultimate sacrifice for the nation and kissed the gallows with a smile at the age of 27 to make India as free as she is today.

On August 9, 1925, Ashfaqullah played a major role in executing the famous Kakori train dacoity in which a group of revolutionaries looted the government treasury box to fund their activities. After the daring incident that challenged the then British Empire, he managed to stay away from the eyes of the police for long until one of his schoolmates betrayed him and turned a police informer.

In the jail, attempts were made to turn him into an approver so that all those who were involved in the dacoity could be given maximum punishment and he was lured with money and position. The task was assigned to an Indian Superintendent of Police Tasadruk Khan who wondered why a Muslim should be involved in the fight of the Hindus to win back their kingdom. {I posted this in this thread to reinforce the point of view held by the Muslims of the Yamuna-Ganges belt}

To this Ashfaqullah had reportedly said: “I am the only Muslim in this case (Kakori train dacoity) and if I am hanged, this honour will go to a Muslim. It will be a great honour for me. The whole Muslim community will be discredited if I become a traitor. In death, I want to prove that I was a true Muslim. I do not fear death but I have a fear of getting a bad name if I betray the country.”

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 21 Aug 2012 08:47

Unfortunately for Ashfaqullah, his family,descendent moved to Pakistan and few of them turned terrorists and one of them made his apperance in Indian terrirtory, He was efficently sent to meet his reward upstairs.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Aug 2012 21:24

You mean downstairs aka jahnum.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 23 Aug 2012 04:20

Jhujar wrote:Unfortunately for Ashfaqullah, his family,descendent moved to Pakistan and few of them turned terrorists and one of them made his apperance in Indian terrirtory, He was efficently sent to meet his reward upstairs.

Revolution or idealism does not run in the blood. Ashfaqulla was product of the post-ww1 weakening of the ummah psyche when Islam did not appear so strongly as the onlee option. The Brits and the Saudi-Sunni alliance quickly moved in to stabilize the situation. From 1921 the Brit-Sunni alliance mounted a reactionary offensive wherby the muftis and mullahobscenity was buttressed throughout the ME and subtly in India too. Ashfaqulla's most impressive emotional years (15-20) would lie square in the late WWI phase. This does not necessarily form a deterministic rule.

However it is consistent that the most violent and sadistic ML leadership who shaped the partition-violence were either far older during WW1 or far younger. Very few Muslim youth actually participated in Hindu dominated insurgent freedom movements - but at least one of them spent deportation in Andamans with his Hindu colleagues and I think was killed during a peace rally during the Partition violence. My namaskaar in his memory.

These men should be seen as individuals - not Muslims or Islamic. Their action does not influence or characterize Islamist thinking or societal mobilization trajectories. Neither should consistent Islamist behaviour at the macro level rule out the possibility of emergence of such individuals.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 26 Aug 2012 20:09

Jhujar wrote:The ‘bloody’ Punjab partition — VI

http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?pa ... 2012_pg3_5
The 20th century witnessed religious revivals in the three communities: Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs. Such revivals not only created dissension within these three communities as new theological schools emerged, but also between them. It was in the urban areas that such new tensions emerged in the 20th century. First, an ugly Hindu-Muslim confrontation took place in the wake of the publication of the highly provocative Rangeela Rasul (The Colourful Prophet) pamphlet in 1926 by Rajpal. It resulted in the murder of the publisher and the conviction and hanging of the assassin, Ilam Din, in 1929.In 1935, the Muslims and Sikhs of Lahore were drawn into the notorious Masjid-Gurudwara Shahidganj dispute. Besides tense courtroom scenes, violence crept into the conflict. Both communities claimed ownership of that sacred place, which at that time was in Sikh possession. The Muslims claimed that it had originally been a mosque. The agitation was started by Muslims. The Sikhs were outnumbered as Lahore was an overwhelmingly Muslim-majority city (more than 64 percent) while the Sikh population of the city was five percent only. A number of deaths took place. The Sikhs became increasingly fearful of Muslim majoritarian domination. The Lahore High Court confirmed the Sikh claims to that disputed place. It was received with great resentment by the Muslims.When the Lahore Resolution was adopted in 1940, considerable anxiety could be noted in Punjabi Hindu and Sikh circles. The Sikh leaders were determined to oppose the partition of India tooth and nail and immediately afterwards their leaders began to peddle ideas of Sikhistan while the Hindu Mahasabha and RSS, minor players in Punjab politics, were invigorated too. They had evolved a Hindu version of the Two Nation Theory, directed against Muslims. The Congress, which believed in the One Nation Theory based on inclusive criteria and secularism, was at that time still a minor player in Punjab. I

At this stage, the Congress committed a fatal blunder. Gandhi launched the Quit India movement in August 1942 with a view to driving the British out. Viceroy Lord Linlithgow retaliated with great ferocity. Arrests, public whippings and long prison sentences were meted out and the movement collapsed. In Punjab, the Quit India movement did not make much impression; the few Congress leaders and cadres were incarcerated, while most of Punjab remained loyal to the British. On the all-India level, the whole Congress leadership was sent to jail and remained there till the summer of 1945.Jinnah offered his hand of cooperation to the British. It helped recruiting soldiers into the army. In Punjab especially, this was very useful. The martial races theory was set aside and Muslims from urban backgrounds were now welcome to join the armed forces. It was among them that the Muslim League enjoyed support.

Gandhi Launched the quit India movement when the British were at the lowest point in WWII. This made Churchill more trouble and he invited all the Indian Princes from the Kingdom to London to get support with troops against the German front.
QUit India movement may explain the British partition of India after 1942.
1942 to 1946 the Punjabi Mussalman class in the Army consolidated their position in BIA and gave support to Muslim League. This loyalty was rewarded by the British and also gave them headstart in London and future plans of Pakistan. The Mirpuris Punjab Class were in the forefront of the Kashmir National Conference agitation after 1945 WWII.
Sarvarkar supports large scale Hindu recuritment into the Army right in 1945. He refers this to the WWII and future plans of the country. This may be a reaction to the BIA recruitment of the Punjab Musalman class and future threat to the Hindus.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 09 Sep 2012 01:04

Pakistan was created to serve British military interests. India was created to preserve British cultural interests!

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 09 Sep 2012 01:14

RajeshA wrote:Pakistan was created to serve British military interests. India was created to preserve British cultural interests!

Super!

Pakistan was created to serve British Geo Strategic interests. India was created to preserve British cultural interests and British global economic relations

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 09 Sep 2012 04:37

Pakistan was created, but India was not.