Re: A look back at the partition
Posted: 29 Apr 2010 01:28
Surinder!
That's so true that it hurts.
That's so true that it hurts.
Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
https://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/
This appears as a dichotomy, contradictory behaviour, but humans display in ample amounts. These are usually "liberals" who do. In the US, the middle class white liberals, also in 1940's UK developed the liberals who championed Indian causes, but were at the core were still condescending. These people are comfortable with charity, than justice.brihaspati wrote:"Is it because they derive from that portion of the older Hindu elite who felt superior by birth from the "lower castes" and therefore never thought of the majority common pre-Islamic Indian masses as their fellow countrymen?"
This is due to the colonized mind of the Indian elite during that era. That mind has dicotomysurinder wrote:This appears as a dichotomy, contradictory behaviour, but humans display in ample amounts.brihaspati wrote:"Is it because they derive from that portion of the older Hindu elite who felt superior by birth from the "lower castes" and therefore never thought of the majority common pre-Islamic Indian masses as their fellow countrymen?"
I would say partition was proposed when Najib invited Abdali in 1757 and the process actually began on 14th January 1761 on the plains of Panipat.. I think we really need to understand the Mughal-Maratha dynamics for complete grasp of the phenomenon of partition.Pulikeshi wrote:The question to ask oneself is when did the partition of Bharat begin?
There are tomes written on the partition of British India in 1947.
While theories are all interesting, it is still about the latter not the former.
I agree. And this BS gets repeated in this forum more often than not. I'm surprised at this dissing of countrymen ('core') under guise of analysis. If one is fond of illustrating Bhagat Singh, then they would know of Azad, Bismil, Ashfaquallah. And if one could communicate with them, they would hold their heads at this regionalism. .Sanku wrote:Surinder, if UP-Bihar is the core, what also has to be seen that this is the core that led the movement to destroy the British in 1857. 1857, what ever be the merits demerits, the Sikhs escaped the burnt since they went with the British.
Not accounting the effect of 1857 on the next 100 years is what is causing all the what if type of questions here.
Let is be very clear, the CORE the purbaia's of India were THE force which won not only India for East India company but also the entire BRITISH empire in ASIA.
It would be most inappropriate to pass to the mistakes of one of the folks from the Allahabad as the view of Core.
Core not fighting is the BS that has been peddled by the British post 1857 -- dont fall for it.
Scindia vs Rani Laxmibai ?surinder wrote: ...
Do we know names of the defiant, the courageous, and the unbending? They are either lying 6 feet below, or living in slums.
This simple idea does not, and cannot escape any normal intelligent and sane person. Do you know of any airport or national monument named after Rajguru or Sukhdev?
...
Atri , fantastic. A lot of food for thought. thanks.Atri wrote: I would say partition was proposed when Najib invited Abdali in 1757 and the process actually began on 14th January 1761 on the plains of Panipat.. I think we really need to understand the Mughal-Maratha dynamics for complete grasp of the phenomenon of partition.
....
....
INC (with help of other nationalists) overthrew a visible foreign power. ROI overthrew the influence of alienated Indians from core territory and policy-making of ROI. ROI has established a system of governance which is largely Indic and Partially western (Similar to Marathas). ROI has partially quarantined the alienated Indian lobby in its western and north-western regions like Marathas had it quarantined in Western UP. So, ROI stands at position where Marathas were in 1760. Thankfully, owing to democracy, the early deaths of good leaders won't harm ROI in a way it harmed Maratha-India.
Just like the global politics then, the internal lobby of alienated Indians trying to establish a continuous state. That lobby is being used by a foreign ideology which aims for uniform society without state and class. ROI is the only player which stands in its way.
Atri,Atri wrote:I would say partition was proposed when Najib invited Abdali in 1757 and the process actually began on 14th January 1761 on the plains of Panipat.. I think we really need to understand the Mughal-Maratha dynamics for complete grasp of the phenomenon of partition.Pulikeshi wrote:The question to ask oneself is when did the partition of Bharat begin?
There are tomes written on the partition of British India in 1947.
While theories are all interesting, it is still about the latter not the former.
Atri, you are leading the discussion into channels where issues will come up that we will not be able to discuss.Atri wrote
The problem with Pre-Ghori considerations is that, before that, every resident of third tier (NWFP) and second tier (Punjab) was thoroughly Indianized, although ethnically alien. Kanishka, for example, was as much "Indian" as Ashoka was. Of course, he was alien and was perceived as alien by our people and he ruled exactly the territories which were ruled by Gaznavi and Ghori and more. But I don't think he ended up partitioning the civilization.
Firstly, I can't believe that a civilization can be partitioned. Its like flowing water, one can't cut it. It floods or recedes, shrinks and dries up. Indian civilization is like river. Any meme or idea which gives even a tiny scope to the fact that "the other point of view" could also be right, is readily assimilated in it.
Secondly, under the age of Guptas, the NWFP was so thoroughly Indianized that they fought resisted Muslims for 250 years as outpost of Indian civilization. That is a very huge time-span. The fight which Indic Pathans (Shahis) put forth to armies of Iran and central asia which were converted has no parallels in history of mankind. Sadly, they were infighting with kings of Punjab too. Ironically, nobody except Maharaja Ranjit Singh ever thought of establishing an Indic empire there.
The river of sanskriti shrunk with conquest of Islam. The reason of that shrinking was "insufferable know-it-all" nature of Islam. Hence unless this attribute of islam is "fixed", the river can't flow again with her inherent and usual magnificence.
A system for a rashtra is just a tool. What form the executive structure of the rashtra takes is determined by the necessities of its immedite and long term objectives. This is recognized even in the Constitution - since it transfers supreme power to a single indivdual in emergencies. Democracy is no barrier to suitable modification of the executive form of the rashtra, as needed by specific conditions facing the nation. Moreover, ravaging Pakjab should not be seen as revenge - but a tactical and strategic necessity to break and destroy the backbone of Islamist aggression on India on the subcontinent. That society has to be "cleaned" of its theologians, networks to generate and reproduce theologians, and erasure of all aspects and icons in that society around which Islamism may appear again in the future. This is not revenge, justa tactical necessity for India.Continuing from my previous post, ROI stands at place where Maratha-India stood in 1760, one year before Panipat. As it is needless to elaborate, Panipat will be happening once again. The job of ROI seems to be more "Complete" than the job of Marathas which was sort of dispersed mess. However, democracy makes it difficult to establish the aims of a political unit clearly, unlike Marathas. Hence, Marathas had no qualms in ravaging Rohilkhand as revenge of Panipat, whereas ROI won't be ravaging Pakjab as revenge of 1947.
I reiterate what I said about expansion policy. Marathas succeeded because they were able to overthrow the qazi-mullahs on village level. The mullah used to flee when he heard the taps of approaching maratha cavalry (metaphorically, of course). There are many advantages which ROI wields over Marathas, one being the declared ruler of India rather than a protector of India. Secondly, stability and hence prosperity and hence availability of resources to fulfil stages 3-4-5.
Surinder ji, I feel your anguish.surinder wrote: The "core" of India sits comfortably secure, letting the periphery fight it out for its very survival. Then while sitting comfortably find faults in them for not fighting the enemies properly. That is why they label the love fest indulgers as either Punjabis, Bengalis, or IM's. Heaven forbid if anyone from the core is to be blamed.
INC core was from the "core" of India. They were not terribly comfortable with either the Punjabis or the Bengalis, and as a matter of fact, nor with the IM's. They never understood their dilemmas, compulsions and issues. Nor did they sumpathsize with them and their plight. These provinces had their leaders side lined, and their apprach to dealing with Briish and M's stigmatized (ahimsa rules). Gandhi conveniently got himself in the senseless Khalifat movement, INC gave birth to Jinnah (not the Punjabis or Bengalis, who the bore the brunt of this man's output). The ease with which "core" leadership agreed to partition, the secrecy in which they carried out their capitulation. In the fall of 47, these leaders really had no advice to the Punjabis & Bengalis, except to say that please stay put and get massacred.
When partietion did happen, Indian Punjab was cleansed in retaliation, and RoP presences erased. But who were the main planners and intellectual brains behind the 2 nation theory? They were the elite of UP. Where are these elites now? They are still living quite nicely in UP, thank you very much. Which institutions played a role? AMU & Deoband, they are still functioning as though nothing happened. Why were they not leveled to the ground? Hyderabi Owaisis are all still there. Why did UP, Bihar etc. not go in arms against partition? How much countering was done by them for fostering this disease on us? Would UP have been as comfortable if (say) Lucknow and Benaras had become foreign countries? Why did they not cause counter trauma for partiton on those individuals and institutions that were operating out of its soil? Are they not functioning as before and are a legitimate part of the national political horse-trading? From which states does isalaimic parties exert the biggest influence on India and its policies?
Incidently, we forget that J&K is also part of the partition drama. While Kashmir is gasping for its vey life, hanging by a thread in the 1947-48 war, Gandhi goes on fast so that TSP can have more money to better fight the war? Why did JLN cause the forces to stop and not recover territory fully? What haste was there to sign the Runn of Kutch and IWT accords? Which area of India is the most adamant that history be re-written to erase certain inconveniences of a certain faith? Who has become an intellectual pawn in the hands of certain faith? Which "core" area gave us article 370 & personal law? Who sends the most number of MP's to form the govt? What did India do when it captured Lahore in 1965?
Most of all, why is Radcliffe line sacrosanct? Why did we not openly question it? Who were the leaders who hold that line more holy than anything?
After having asked the Punjabis and Bengalis to suck it up, why resent the fact that they are sucking it up?
Not all elite DIE, are collaborators, at least willingly or knowingly. It is true (I have insight in their world) -- many are just uprooted, clueless and going along with the flow.But it is not correct to blame the core as a whole for what has happened in the colonial era. It is the elite collaborators cultivated by the colonial powers who are to blame.
This is a deliberately enforced "ideological vacuum".Pulikeshi wrote:Even to date, there is no clear civilizational
or ideological core that holds the Indian nation-state together. Being yet another reaction, it suffers from no notion of
destiny or purpose other than the minimalist intent in providing for its citizens, if even that!
ShauryaTji, when i got my copy, i came to know that the book shops had pulled out the book due to distribution issues. As a result the author was stranded with a lot of copies. I would request you to publicise it with your acquaintances. This could be the best way to appreciate the author. Thanks.ShauryaT wrote:
http://sindhireflections.blogspot.com/2 ... tions.html
I am one of those, who always wanted to do the exact same thing this author has done. Document the stories of the partition time of Sindhis, especially in Mumbai, being raised there and a Hindu Sindhi myself. But like many others, with good intentions, life takes over and never made it a priority.
Remember Vietnam? US has paid with blood for what it is today. Only blood pays for some things.Remember Unkil won the cold war without firing a single bullet.
Sanku wrote:Remember Vietnam? US has paid with blood for what it is today. Only blood pays for some things.Remember Unkil won the cold war without firing a single bullet.
Unkil fought the war of IndpendenceBrad Goodman wrote:Sanku wrote: >>Remember Unkil won the cold war without firing a single bullet.
Remember Vietnam? US has paid with blood for what it is today. Only blood pays for some things.
Unkil did not invade Vietnam in 1780's when it was barely getting out of civil war. When Unkil went to Vietnam in 60's it was already THE Superpower and even then it knew when to call off from the war. Remember when fighting use your brain not your heart. Look at the cost you can pay and dividends you can reap.
Remember Bangladesh we used our brains did not fight in rainy season waited till winter and with surgical precision acheived our objectives in 7 days. We did not fight every porkie post that was stationed we focussed on dhakha and end of day the result is in front of you.
Cough cough ... are you sure? Vietnam? Korea? Cuba? Small central american wars? Unkil's bullets were being fired in A'stan, if I may say so. Setting up and operationg a Huge army in bases scattered all around the world, ready to fight. In every friendship that Unncle made, every treaty it signed, every international alignment it entered into, it kept a razor sharp focus on SU.Brad Goodman wrote:Remember Unkil won the cold war without firing a single bullet. All it did was to play their expendible pieces on the chessboard of great game.
The question is if there was ties to the land and culture for 7000 years how come such a large population converted to a foreign religion which is anti thesis to the mother religion.surinder wrote:
Cold war is a bad analogy, when Unlce faced division of the country, a huge civil war resulted, killing something like 10% of its population (and they had ties to the land for only a century or two, not 7000 years in our case when we were faced partition ... we simply foled up and relocated.)
Sanku wrote: Unkil fought the war of Indpendence
Unkil fought the war of civil
Unkil fought the first world war
Unkil fought the second world war
Unkil fought the korean war.
Unkil fought the vietnam war
Unkil is fighting in Afg and Iraq. (And many many other wars in less than 300 year period)
Please count the number of deaths in each.
Unkil's power is based on its readiness to spill blood, and if it calls for spilling its own blood so be it. All powers are built that way. That is the ONLY way. Including the so called COLD WAR.
(Which by no means is fighting like a fool)
Lucky eh?Brad Goodman wrote:Unkil was lucky in its infancy that it was sheilded by two huge oceans on both sides.
On the contrary, the Brits were forced out and then focussed on east.Plus Brits were more interested at that time in securing their crown jwel than consolidating new world colonies
I am not sure what that is supposed to mean. Yes there are issues, yes we have to be careful and not foolhardy. But guess what? These are generic truth. They will always be true. You deal with it.. In India's case we have to factor.......
I am not denying that Unkil did not fight. Yes they did but they were smart enough to accept defeat and cut their losses and move away from conflict. Unkil had tough time taming vietnam Iraq and now Afpak how do you think we will fare with porkies a country of 16 crores and that too with limited toys half of which are outdated. What if the spares for which get delayed or denied?surinder wrote:Cough cough ... are you sure? Vietnam? Korea? Cuba? Small central american wars? Unkil's bullets were being fired in A'stan, if I may say so. Setting up and operationg a Huge army in bases scattered all around the world, ready to fight. In every friendship that Unncle made, every treaty it signed, every international alignment it entered into, it kept a razor sharp focus on SU.Brad Goodman wrote:Remember Unkil won the cold war without firing a single bullet. All it did was to play their expendible pieces on the chessboard of great game.
Cold war is a bad analogy, when Unlce faced division of the country, a huge civil war resulted, killing something like 10% of its population (and they had ties to the land for only a century or two, not 7000 years in our case when we were faced partition ... we simply foled up and relocated.)
Ideological vaccum caused by enetities like Congress, Nehruvian PSism and above all educational system as weel control of media. DIE must die its ideological death for India to survive: They are the weakest civilizational link yet causing the maximum harm.Pranav wrote:This is a deliberately enforced "ideological vacuum".Pulikeshi wrote:Even to date, there is no clear civilizational
or ideological core that holds the Indian nation-state together. Being yet another reaction, it suffers from no notion of
destiny or purpose other than the minimalist intent in providing for its citizens, if even that!
In simple words Indians are being brainwashed with education and media.Prem wrote: Even to date, there is no clear civilizational or ideological core that holds the Indian nation-state together.
Being yet another reaction, it suffers from no notion ofdestiny or purpose other than the minimalist intent in providing for its citizens, if even that!
This is a deliberately enforced "ideological vacuum".
Ideological vaccum caused by enetities like Congress, Nehruvian PSism and above all educational system as weel control of media.
DIE must die its ideological death for India to survive:
They are the weakest civilizational link yet causing the maximum harm.
Pulikeshi ji, slight disagreement.Pulikeshi wrote
5. Even to date, there is no clear civilizational or ideological core that holds the Indian nation-state together.
Being yet another reaction, India of today suffers from no notion of destiny or purpose other than the minimalist
intent in providing for its citizens, if even that! So, the only place we perhaps disagree is the optimism or lack thereof
with the present construct to find a way to decisively seek an end goal to the challenge of the power center to the West.
The slo-mo civil war is unlikely to end, unless and until, this wisdom dawns on citizens of the Indian state.