Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011

[brihaspati]

Arnab ji,
you are perhaps then not an academic but a politician? You consistently ignore the parts we write - which are problematic for you to acknowledge. In my post I have clearly disntinguished between "exact sciences" peer review and - the sly misappropriation of the concept by "inexact" or subjects like history, where the paradigm model works differently.

You ignored my detailed explanation of the difference of "peer reviews" in the two cases. My own specialist area is within the "exact sciences" and in something that is easily verified by independent academics, and yes I have quite a list of "peer reviewed" stuff. My subject area is not dependent on opinion, but logic and "proofs". Historians - academic - peer reviewed or otherwise - are all about opinions and interpretations. Publication depends on whether you belong to the coterie or not.

Sharma's blog post is a mere pointer. But why do you need to ignore his quotes of V.A.Smith for example? Smith was a well known imperialist ideologue who evaluated India and Indian history from the British colonial imperatives of justifying genocide and colonial exploitation.

Do read up on early British historian description or representation of Indian history and Alexander's role in it. Sharma is not saying anything new. There are a few "academic" writings on this too. I will wait for you to find them- if you want to, that is.

Sharma is pointing out two groups of facts :

Authors like Smith tried toe nlarge the role of Alexander and took all of the hagiographies of Alexander at their face value. Given Smith's known ideological tendencies, it then becomes quite acceptable - by standard historian's technique, to construct speculative questions as extension of interpretations - to pose Smiths' motivations. This is the favourite technique of the stalwarts like Prof Thapar, for example. If you dismiss Sharma, you will have to dismiss Prof. Thapar too.

Second group of facts : even in obvious hagiographies, the Greek historians have given out specific instances of Alexander's sliminess, deceptive nature of his imeprialist propaganda and genocidic hatred of Indians. These are facts not invented by Sharma, but available in source texts by Greeks themselves - who show very obvious awareness of the need to deify Alexander and try to whitewash him as much as possible. These would immediately show as tow hy the Brits would find him an attractive icon in their colonial project.

Anyway, Sharma is not the first one to note this. Please do some research - even if it does not support the whitewashing of characters like Smith.

[arnab]

You were making some arguments using Alexander's global popularity as a hero. You still haven't said, what is the relevance of Alexander or his popularity for India or for that matter for your argument about Inayat Noor Khan.

Actually it was irrelevant but it took a life of its own People were arguing that Noor Inayat Khan did nothing of signifcance. My riposte was that given that she was 28 years old when she died, using that exalted criteria would mean that nobody apart from Alexander did anything significant. The discussion then wandered off to young Indians who did global things (but are not globally recognised). Then a view formed that Alexander should not be globally recognised and anyone who does so is a british bootlicker

Noor Inayat Khan did not distinguish herself as a Indian Hero during the Second World War (she was a British Hero), and she did not distinguish herself as a Indian Hero afterwards.!

Er..did you do anything great by the age of 28 By that logic, Baji Rao Peshwa is not an Indian hero either - he did it only for his kingdom. Why should we revere him and not Noor Khan?

[Hari Seldon]

arnab,

Perhaps you could expertly refute B-Ji's arguments with equal panache. That would be interesting to see.

[johneeG]

er..that quote was made in the context of loot, rape etc happenning before the british arrived (in discussions with B-ji) and the subsequent alignment of some kingdoms with the britishers in their national interest.

It is difficult to keep track because you keep bringing all kinds of things into your argument.

Alright, your original post in reply of Bji is:

Sikandar popular in Latin America? !!! Simon Bolivar would be the prime choice.East Africa - yes, most likely to be among Muslim populations again, but then again not that much outside of Sudan and Saudis. Iranians and by association Shia's have a particularly dim view of Sikandar - they protray him with the devil's horn. I should have clarified that in Lucknow Sikandar was not adored.

Once again, Alexander is a hero more of the British empire, much touted by British historiography, and among Indians - a particular obsession with Alexander/Sikandar is associated with the Anglophile subculture. Outside India, he is better known among ex-Brit colonies, and among social classes traditionally associated with being close to or servile to the Brits.

Well Indians have been kinder with much more to the Brits - in allowing them not only to work, but also to loot, rape and maim and destroy. The greatest kindness Indians showed was providing the necessary bootlickers. The Brits are yet to make up for it in kind and length of time. No one will disagree that a significant portion of Indians were bootlickers of the Brits! Many continue to do so even long after the Brits are not their direct overlords. But that does not elevate bootlicking to the status of national pastime.

arrey 'popular' (as in 'rah rah Alexander') nahi bhai - but are they more likely to have heard of Alexander or Madanlal Dhingra? Umm - saar loot, maim, destruction was already happenning before that. Ah not bootlickers saar - at the time let us say the alignment with the british was guided by what passed for 'national' interest at the time (given that there were many 'nations' then)

I highlighted the relevant portion. Now, where is 1857 mentioned? Are you saying that loot, maim and destruction stopped in 1857? Are you saying 'bootlicking' stopped in 1857?

The Bengal famine of 1943 reached its peak between July and November of that year, and the worst of the famine was over by early 1945.[99] Famine fatality statistics were unreliable, and it is estimated up to two million died.

Link

Looting continued upto 1947. Some believe that the looting continued even after 1947 thanks to the proxies(or 'bootlickers'). Infact, in that very post Bji is saying that 'even long after the Brits are not their direct overlords'. Yes, the level of 'destruction'(as in 1857) may not been necessary because they had acquired the control while in 1857 they had still not done so. Destruction is necessary only when the looting is resisted. And to that extent, destruction also continued.

Anyway, the following points in my post are relevant to Noor Inayat Khan's case:

Anyway the point is, by late 1920s, there was a clear acknowledgement of 'national cause' i.e. Independence from the brits. People were agitating against the brits in violent and non-violent manner.

Clearly, you are wrong when you say that there was no national cause or 'a single nation' at the time. At least, in 1943-44 period(Noor Inayat Khan's activity period), there was acknowledgement of 'national causes' and of being a single nation among Indians(who were not 'bootlickers' of the brits).

So, to say that alignment with the brit cause is equal to national cause in 1943-1944 is a disingenuous argument. Yes, some Indians may have believed that allying with the brits in WWII was beneficial to India's cause.

But, there is nothing to show that Noor's involvement with the Brits was for the Indian national cause. On the contrary, she seems to have been primarily motivated by occupation of France by the Nazi Germany.

Therefore, it is the responsibility of those for whose cause she worked and died, to honour her. Why bring India into it? There are many people who were working for Indian national cause in that period and suffered as much(if not more). India needs to honour them.

---

Not a 'cause'. I admire her bravery as an Indian. Manekshaw won a military cross for his efforts against the japanese (who were allied to Bose) - it did grant him his rise through the ranks and put him in the role of the Indian army chief at a crucial point in India's history. I can't spit on one part of his history (as a lackey of the brits) and praise another! He was a man of his times and it all contributed to what he became and did for India.

So, cause is not important?!! Hain, ji!

So, you are saying that because Noor Inayat Khan was of Indian origin, her bravery must be admired. This is a very faulty premise. In fact, generally, people work other way around i.e. as long as the cause is 'right', the origins can be ignored. Generally, people admire public figures to the extent that they worked for the 'cause'. This is the general way. But, some people get carried away and want to deify the figures and celebrating them blindly even in those instances when the actions or words of these figures went against the cause. This is true for all figures. Bose or Manekshaw....

But, you want to ignore the cause and blindly admire any bravery shown by any Indian. Fine then! But, are you actually ready to practice this view in all cases i.e. admire the bravery of the Indian(or Indian origin) regardless of the cause? I hope you are not propping up this argument just to suit your present case. Are you willing to practice it in all cases? If you practice it in all cases, then it can get very tricky. You would have to admire people from all kinds of causes(even 'sinister' ones).

[brihaspati]

Arnab ji, you also speculated that opposition to Noor Inayat being touted as an Indian hero - was because she is a Muslim. It was clearly stated, at least by me, that I saw her declared chief intention of helping out the Brits was because she "hated the Nazis" and the "Nazi occupation of her homeland France". So the immediate cause of her heroism was not India, or any Indian territory or connection either.

You are determined to equate Noor Inayat and Baji Rao - but Baji Rao was at least fighting for a piece of Indian territory, and for Indians, against an obviously non-Indian invader from outside who was neither prepared, nor respectful of any part of Indian identity. I am estimating that you have some connection, by origins, to Bengal - my apologies, if I am wrong. But if you have that Bengali connection, I am quite positive that you have come across the poser - that since Rabindranath and he-goats both have beards, they must be identical. Your attempts at forcing equality between incomparables almost parallel that kind of logical thinking.

[arnab]

It is difficult to keep track because you keep bringing all kinds of things into your argument.

See the underlines - presumably the looting commenced when they arrived, as well as the bootlicking / national interest (take your pick)

Alright, your original post in reply of Bji is:

Well Indians have been kinder with much more to the Brits - in allowing them not only to work, but also to loot, rape and maim and destroy. The greatest kindness Indians showed was providing the necessary bootlickers. The Brits are yet to make up for it in kind and length of time. No one will disagree that a significant portion of Indians were bootlickers of the Brits! Many continue to do so even long after the Brits are not their direct overlords. But that does not elevate bootlicking to the status of national pastime.

arrey 'popular' (as in 'rah rah Alexander') nahi bhai - but are they more likely to have heard of Alexander or Madanlal Dhingra? Umm - saar loot, maim, destruction was already happenning before that. Ah not bootlickers saar - at the time let us say the alignment with the british was guided by what passed for 'national' interest at the time (given that there were many 'nations' then)

[/quote]

[arnab]

Arnab ji, you also speculated that opposition to Noor Inayat being touted as an Indian hero - was because she is a Muslim. It was clearly stated, at least by me, that I saw her declared chief intention of helping out the Brits was because she "hated the Nazis" and the "Nazi occupation of her homeland France". So the immediate cause of her heroism was not India, or any Indian territory or connection either.

You are determined to equate Noor Inayat and Baji Rao - but Baji Rao was at least fighting for a piece of Indian territory, and for Indians, against an obviously non-Indian invader from outside who was neither prepared, nor respectful of any part of Indian identity. I am estimating that you have some connection, by origins, to Bengal - my apologies, if I am wrong. But if you have that Bengali connection, I am quite positive that you have come across the poser - that since Rabindranath and he-goats both have beards, they must be identical. Your attempts at forcing equality between incomparables almost parallel that kind of logical thinking.

Baji Rao was fighting for his territory. If he was successful at the time, his territory would have been as little relevant to me as France. So why revere him?

[RajeshA]

Noor Inayat Khan did not distinguish herself as a Indian Hero during the Second World War (she was a British Hero), and she did not distinguish herself as a Indian Hero afterwards.!

Er..did you do anything great by the age of 28 By that logic, Baji Rao Peshwa is not an Indian hero either - he did it only for his kingdom. Why should we revere him and not Noor Khan?

I am not denying that Noor Inayat Khan'd bravery! She however served the British. And in the British pantheon of heroes she too may get a mention. But she did nothing for India and hence is not an Indian Hero. You seem to have some difficulty accepting that.

Baji Rao Peshwa fought against Islamic rulers of India and thus against expansion of Islamic dominance over Bharat. That makes him a Indian hero.

[arnab]

Baji Rao Peshwa fought against Islamic rulers of India and thus against expansion of Islamic dominance over Bharat. That makes him a Indian hero.

Sorry aren't we talking about Baji Rao II of the Anglo Maratha war fame? (Incidentally as per your example shouldn't you say 'hindu hero'). Which is fine - I do not mind acknowledging him as a hero

[arnab]

arnab,

Perhaps you could expertly refute B-Ji's arguments with equal panache. That would be interesting to see.

What arguments? He says he is speculating because every historian speculates (as opposed to rigorous proofs in exact sciences) so he too has a right to his speculations Fair enough - but then forgive me if I'm not convinced.

[nachiket]

Sorry aren't we talking about Baji Rao II of the Anglo Maratha war fame?

No.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baji_Rao_I

[nachiket]

So should we call Jinnah a hero as well?

Well a number of ex-indians already do However, from our perspective - here we have a chap who unleashed a conflagration on the Indian civilian population through direct action day, never undertook any personal risk (even avoided the minor discomfort of going to jail when supposedly fighting for an Indian cause), and willingly conspired with the Brits to satisfy his ego; if such a person embodies heroism for you - so be it

Doesn't matter what I think. He satisfies the definition of "hero" that you gave and with which most here don't agree.

Baji Rao was fighting for his territory. If he was successful at the time, his territory would have been as little relevant to me as France. So why revere him?

So an Indian king fighting to reclaim Indian territory from foreign invaders is as little relevant to you as Noor Inayat Khan fighting for France? Every past Indian king fought for his own territory (or to acquire more territory). Or for that matter every past king anywhere, including your much beloved Alexander. Why does anyone revere them?

[arnab]

Sorry aren't we talking about Baji Rao II of the Anglo Maratha war fame?

No.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baji_Rao_I

My bad. Interesting quote from your link:

Let us transcend the barren Deccan and conquer central India. The Mughals have become weak indolent womanizers and opium-addicts. The accumulated wealth of centuries in the vaults of the north, can be ours. It is time to drive from the holy land of Bharatvarsha the outcaste and the barbarian. Let us throw them back over the Himalayas, back to where they came from. The Maratha flag must fly from the Krishna to the Indus. Hindustan is ours.

If it was swapping one flag with another - not sure why he ought to be revered as an 'Indian' hero as opposed to a Maratha hero.

[arnab]

Doesn't matter what I think. He satisfies the definition of "hero" that you gave and with which most here don't agree.

Does he? fighting for a cause where he bore no personal risk was my definition of a hero?

[RajeshA]

Baji Rao Peshwa fought against Islamic rulers of India and thus against expansion of Islamic dominance over Bharat. That makes him a Indian hero.

Sorry aren't we talking about Baji Rao II of the Anglo Maratha war fame? (Incidentally as per your example shouldn't you say 'hindu hero'). Which is fine - I do not mind acknowledging him as a hero

Usually one refers to Baji Rao I as Baji Rao Peshwa but if in case you meant the other one, then, I'm sorry, I misunderstood.

But no, one would call Baji Rao Peshwa as an Indian Hero, and not just as a "Hindu" hero. There is no distinction really between the two unless some Hindu interest is posited against the interest of some other Indic community - Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, Tribals, which is here not the case, and outside of philosophical debates has seldom been the case.

You can perhaps call Adi Shankara a "Hindu" hero, if you like, but Baji Rao Peshwa is a Pan-Indian hero.

[RajeshA]

Let us transcend the barren Deccan and conquer central India. The Mughals have become weak indolent womanizers and opium-addicts. The accumulated wealth of centuries in the vaults of the north, can be ours. It is time to drive from the holy land of Bharatvarsha the outcaste and the barbarian. Let us throw them back over the Himalayas, back to where they came from. The Maratha flag must fly from the Krishna to the Indus. Hindustan is ours.

If it was swapping one flag with another - not sure why he ought to be revered as an 'Indian' hero as opposed to a Maratha hero.

Any Dharmic flag is an Indian flag. Maratha Flag was a Dharmic flag. Mughal Flag was less so.

[arnab]

So an Indian king fighting to reclaim Indian territory from foreign invaders is as little relevant to you as Noor Inayat Khan fighting for France? Every past Indian king fought for his own territory (or to acquire more territory). Or for that matter every past king anywhere, including your much beloved Alexander. Why does anyone revere them?

Exactly. by that logic no one should be revered by placing historical people in the current pan-indian context. One should simply accept the facts and admire their personal courage / sacrifices etc. The problem arises when you start ascribing intentions to people's courage. Then it will be quite easy to suggest that in the context of the times everyone was being driven by a certain set of self interest which may have worked against Pan-Indian interests in the present context.

Similarly, how can one make the case that the 'reverence' of Alexander is due to hagiography but apparently 'reverence' for Baji Rao is not! (Isn't the claim that his purported desire for assimilation of all indian people just that? considering he was arguing for the Maratha cause how can one speculate that he was actually fighting for all Indians?)

[Sanku]

Does he? fighting for a cause where he bore no personal risk was my definition of a hero?

Arnab, humble advice, dont you think you should acquire a modicum of knowledge of history before pontificating on such matters? It is frankly very irritating to see pages after pages being devoted to expose people to abc ?

http://www.hindujagruti.org/articles/30.html

Jadunath Sarkar says in his forward to "Peshwa Bajirao I and Maratha Expansion"
"Bajirao was a heaven born cavalry leader. In the long and distinguished galaxy of Peshwas, Bajirao Ballal was unequalled for the daring and originality of his genius and the volume and value of his achievements. He was truly a Cavalry Hero as king- or rather as a Man of action.' If Sir Robert Walpole created the unchallengeable position of the Prime Minister in the unwritten constitution of England, Bajirao created the same institution in the Maratha Raj at exactly the same time."

[arnab]

Does he? fighting for a cause where he bore no personal risk was my definition of a hero?

Arnab, humble advice, dont you think you should acquire a modicum of knowledge of history before pontificating on such matters? It is frankly very irritating to see pages after pages being devoted to expose people to abc ?

http://www.hindujagruti.org/articles/30.html

Jadunath Sarkar says in his forward to "Peshwa Bajirao I and Maratha Expansion"
"Bajirao was a heaven born cavalry leader. In the long and distinguished galaxy of Peshwas, Bajirao Ballal was unequalled for the daring and originality of his genius and the volume and value of his achievements. He was truly a Cavalry Hero as king- or rather as a Man of action.' If Sir Robert Walpole created the unchallengeable position of the Prime Minister in the unwritten constitution of England, Bajirao created the same institution in the Maratha Raj at exactly the same time."

hey Sanku you are back from the dog house Er.. I did say I admire Baji Rao, so what's your beef exactly?

[johneeG]

It is difficult to keep track because you keep bringing all kinds of things into your argument.

See the underlines - presumably the looting commenced when they arrived, as well as the bootlicking / national interest (take your pick)

Alright, your original post in reply of Bji is:

Well Indians have been kinder with much more to the Brits - in allowing them not only to work, but also to loot, rape and maim and destroy. The greatest kindness Indians showed was providing the necessary bootlickers. The Brits are yet to make up for it in kind and length of time. No one will disagree that a significant portion of Indians were bootlickers of the Brits! Many continue to do so even long after the Brits are not their direct overlords. But that does not elevate bootlicking to the status of national pastime.

arrey 'popular' (as in 'rah rah Alexander') nahi bhai - but are they more likely to have heard of Alexander or Madanlal Dhingra? Umm - saar loot, maim, destruction was already happenning before that. Ah not bootlickers saar - at the time let us say the alignment with the british was guided by what passed for 'national' interest at the time (given that there were many 'nations' then)

Looting and pillaging came into vogue in Indian politics, with the advent of Islamic invaders. The brits raised it into an art form by systematizing it and using the latest technology.

You are arguing that since there were looters(and their 'bootlickers') earlier also, looting(and 'bootlicking') of the brits(and their 'bootlickers') must be accepted. Your primary argument is that because this behaviour pre-existed the brits, and so it is not wrong.

This is a silly argument. Rape, murder and looting have always existed. And there is no dearth of people, even among the victims, who defend these atrocities for few crumbs thrown at them by thew perpetrators. But, that does not justify it. Not now, not in the past nor in the future.

As far as I know, nobody said that 'Bootlicking' was invented after the brits came to India. It was there, not just in India but around the world.

It is censurable when the 'bootlickers' harm the larger interests by their 'bootlicking'. Otherwise, they are free to lick any and as many boots as they want.

The 'bootlickers' of foreign rule hampering the Indian causes are really despicable. Before, the rise of brits, India had several 'bootlickers' of foreign rules. Immediately before the brits, it was mughals.

'Bootlicking' an Indian ruler is not necessarily bad.

From 1700 to 1857, the Indians were up against several foreign forces. Indians were competing with each other as well. The primary foreign forces were the brits and mughals. The internal fighting is par for the course. It is unavoidable in any place, time and circumstance. One can find internal bickering in any group at any time. In the absence of a single overarching authority, the competition is bound to be fierce to establish such an authority.

In 1857, the 'national cause' was swarajya(self-rule). There were two opinions
a) Ally with mughals to oust the brits.
b) Ally with brits to oust the mughals.

Of course, there were 'bootlickers' of mughals and brits also who used these arguments to justify their 'bootlicking'. But, the situation was ambiguous and therefore there could be benefit of doubt given to both sides.

But, by 1930s, the situation was unambiguous. The national cause was to oust the brits and obtain swarajya. The norm was to oppose the brits(violently and/or non-violently). If one allied with the brits, then one had to explain how such an exceptional behaviour was going to help the national cause. In absence of proper explanation, it is understood that they were working against the national cause(i.e. they were indulging in 'bootlicking' of a foreign ruler at the expense of Indian cause).

Now,

Clearly, you are wrong when you say that there was no national cause or 'a single nation' at the time. At least, in 1943-44 period(Noor Inayat Khan's activity period), there was acknowledgement of 'national causes' and of being a single nation among Indians(who were not 'bootlickers' of the brits).

So, to say that alignment with the brit cause is equal to national cause in 1943-1944 is a disingenuous argument. Yes, some Indians may have believed that allying with the brits in WWII was beneficial to India's cause.

But, there is nothing to show that Noor's involvement with the Brits was for the Indian national cause. On the contrary, she seems to have been primarily motivated by occupation of France by the Nazi Germany.

Therefore, it is the responsibility of those for whose cause she worked and died, to honour her. Why bring India into it? There are many people who were working for Indian national cause in that period and suffered as much(if not more). India needs to honour them.

The pertinent point to Noor Inayat Khan's case is that she was serving the cause of brits and french. Let them honour her, she deserves it. India has its own heroes who need to be honoured. You continue to ignore this simple point and go off in tangents.

PS: Before, someone says that I am biased against muslims for calling the mughals foreign, I will clarify that I consider the Tipu Sultan and Haider Ali as Indian rulers(even though they are muslims).

[arnab]

[The pertinent point to Noor Inayat Khan's case is that she was serving the cause of brits and french. Let them honour her, she deserves it. India has its own heroes who need to be honoured. You continue to ignore this simple point and go off in tangents.

JohneeG, I agree with your post though I was not justifying british looting. I was just pointing out that if you travel back into history you will find examples of loot, rape and maiming inflicted by the - west, invaders and other principalities that now constitute the territory of India - we are a wounded civilisation remember? However, unlike the other eras whose atrocity ended only when that empire itself ended (only to be replaced by another looter and rapist), Britain as a country exists and with it also exist people who have attempted to reach out and help Indians (at a personal and at the official level). So one can continue to spit venom at them as a monolithic group and supposedly take down the myths created by them (however unsuccessfully) - or one can concentrate on developing our own narratives through engagement.

Regarding Noor Khan, I agree she fought for a British cause (along with a million odd Indian soldiers). Many of them (including Noor Khan) died in the war and did not get an opportunity to serve India (we do not know whether they would have but can speculate). However, in that context these were some of the quotes by posters:

Noor, was executed by the Germans, for Spying. That makes her a hero, how? It was her own failure to understand her instructions, that gave the Germans all the proof they needed against her.

She was a tragic failure. If she is getting a memorial and recognition. It is because of no other reason, but the fact, that she was a descendent of Tipu Sultan.

I would have been able to bow to Noor's "sufi-humanism" if it not only found Nazism as guilty against humanity, but also British treatment of Indians on numerous occasions when she was growing up - as guilty too. Anyone who did not or could not condemn the British regime on its role in India, while finding motivation to condemn the Nazis onlee - should not be treated as an Indian, or having India as her/his primary identity.

with the latter quote, I have never heard Cariappa or Manekshaw condemning the british regime's role in India (happy to be corrected if they have) - but I would still treat them as Indians.

[Sanku]

hey Sanku you are back from the dog house Er.. I did say I admire Baji Rao, so what's your beef exactly?

My issue, (trust you to chose words which are particularly obnoxious and revealing at the same time) -- is with random, ill thought out, incorrect statements made casually which completely derail meaningful discussion.

Hope that helped.

[Virupaksha]

http://mod.nic.in/samachar/april01-05/body.html

The royal garhwal rifles will be remembered for what it did on that day. India will remember people like Hav Chander Singh Garhwali.

Guts and Glory :
A Chapter of History

In the late 1930s, a platoon of the elite Royal Garhwal Rifles, commanded by British officers, was stationed at Peshawar Cantonmnt in the erstwhile North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) of India. As a protest to the British government's apathy to India’s freedom struggle led by Mahatma Gandhi, agitations and processions against the British rule were the order of the day in Peshawar. To intensify the freedom movement, a big procession was organised under the leadership of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan in Peshawar.



The procession was to pass through the historical Kissa Khawani Bazar in Peshawar where processionists were to be addressed by the visiting Congress Party leaders. Sensing the mass unrest, the British army officers of Peshawar Garrison deployed a platoon each of Royal Garhwal Rifles and Royal Gurkha Rifles to deal with any untoward situation.

The processionists were singing patriotic songs. As the procession reached the central point, near Kabuli Gate in Kissa Khawani Bazar, the British officer, who had already deployed the Royal Garhwal Rifles platoon in battle-ready position, ordered the processionists to stop there and disperse. Paying no heed to his order, the processionists squatted on the road and started shouting slogans against the Britishers. The British commander became furious and ordered the Royal Garhwal Rifles platoon commander, Hav Chander Singh to 'fire'. Overwhelmed by his patriotism and spirit of brotherhood towards his countrymen, Hav Chander Singh refused to obey the order. Branding this an act of treason and disobedience, the Royal Garhwal Rifles platoon was disarmed and put under arrest. The other Indian Army platoon was brought in which accomplished the job as desired by the British army officer. Hav Chander Singh was court-martialed and awarded severe punishment. As an act of vengeance, the British government blacklisted the entire Royal Garhwal Rifles. It was deprived of its due battle honours and achievements.

It was only after India became independent that the past glory, decorations and battle honours were restored to Garhwal Rifles. The act of the Britishers was condemned by all peace-loving nations of the world. A memorial was erected in Kissa Khawani Bazar. The name of Hav Chander Singh was inscribed on the memorial.

Going past this memorial today, the Pathans of this city stop at the memorial and remove their headgears as a mark of respect. They hold Chander Singh Garhwali in high esteem and admire the valour and honesty of Garhwal Rifles.

I dont appreciate what Manekshaw did before 1947. I only respect for his acts after that. I am on the side of the navy mutiny which resulted in the immediate declaration of independence of India, rather than the spineless behavior of even many of our "national leaders"
and the punishments meted to that unit from wiki

The aftermath, however, seems clearer. Following the incident at Peshawar the Regiment received a black mark against its name, and the loyalty of its members was called into question. Matters were made worse when, the following day, two platoons refused to fall in, and several men declared that they wished to be discharged. Because of this, higher command believed that the battalion was disaffected and, as a result, the disaffected men were ordered to return their weapons and dismiss. Later the entire battalion was disarmed. A Court of Inquiry afterwards found that the men of the Regiment had acted properly according to the confused orders that they had received on the day of the incident in Peshawar, but on the subject of the incident the following day it was quite swift in handing out the punishments. The riflemen of the two platoons that had refused to fall in were all dismissed from the service, whilst of the seventeen non-commissioned officers, one received transportation for life, another was sentenced to fourteen years imprisonment and the other fifteen also received various smaller terms of imprisonment.[11]

[Atri]

Hindustan is ours.

Few facts to straighten things out.

When an Indian says, "India belongs us" or "India is ours", that itself is explanation of national vision. The term Hindavi Swaraj (Indian selfrule) was coined by Shivaji 60 years before Bajirao-1 was born!!! There are letters available which state his (and his predecessors and successor's) vision that India is to be governed by Indians and Turks and "yavans" need to be thrown out. They fought on Panipat precisely for protecting India from foreign invasion, effectively putting permanent end to it (gave Sikhs breathing time to regroup and then eventually assault on kabul). Everything between Peshawar and Tanjavur and Sindh and bengal came under their rule. That was manifestation of India. Just like today we have republic of India, that was Maratha Indian federation..

Regarding the flag - The saffron flag (referred to as Flag of Devas and their king Indra - Bhagvat Jharjhara - भगवत् झर्झर - This is origin of term "Bhagwaa" used to refer to that color) has been symbol of "dharma" and when Indics were fighting against mlencchas.. Indics, while fighting amongst themselves for whatever reasons, had their own flags. Even among Marathas, when Holkars fought against Shindes, Peshwa, all three had their flag of their own. But while fighting against EIC, Mughal, Abdali and other Mughal satraps, they fought for and under "Bhagvat Jharjhara"... same goes with internecine wars amongst Rajputs and their fight against Mughals. Same goes for Vijaynagara (with Varaha on their bhagvat jharjhara).. Same is case with the Sikh flag with Kripan inscribed on "bhagvat jharjhara"...

Bhagvat Jharjhara is not a war flag, nor a factional flag. When Shivaji chose this flag, he immediately appealed to the faith of dharmiks to defend Dharma. So, when Bajirao-1 says "maratha flag", it does not mean flag of Maharashtra OR Marathi people. It implies this bhagvat jharjhara which was rallying call of Dharma ever since Indra killed Vritra in Rigveda...

peace...

[Sanku]

peace...

Brilliant as usual Atri-ji. Truly appreciate you eloquence.

[Atri]

There is one more point to mention.

The original letter of Bajirav-1 says in Marathi -"हिंदुस्थान "आपलाच" आहे".. In Hindi, it is literally translated as "हिंदुस्थान अपनाही है".. This is qualitatively different from "हिंदुस्थान "हमारा" है" which literally means Hindusthan belongs to us (we)...

There are some nuances which are lost when translated in english, but which convert Bajirao from a person thinking India as nation (not westphalian nation-state, mind you) to a parochial warlord (in eyes of DIE)..

Even if he said "हमारा", the argument I made in previous post holds.. But fact is he did not say "हमारा" but "अपना"... This makes a whole world of difference to an Indic, although for DIE, these are similar sentences..

[brihaspati]

Arnab ji,
I did not say I was speculating - again you seem to have picked up a lot from the professional historians by imputing things to people that hey have not said. You dismissed Dr. Sharma's arguments because you didnt care to actually verify his arguments, and took cover behind "peer review" excuse. Your argument for such dismissal was first
(1) it was not published in some established historical journal
(2) it was speculation

Does it mean that the speculations published in "peer reviewed journals" become acceptable for you simply because a certain group had decided to approve of it? So in that case you are not against speculations per se, but onlee if approved by a certain group.

Second, Dr. Sharma is perfectly in line with the so-called professional historians technique of interpretations. Some serious acquaintance with actual "peer reviewed" historical published research should have immediately shown this obvious fact to you. You found Dr. Sharma's arguments speculation, and I did not say I was speculating. I simply said, what Sharma has done is in line with currently accepted historical method of narrative interpretation. In that sense, almost everything that Prof. Thapar, or Prof Jha have written are entirely "speculations".

But most importantly, what I left out last night in my posts while I was actually busy in non-speculative "academics" - was the fact that Baji Rao, and most Maratha leaders - thought of the entire "desh" and had a concept of "nationhood" that was just not defined by "Maratha" or parts of Central India. Their campaigns show they were systematically trying to expand to the natural borders of India [geographical boundaries at that stage of technological barriers].

Marathas have been represented as regional force - specifically again by the militarily victorious British in their historiography. Marathas definitely thought of the "Islamic" as foreign, [even if they did not necessarily eliminate all levels of muslims - they targeted the theologians], and a lot of their attacks were targeted at what they saw as Islamic regimes - such as in Bengal.

For Baji Rao, there is ample proof that he thought of the whole of India as his "sthan" and nationhood, as most of the more rational and visionary among the Maratha leadership thought. Atri ji, thanks for filling this up. I was too sleepy last night at the time of posting to anticipate that this sort of snide pat of regionalism being slapped onto Baji Rao was onlee to be expected, given the ideological proclivities already in evidence.

[devesh]

a very quick note:

johneeG garu, it's not just the "famous" revolutionaries in the 1920's, there had been a continuous, uninterrupted rise of revolutionaries from the first decade of the century. think of the Gadar party, the Bengal revolutionaries the network that they established on continuous territory from Punjab to Bengal, the WWI conspiracy by Bagha Jatin to launch a revolution which was betrayed by a Hungarian, the organized groups of Pulin Das, and the Yuganthar and Anushilan, and many more. the Bengal radicalism of the era has not been given enough focus. no famous movies either. at least with Bhagat Singh, there was acknowledgement later on, but no similar process has yet begun for the East.

[brihaspati]

Might have already been referred to, but posting full :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/apr/1 ... sfeed=true

Britain destroyed records of colonial crimes

Thousands of documents detailing some of the most shameful acts and crimes committed during the final years of the British empire were systematically destroyed to prevent them falling into the hands of post-independence governments, an official review has concluded. Those papers that survived the purge were flown discreetly to Britain where they were hidden for 50 years in a secret Foreign Office archive, beyond the reach of historians and members of the public, and in breach of legal obligations for them to be transferred into the public domain.

The archive came to light last year when a group of Kenyans detained and allegedly tortured during the Mau Mau rebellion won the right to sue the British government. The Foreign Office promised to release the 8,800 files from 37 former colonies held at the highly-secure government communications centre at Hanslope Park in Buckinghamshire.

The historian appointed to oversee the review and transfer, Tony Badger, master of Clare College, Cambridge, says the discovery of the archive put the Foreign Office in an "embarrassing, scandalous" position. "These documents should have been in the public archives in the 1980s," he said. "It's long overdue." The first of them are made available to the public on Wednesday at the National Archive at Kew, Surrey.

The papers at Hanslope Park include monthly intelligence reports on the "elimination" of the colonial authority's enemies in 1950s Malaya; records showing ministers in London were aware of the torture and murder of Mau Mau insurgents in Kenya, including a case of aman said to have been "roasted alive"; and papers detailing the lengths to which the UK went to forcibly remove islanders from Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.

However, among the documents are a handful which show that many of the most sensitive papers from Britain's late colonial era were not hidden away, but simply destroyed. These papers give the instructions for systematic destruction issued in 1961 after Iain Macleod, secretary of state for the colonies, directed that post-independence governments should not get any material that "might embarrass Her Majesty's government", that could "embarrass members of the police, military forces, public servants or others eg police informers", that might compromise intelligence sources, or that might "be used unethically by ministers in the successor government".

Among the documents that appear to have been destroyed were: records of the abuse of Mau Mau insurgents detained by British colonial authorities, who were tortured and sometimes murdered; reports that may have detailed the alleged massacre of 24 unarmed villagers in Malaya by soldiers of the Scots Guards in 1948; most of the sensitive documents kept by colonial authorities in Aden, where the army's Intelligence Corps operated a secret torture centre for several years in the 1960s; and every sensitive document kept by the authorities in British Guiana, a colony whose policies were heavily influenced by successive US governments and whose post-independence leader was toppled in a coup orchestrated by the CIA.

The documents that were not destroyed appear to have been kept secret not only to protect the UK's reputation, but to shield the government from litigation. If the small group of Mau Mau detainees are successful in their legal action, thousands more veterans are expected to follow.

It is a case that is being closely watched by former Eoka guerillas who were detained by the British in 1950s Cyprus, and possibly by many others who were imprisoned and interrogated between 1946 and 1967, as Britain fought a series of rearguard actions across its rapidly dimishing empire.

The documents show that colonial officials were instructed to separate those papers to be left in place after independence – usually known as "Legacy files" – from those that were to be selected for destruction or removal to the UK. In many colonies, these were described as watch files, and stamped with a red letter W.

The papers at Kew depict a period of mounting anxiety amid fears that some of the incriminating watch files might be leaked. Officials were warned that they would be prosecuted if they took any any paperwork home – and some were. As independence grew closer, large caches of files were removed from colonial ministries to governors' offices, where new safes were installed.

In Uganda, the process was codenamed Operation Legacy. In Kenya, a vetting process, described as "a thorough purge", was overseen by colonial Special Branch officers.
Implementation of the purge Photograph: The National Archives

Clear instructions were issued that no Africans were to be involved: only an individual who was "a servant of the Kenya government who is a British subject of European descent" could participate in the purge.
Colonial paper states that documents should only be seen by British subjects Photograph: The National Archives

Painstaking measures were taken to prevent post-independence governments from learning that the watch files had ever existed. One instruction states: "The legacy files must leave no reference to watch material. Indeed, the very existence of the watch series, though it may be guessed at, should never be revealed."

When a single watch file was to be removed from a group of legacy files, a "twin file" – or dummy – was to be created to insert in its place. If this was not practicable, the documents were to be removed en masse. There was concern that Macleod's directions should not be divulged – "there is of course the risk of embarrassment should the circular be compromised" – and officials taking part in the purge were even warned to keep their W stamps in a safe place.

Many of the watch files ended up at Hanslope Park. They came from 37 different former colonies, and filled 200 metres of shelving. But it is becoming clear that much of the most damning material was probably destroyed. Officials in some colonies, such as Kenya, were told that there should be a presumption in favour of disposal of documents rather than removal to the UK – "emphasis is placed upon destruction" – and that no trace of either the documents or their incineration should remain. When documents were burned, "the waste should be reduced to ash and the ashes broken up".

Some idea of the scale of the operation and the amount of documents that were erased from history can be gleaned from a handful of instruction documents that survived the purge. In certain circumstances, colonial officials in Kenya were informed, "it is permissible, as an alternative to destruction by fire, for documents to be packed in weighted crates and dumped in very deep and current-free water at maximum practicable distance from the coast".
[]

Documents that survive from Malaya suggest a far more haphazard destruction process, with relatively junior officials being permitted to decide what should be burned and what should be sent to London.

Dr Ed Hampshire, diplomatic and colonial record specialist at the National Archive, said the 1,200 files so far transferred from Hanslope Park represented "gold dust" for historians, with the occasional nugget, rather than a haul that calls for instant reinterpretation of history. However, only one sixth of the secret archive has so far been transferred. The remainder are expected to be at Kew by the end of 2013.

[brihaspati]

The commentary is more revealing :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... atrocities

There is one thing you can say for the Holocaust deniers: at least they know what they are denying. In order to sustain the lies they tell, they must engage in strenuous falsification. To dismiss Britain's colonial atrocities, no such effort is required. Most people appear to be unaware that anything needs to be denied.

The story of benign imperialism, whose overriding purpose was not to seize land, labour and commodities but to teach the natives English, table manners and double-entry book-keeping, is a myth that has been carefully propagated by the rightwing press. But it draws its power from a remarkable national ability to airbrush and disregard our past.

Last week's revelations, that the British government systematically destroyed the documents detailing mistreatment of its colonial subjects, and that the Foreign Office then lied about a secret cache of files containing lesser revelations, is by any standards a big story. But it was either ignored or consigned to a footnote by most of the British press. I was unable to find any mention of the secret archive on the Telegraph's website. The Mail's only coverage, as far as I can determine, was an opinion piece by a historian called Lawrence James, who used the occasion to insist that any deficiencies in the management of the colonies were the work of "a sprinkling of misfits, incompetents and bullies", while everyone else was "dedicated, loyal and disciplined".[this is called nuanced understanding, where their good sides should be enjoyed by us]

The British government's suppression of evidence was scarcely necessary. Even when the documentation of great crimes is abundant, it is not denied but simply ignored. In an article for the Daily Mail in 2010, for example, the historian Dominic Sandbrook announced that "Britain's empire stands out as a beacon of tolerance, decency and the rule of law … Nor did Britain countenance anything like the dreadful tortures committed in French Algeria." Could he really have been unaware of the history he is disavowing?

Caroline Elkins, a professor at Harvard, spent nearly 10 years compiling the evidence contained in her book Britain's Gulag: the Brutal End of Empire in Kenya. She started her research with the belief that the British account of the suppression of the Kikuyu's Mau Mau revolt in the 1950s was largely accurate. Then she discovered that most of the documentation had been destroyed. She worked through the remaining archives, and conducted 600 hours of interviews with Kikuyu survivors – rebels and loyalists – and British guards, settlers and officials. Her book is fully and thoroughly documented. It won the Pulitzer prize. But as far as Sandbrook, James and other imperial apologists are concerned, it might as well never have been written.

Elkins reveals that the British detained not 80,000 Kikuyu, as the official histories maintain, but almost the entire population of one and a half million people, in camps and fortified villages. There, thousands were beaten to death or died from malnutrition, typhoid, tuberculosis and dysentery. In some camps almost all the children died.

The inmates were used as slave labour. Above the gates were edifying slogans, such as "Labour and freedom" and "He who helps himself will also be helped". Loudspeakers broadcast the national anthem and patriotic exhortations. People deemed to have disobeyed the rules were killed in front of the others. The survivors were forced to dig mass graves, which were quickly filled. Unless you have a strong stomach I advise you to skip the next paragraph.[Onlee the Nazis were bad - so that Noor Inayat and others had to rush to defend this epitome of civilization from the big bad Nazis]

Interrogation under torture was widespread. Many of the men were anally raped, using knives, broken bottles, rifle barrels, snakes and scorpions. A favourite technique was to hold a man upside down, his head in a bucket of water, while sand was rammed into his rectum with a stick. Women were gang-raped by the guards. People were mauled by dogs and electrocuted. The British devised a special tool which they used for first crushing and then ripping off testicles. They used pliers to mutilate women's breasts. They cut off inmates' ears and fingers and gouged out their eyes. They dragged people behind Land Rovers until their bodies disintegrated. Men were rolled up in barbed wire and kicked around the compound.[maybe they also wrote good poetry, and that nuanced understanding is missing here]

Elkins provides a wealth of evidence to show that the horrors of the camps were endorsed at the highest levels. The governor of Kenya, Sir Evelyn Baring, regularly intervened to prevent the perpetrators from being brought to justice. The colonial secretary, Alan Lennox-Boyd, repeatedly lied to the House of Commons. This is a vast, systematic crime for which there has been no reckoning.

No matter. Even those who acknowledge that something happened write as if Elkins and her work did not exist. In the Telegraph, Daniel Hannan maintains that just eleven people were beaten to death. Apart from that, "1,090 terrorists were hanged and as many as 71,000 detained without due process".

The British did not do body counts, and most victims were buried in unmarked graves. But it is clear that tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, of Kikuyu died in the camps and during the round-ups. Hannan's is one of the most blatant examples of revisionism I have ever encountered.

Without explaining what this means, Lawrence James concedes that "harsh measures" were sometimes used, but he maintains that "while the Mau Mau were terrorising the Kikuyu, veterinary surgeons in the Colonial Service were teaching tribesmen how to deal with cattle plagues." [the nuanced, yugadharma argument] The theft of the Kikuyu's land and livestock, the starvation and killings, the widespread support among the Kikuyu for the Mau Mau's attempt to reclaim their land and freedom: all vanish into thin air. Both men maintain that the British government acted to stop any abuses as soon as they were revealed.

What I find remarkable is not that they write such things, but that these distortions go almost unchallenged. The myths of empire are so well-established that we appear to blot out countervailing stories even as they are told. As evidence from the manufactured Indian famines of the 1870s and from the treatment of other colonies accumulates, British imperialism emerges as no better and in some cases even worse than the imperialism practised by other nations. Yet the myth of the civilising mission remains untroubled by the evidence.

So we can see that even in the nuanced understanding of British luminaries - the British ruling psyche is being obeyed and copied faithfully and devotedly.

[nachiket]

Doesn't matter what I think. He satisfies the definition of "hero" that you gave and with which most here don't agree.

Does he? fighting for a cause where he bore no personal risk was my definition of a hero?

This is what you said: "They are all heroes IMO in the perspective of unertaking the task that they were assigned (or assigned themselves) to do." You said nothing of personal risk. So yes.

In any case, if you really believe that Baji Rao fighting against foreign invaders is as irrelevant as Noor Inayat Khan fighting for France, then we have nothing more to say to each other.

And Atriji, thank you for that wonderful post.

[brihaspati]

I am just wondering - how much is Gunter Grass enjoyed after knowing he was an ardent young member of the waffen SS? There should be no objection to enjoying Dwinger or Moller either ?

[brihaspati]

A side note : Nicholas Dirk's book : castes of mind, should be a good "commons" side study for the issue being discussed here. He covers some of the ways in which "heroes" were constructed by the Brits.

[Mahendra]

Atriji's post is wonderful indeed but does reveal a deep seated muslim hatred and hindu fascist mindset that is prevalent on this board. I'm sure if the person in question was Nivedita Ishwar Khare insted of Noor Inayat Khan most of the fundoos here would have personally protested at Hyde park against the grave injustice perpetrated towards Noor Khan. Sad but true

[Atri]

Atriji's post is wonderful indeed but does reveal a deep seated muslim hatred and hindu fascist mindset that is prevalent on this board. I'm sure if the person in question was Nivedita Ishwar Khare insted of Noor Inayat Khan most of the fundoos here would have personally protested at Hyde park against the grave injustice perpetrated towards Noor Khan. Sad but true

Mahendra ji,

Following is my personal take. I do not call my opponents as "libturds" or "fascists". I have known you for a while now on this board and I know that you will perceive the right meaning from whatever I reply.

There are three important points in your post. If you permit, I would address them one by one.

1. there is deep seated muslim hatred and hindu fascist mindset prevalent on this board.
2. If said person (lets call her NIK - a secular acronym which could go either way as you showed) was hindu, many fundoo people here (by which you mean resident Hindu fundamentalists of forum) would not have opposed her being called hero and would have actively strived for declaring her so.
3. Since NIK was muslim, those who come in purview of point 1 do not support her..

1. Regarding point no. 1, B.Raman too concurs with you . There is a deep seated repulsion towards "Islam" in general amongst a large section of Hindus. There is solid historical track record of 12-13 centuries for that repulsion. Islam has earned this repulsion. There is difference between being repulsed by Islam and being repulsed by Muslims. The inability of Muslims to reform "Islam" has made matters worse. We have discussed this at length on this forum on many threads. The oil-drop theory of Shiv ji explains it rather well. As long as Muslims do not answer the question "who is a true Muslim"? and that answer is not in concurrence with time, this antagonism will only increase.

A Hindu being repulsed by Islam does not make him a Hindu fundamentalist and fascist, or in other words "Hindutvavaadi". There are certain traits of a fascist, which can be summed up as one who considers the meme which he holds true as supreme truth, other memes are BS and since they are "other" and hence "BS", it is OK to liquidate the meme and/or meme-holders.

If for a moment we assume that I have summed up "who fascist is" cogently, then I see that none of the Hindus, even staunchest hindutvavadis are/were "fascists" in action, in course of history. This is in comparison with what has been committed on Hindus in the name of Islam by Muslims.

This board represents our educated society to an extent. So, I am not surprised if those vocal Hindus who feel the pinch of history and current affairs, which are in large numbers in our cities and semi-urban areas, are also present on this board. This is segment which Sagarika Ghose famously calls "Internet Hindus" (which is a fraction of larger set of young aware proud Hindus). I believe this board does provide a neutral platform for every person who do not agree with IH to debate with these Internet Hindus in civil manner.

2. coming to point two. What if NIK were Hindu? Is she being denied the honor because she was a Muslim? The counter-factuals are interesting to delve upon. But first some facts - A cursory look at her wiki page tells me that her father (great grandson of tipu sultan, whom I personally have not much high regards for) left India for good and settled in west, married an American woman and through this union, NIK was born in year of great war. She stayed there, was motivated to join auxiliary air force of "British army" (not british Indian army of which both field marshalls Cariappa and Maneckshaw were part). My respect for her would be of same league as I respect those american soldiers who landed on Normandy. But then, I also respect similarly to those German and Russian soldiers who fought each other valiantly in Stalingrad against all odds. Apart from being half Indian, Where is India? She may be called a "Sufi" heroine OR a Muslim heroine (if Sufis are still considered Muslims by other muslims), but how is she an "Indian heroine"? If NIK were daughter of Shankar Shrinivasan and Margaret Mitchell, born and raised in Paris in strict Iyengar tradition, and would have fought and died in WW2 while enrolled in British army, depending upon her valor, she would be hailed as allied Heroine OR a Vaishnava heroine. I would not, but heck many would have even called her a "Hindu Heroine". Again same question - Where is India in all this?

Continuing this counter-factual, IF NIK were part of British Indian army then what guaranty that she would have not joined TSPA during partition? after all, most of Muslim personnel of BIA volunteered to join TSPA, only to fight against IA within first semester of independence in Kashmir. These are two big "ifs" which need to be answered, if we choose to continue delving on this counter-factual scenario.

3. I think point 2 says all that comes to my mind.

[Mahendra]

Aiyayo ji Atriji I was being sarcastic onlee ji, I do read your posts with great interest sirji and actually admire your knowledge. That post was not directed at you at all sirji

[nachiket]

Atri ji you stepped on one of Mahdi's IEDs.

[Atri]

Aiyayo ji Atriji I was being sarcastic onlee ji, I do read your posts with great interest sirji and actually admire your knowledge. That post was not directed at you at all sirji

note to self : This is what happens when one overrides what brain is saying...

Ghani Khamma, Mahdi.. Ghani Khamma..

[Mahendra]

Khamma Ghani Sirji Khamma Ghani

[Prem]

If for aContinuing this counter-factual, IF NIK were part of British Indian army then what guaranty that she would have not joined TSPA during partition? after all, most of Muslim personnel of BIA volunteered to join TSPA, only to fight against IA within first semester of independence in Kashmir. These are two big "ifs" which need to be answered, if we choose to continue delving on this counter-factual scenario.
3. I think point 2 says all that comes to my mind.

Ashfaqullah was a patriot and considred hero in India . His family moved to Pakistan in 47 and 2 of his family members came to do Jihad in Kashmir and soon were sent in the line to taste the Hoor honey.So we never knowabout the inner intentions and inherrent bend.
It didnot take long to make the journey from great in India to Assfaqued in Pakistan.