"NEHRU RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CREATION OF PAKISTAN"
Moin Ansari
Krit: Indeed an EXCELLENT evaluation on the subjects...there is littel to
add, except that even though there was no BJP during those times...many
in the Muslim League at the time feared the likes of Rai and Mohan who
led Hindu Nationalist Party and the Hindu Mahasaba...the RSS and Jan
Sangh were also reasons for fearing the "majoritarianism"...which a
STRONG INC would have ensured
Nihar Kirtidev Bhatt (sto...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
: Saptarshi Bandyopadhyay (sapt...@cehpx34.cen.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: : On 27 Feb 1997, Nihar Kirtidev Bhatt wrote:
: : > Saptarshi Bandyopadhyay (sapt...@cehpx34.cen.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: : > : On Thu, 13 Feb 1997, Shubha Khan wrote:
: : >
: : > I am interested in Mr. Bandopadhyay's analysis of the motivations and
: : > forces that existed during those times. At the time of independence, the
: : I agree that the Indian sub-continent had to be united in order to rid
: : itself of the influence of the British, who were doing a great deal of
: : harm to the land, to the economy, and to the resources of the
: : sub-continent. It is also true that the British used petty squabbles
: : among the people to gain a foothold, and then to commit acts of economic
: : exploitation. However, I refuse to believe that after the British left,
: : the ONLY way to prevent this sort of domination from happening again was
: : to form a centralized power base. I think that Indians would (and could)
: : learn from their mistakes, and never let this sort of thing happen again.
: : They could have formed a federation that had minimal central power but
: : provided for the common defence, and used the autonomy of the independant
: : regions for PEACEFUL economic gain (as opposed to squabbling). As it is,
: : there were people who feared that the centralized power would crush them
: : (and they may have been justified), and as such broke away when they
: : realized that the course was layed in. Hence the creation of Pakistan and
: : India as two separate states. This partition, in my opinion, clearly
: : indicates that this philosophy of "central authority to prevent future
: : exploitation" had its INTRINSIC faults, and was NEVER thought through
: : clearly. In fact, this philosophy merely replaced the British parasites
: : with Indian ones. (The question is NOT whether it is better to be
: : exploited by the British or your own people. The question is whether it
: : is better to be exploited or not.)
: : > Nehru was a complete believer in this theory. Additionally he
: : > also was a socialist which made him even stronger believer in a strong
: : > central authority. Jinnah was a shrewd lawyer and he had support from the
: : > zamindars and Nawabs of north and west who could see India becoming a
: : > secular democracy. To be fair to them, they saw India claiming the
: : > secular democracy but maintaining hindu traditions which meant secularism
: : > of BJP or Shivsena. This they saw as a complete loss of power unless they
: : > could get out of the secular idea.
: : I think you fall into the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy here. The
: : BJP or ShivSena were not prevalent in the time of partition. AS such, the
: : Muslim League and/or the NW zamindar/nawabs could not be afraid of "a
: : secular democracy that maintained Hindu traditions" due to the BJP. It is
: : true that the Muslim League, Jinnah, and his allies feared tyrannical rule
: : by a Hindu majority (at worst) or having their voices continually drowned
: : But of course, Nehru and Jinnah both believed in centralized power, and
: could not
: : let this happen.
: I am not sure what you meant by Post hoc or propter hoc. (The words are
: new to me.) However what I meant by the secularism of the BJP or Shiv
: sena is concerned, I did not mean that the Nawabs or Zamindars were afraid
: of the BJP which was forty years before it was born. That hindus of India
: maintain a" better than thou" attitude towards everyone else in
: the world is a fact of life. BJP and Shivsena only represent politically
: what most hindus feel in their hearts. Muslim establishment was afraid of
: this hindu sentiment which was in control because of Gandhiji and Nehru's
: influence but finally they knew a democratic India was going to be mainly
: hindu India with sops thrown to Muslims but never truly accepted as
: equals.
: your second point that of Jinnah also making the same mistake as Nehru in
: the fact that he made a rival muslim center competing against the "Hindu
: center does not take into account the fact that the idea of Nation as a
: unit of political identity is European and European thought is even now
: given more prominence and is given more weight than any other thought.
: Even DeGaul was more French than a European and Margaret Thacher was more
: British than Europe first prime minister. Therefore, if Nehru or Jinnah
: were not more advanced in their thinking we should forgive them. Again it
: is very clear that evaluating past leaders for their judgments
: which were made in reaction to particular situations that existed at that
: time, is an exercise in futility which can only lower our opinion for the
: leader. Would you like to see Abrahm lincoln evaluated for his attitudes
: towards the blacks? or Thomas Jefferson for his anti-egalitarian
: attitudes?
: : > It was this motivation that drove Muslim league to ask for
: : > different things that had to be opposed by anyone who wanted a forward
: : This is fundamentally true, except I believe that a "Bosnia-type"
: : situation could not have occurred if people had been given proper respect
: : and acceptance of their own autonomy. It is BECAUSE of the partition
: : that communal riots occurred, not vice versa.
: : There was one idea, started at the time, that only RECENTLY has come into
: : fruition (in Europe, of all places!). The idea was to form a united
: : ECONOMIC community, but decentralized POLITICAL autonomy. Essentially,
: : the forerunner of the modern European Community (EC). But forming an
: : "IC" on the sub-continent went contrary to the primary leaders of the
: : sub-continent at the time (Nehru and Jinnah), and so this plan,
: : revolutionary though it was for its time, was scrapped. The only
: : difference between the EC now and the proposal in pre-Partition was that
: : the "IC" would provide for common defence. Mastricht does not.
: : >
: : I agree with this. First, an aside. Always beware of people who claim
: : to represent an entire people. Chances are that they use this as empty
: : rhetoric or as an excuse to shirk their responsibility to the people they
: : supposedly represent. This is the fundamental failure of all
: : "democracies" (actually republics)-- it creates, inherently, a class
: : structure, which is magnified with the number of people that it
: : controls. Thus, a democracy of 800 million people is very inefficient.
: : A democracy of 100 million is more manageable. The Greeks understood
: : this, which is why they were divided into city-states. Yet they managed
: : to hold off a Persian force of 10,000 (under Xerxes) with only 100 people.
: : On another note, Congress DID have the right motive in refusing to divide
: : India along religious lines. However, they never did enough to ease
: : Jinnah's fears of Hindu domination. In fact, their insistence on central
: : authority is probably what drove Jinnah over the edge and to call for
: : "direct action day". I am not saying that Jinnah was justified in doing
: : what he did (in fact, he was not), but Congress, if it TRULY BELIEVED its
: : primary mission, could have prevented it. The primary mission was an
: : undivided India, not central authority.
: Not to defend Congress, but Jinnah was difficult to please at his best and
: cantercarous at his worst. Personal chemistry of the leaders of those
: times just did not meld well.
: : I have no care for Pakistan's territorial ambitions. The fact is, NWFP,
: : Sindh, Punjab, Bengal, UP, Kashmir, whatever... they should have ALL been
: : independant states, solving their own problems (without interference from
: : a central goverment(s) run by leaders who have no STAKE in the solution
: : except political mileage and/or corruption) and living out their own
: : perceived destinies. As of now, an ex-CM elected from, say, Karnatak,
: : can hold enormous power over the Assamese who, in reality, pose no real
: : threat to the people of Karnatak.
: : > Considering all this we do not seem to have done as bad as it
: : > could have been.
: : I disagree. With countless people killed in communal riots in Punjab and
: : Bengal, with each state of India losing its culture and vitality to Hindi
: : homogenization and the "Bollywood" way, with all the problems in Pakistan
: : (trying to elect, and then keep, a stable government), I think the people
: : of the sub-continent have made a pretty good mess of things. We are the
: : laughing-stock of the world! We have more intellect, and more people than
: : practically EVERY OTHER COUNTRY in the world, and yet we wallow in
: : third-world status. We can't even get along with our neighbors, and yet
: : we try to build a first-class nation!? How does one institute pride in
: : one's work, when one doesn't even have pride in one's country? What
: : motivates the people to build a better country when the issue facing each
: : and every person in the morning is "How will *I* survive the day?" and not
: : "How can I help my countrmen?". What will then keep this person from
: : robbing, stealing, and looting his neighbors? (and don't fool yourself--
: : corruption occurs ALL OVER the sub-continent). What logic is this? What
: : are the roots of our ineffectuality? I think we must go back to the time
: : of partition to answer these questions. And under microscopic analysis,
: : it will show that the answer to the questions itself is "partition".
: : >
: : > Kirtidev Bhatt
: : __________________________________________________________________________
: : Saptarshi Bandyopadhyay
: : sapt...@coewl.cen.uiuc.edu
: My sympathies are with you but the history of last five hundred
: years demonstrates very effectively that the importance a country gets has
: very little to do with how big in area or population of the country is, it
: matters very little if the leaders of the country are really far sighted.
: At different times different diasphora get more or less importance
: depending upon something called (I hate to use this word)"Destiny" which
: makes for a good life or rotten life for its population. Indians have no
: corner on stupidity or wisdom just like all the people in the world. They
: can make SAARC a great success and provide greater internal independence
: to all the provinces and finally give up on the central strong authority
: completely but even then complaints against the SAARC headquarters will be
: very strong and the history will move along.
: Kirtidev Bhatt
: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moin Ansari
I must say the calibre of discussion on this thread is FANTASTIC but what
can one expect from Reddy and Krit....the best..
I agree with the assertion that since the INC and the Muslim League had
BOTH accepted the CMP, and the Brits had endorsed it...it would have
becoem a fait accompli...and India would have remained united a
CONFEDERATION between the three zones.
Azad in his book, India WIns Freedom (UNABRIDGED complete version)
sure does LAMBLAST Nehru for waffling on the issue, and admits that THE
GREATEST BLUNDER OF HIS LIFE was to pass on the presidency of the INC to
Nehru...and Nehru wrecked the CMP by trying to placate the Asaamese..
The truth of the matter is a littel bit MORE delicate, and Azad was too
nice a man to admit it....the truth is elequently narrated by Stanley
Wolpert in his current book NEHRU:Tryst with Destiny (Yeah! I was
browsing it, looking for the juicy parts...about the pedarist..just kidding.
Wolpert has done a lot of research, and some of the insights on Moti Lal
Nehru sure do shed light on the reason WHY Nehru "waffled".
WOlpert and others have written about the many factions of the INC. One
faction was led by the Punjabi fundamentalit Lala Laj Pai...he sure would
not allow the partition of Bengal (even though, Motilal and others did
not mind it as much)...so Motilal's efforts at uniting the INC actually
led to the undoing of India...when there are fundamentalist factions
within the secular and pretty moderate party called the INC, then the
entire party actually moved to the conservative RIGHT....and WAS
influenced by Lala and others like Patel, who would not hear of
consessions to the Muslims or other minoritites....the theme has to be
researched..(I have not finished reading Wolpert's book)...
Azad did not say it...but Wolpert did mention that for a while even Nehru
did not get along with Gandhijee because Nehru was too much of the
establishment..and too mcuh of a secularist to associate with a "religious
leader."
So if Nehru "waffled" on the CMP after Jinnah, and the INC had agreed
upon the CMP, it was due to the RIGHT WING of the Congress...the very
same wing that kinda nudged Azad OUT THE DOOR, when he compromised with
the Muslim League...the right wing of the congress got powerful as the
RSS and Hindu Mahasaba and other parties got powerful.
The Muslim League on the other hand kinda faced the same dilema...on the
political scene, when Jinnah tried to unite the Unionists and the
Bengalis nationalists under the banner of the Muslim League...the Jamiat
e Ulema and Hind and the Jamaat e Islami however remained under their own
banner, and the Muslim League DID not have to move to the right, like the
COngress did.
As far as adhering to the Ayesha Jalal theory that the Muslim League was
in the hands of the feudla landlords...the theory has HOLES in
it....because the feudals of the Punjab, and the NWFP actually faught the
Muslim League tooth and nail...even in SIndh G.M> Syed had a
on-agin-off-again political affiar with the Muslim League, whcih
ultamately led to a divorce.
AYESHA JALALS THEORY ON THE CREATION OF PAKISTAN
Even though the Pakistan movement began in Oudh and Lucknow and Aligarh
the vanguard of the movement was the Muslim students all over the
subcontinent. According to Ayesha Jalal a new revisionist Indian
historian, Pakistan was created as a counter to the socialistic policies
of the Indian National congress....a sanctuary for the Muslim
landlords.....Pakistan was created by the landlords of the Muslim
majority areas of Pakistan to preserve the land holdings of the landlords
of Punjab, Sindh, Balauchistan and Sarhad, because the landlords knew
that the INC would nationalize their land holdings.
A big hole in Jalals theory is that she fails to explain why the Hindu
landlords were so very helpless and could not counter the INC in India.
The other hole in the theory is the act that the Unionist Landlords of
the Punjab opposed the Muslim League and opposed Pakistan. Similarly in
the NWFP, the landlords of NWFP opposed the Muslim League and supported
Badshah Khan. In Sindh the right wing G.M. Syed was the focal point of
opposition to Pakistan and was supported by the feudals of Sindh. Jalal
has never been able to fill the gap between her theory and the facts on
the ground.
More later...
Moin
Uday Reddy
(re...@cs.uiuc.edu) wrote: : Nihar Kirtidev Bhatt wrote:
: >
: > I am interested in Mr. Bandopadhyay's analysis of the motivations and
: > forces that existed during those times. At the time of independence, the
: > prevailing theory about why India with 400 million people and a land area
: > as large as the whole of Europe except Russia can be ruled by a small
: > island country at the edge of Europe was that India was divided and the
: > British made fools of Indian Kings. Only way to avoid that mistake was to
: > create a strong center that is powerful enough to hold such fissiparous
: > tendencies at bay.
: So far so good. But, nothing in this says that we can't have THREE
: strong centers, like we do now, for western, central and eastern
: India's. There could still be a federation at the top to mediate
: between the three and stop them from killing each other. What is
: unreasonable about that?
: I don't think Nehru or anybody else has ever explained how the
: federation idea was in conflict with the "strong center" idea.
: The conflict arises only if one identifies the federation with the
: strong center. Then the Center is seen to be devolving powers to the
: western and eastern groups. But, this was not how the Muslim League
: viewed it. It was not how the Cabinet Mission viewed it. They thought
: of three centers (called "groups") with a federation (actually called
: "center") at the top.
: > Nehru was a complete believer in this theory. Additionally he
: > also was a socialist which made him even stronger believer in a strong
: > central authority. Jinnah was a shrewd lawyer and he had support from the
: > zamindars and Nawabs of north and west who could see India becoming a
: > secular democracy. To be fair to them, they saw India claiming the
: > secular democracy but maintaining hindu traditions which meant secularism
: > of BJP or Shivsena. This they saw as a complete loss of power unless they
: > could get out of the secular idea.
: They saw a loss of power no matter what. This has nothing to do with
: secularism. Hindus outnumber Muslims in the entire subcontinent (and
: "secular" Hindus outnumber "secular" Muslims). So, whereever the
: numbers game is played, Muslims lose out. Muslim League wanted PARITY
: at the Center, which Congress was unwilling to give. But, parity was
: the only way the three groups could stay together, and it still is the
: only way.
: > It was this motivation that drove Muslim league to ask for
: > different things that had to be opposed by anyone who wanted a forward
: > looking, secular India. Those northern and north western zamindars have
: > dominated the politics of Pakistan for the last fifty years. They have
: > even now not given up their powers in Pakistan. As far as scripps plan is
: > concerned, it was bound to fail and result in a Bosnia type solution
: > where we would have always needed the British troops to keep the warring
: > factions separate.
: I don't think this is said with a real understanding of the forces at
: play. Congress wanted the subcontinent to stay united. It was merely a
: matter of reaching the right compromise with the Muslim League. By
: itself, it couldn't reach a compromise. The Cabinet Mission tried to
: produce a compromise, after months of hard work, negotiations and
: mediation. Congress cooperated with the Mission till the last day, and
: it *accepted* the Cabinet Mission Plan.
: > Congress in those days claimed to represent India including its
: > culture and history. I am not saying they actually did but congressmen
: > were holier, better and character wise unreachable by the ordinary people.
: > That congress cannot be persuaded to go along with a religious idea like
: > creation of a muslim majority provincial government. However far fetched
: > and stupid this attitude of the Congress may seem, that was the majority
: > perception in India and Jinnah and Muslims had no alternative but to get
: > Pakistan as big as they can get.
: But, Congress did go along with idea. It accepted the Cabinet Mission
: Plan.
: It was ruined later by Nehru.
: > Jinnah's dream was for a Pakistan stretching from Sindh to kashmir
: > in the north and connecting a strip running through Ayodhya and Aundh to
: > Bengal in the east with possibly Hydrabad in the South. Thanks to Nehru
: > and Patel's strategic thinking he never could achieve what he had dreamed
: > of.
: Well, the less said about "dreams" the better.
: >
: > Considering all this we do not seem to have done as bad as it
: > could have been.
: I guess so. For you and me, it probably doesn't make too much of a
: difference. But, for the provinces that got divided, Bengal, Punjab and
: Kashmir, it makes a hell of a lot of difference. They paid for the
: partition with their lives. Millions lost their lives. And, at least
: in the case of Bengal, they might have lost their economic viability.
: Uday Reddy
Moin Ansari
Uday Reddy (re...@cs.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: Raghu Seshadri wrote:
: >
: > Lets examine this a bit. "Wherever the numbers game
: > is played" presumably means democracy. (If not,
: > please correct me.) So you are asserting that
: > wherever there is democracy, the minorities
: > lose out ?
: >
: > You mean you are not aware of all the things
: > that have gone into making a democracy different
: > from mere majoritarianism ?
: >
: > Looks like you could use some reading of
: > the Federalist Papers, and other writings
: > by Jefferson and Franklin.
: If you are talking about constitutional safeguards that distinguish
: democracy from "majoritarianism," that is precisely what the Cabinet
: Mission Plan was about. (Sorry, I haven't read Federalist Papers.)
: It asked the Congress and the Muslim League to agree on a basic
: framework for the Constitution.
: > Lets take the case of the Catholics in the
: > U.S. Do Catholics lose out wherever the
: > numbers game is played ? Is parity between
: > the Catholics, the Mormons, the Protestants,
: > the Quakers, the Seventh Day Adventists etc
: > the only way ? Is this the way the U.S
: > democracy should be restructured, in your opinion ?
: You couldn't be serious in making a comparison like this. The
: differences between the said religions in the US are fewer than the
: differences between, say, two castes in India. But, even that is not
: all that significant. The real difference, as you are well aware, is
: that Indian Muslims saw themselves as a separate political force, a
: "quam." Let us not get judgemental about whether that should have
: happened or go into why it happened. That is a long story, and I am not
: sure we will be able to reach any real conclusions. Given that that was
: the state of affairs in 1947, what was the solution?
: Nehru himself has said in 1952 or so that, had he understood all the
: consequences of partition and its human cost, he would have opposed it.
: Here we are in 1996, arguing that partition was the right thing!
: > This horror would have been much bigger
: > with the inevitable crash and burn of
: > the absurd CMP super state. While even
: > one killing is a tragedy, it is better
: > for 1 million to die than for 10 million
: > to die.
: I don't believe that. You have given no basis for this doomsday
: prediction. In an earlier message, I mentioned the *positive*
: consequences that would have followed the acceptance of CMP. It is hard
: to deal with counterfactuals, but it is by no means clear that, given
: time, Indian Hindus and Muslims would not have learned live together.
: Uday Reddy
Moin Ansari
THIS IS ONE OF THE BEST THREAD SON THE SCI and SCP..let us keep it that
way...I have added SCP.HISTORY to the listing, so that in case it
deteriorates to flames, we can slavage it on SCPH...Moin
I think I agree with almost everything you have wrtten in your
response..
The INC had moved from being a pretty right wing organization under
Motilal to being a pretty socialistic organization under Jawahalal. WHile
Motolal was pretty much a laizze faire capitalist, Jawaharlal and his
progeny were indeed fire and brimstone (the state MUST OWN everything)
socilists...and socilists a la. Mao and Stalin and Lenin usually want very
strong centers
The tendency of the INC had been to follow the Mao-Lenin-Stalin route to
independence and beyod, and they did that....Nehru and more
importantly wanted to decimate the 560 or so India's, and Jinnah and
autonomy had to place in his plans to build a nation....if Mao had
followed this autonomy thing, there would have been a hundred Chinas, and
if Lenin and Stalin had allowed the autonomy to go gorward...they would
never had gotten the USSR....rightly or wrongly the thinking was to HAVE
VERY STRONG CENTERS..
Pressured by the likes of Rai and Madan Mohan and the ULTRA RIGHT WING OF
THE INC, Nehru sabotaged the CMP by design...so that India could have a
STRONG CNETER...
The Muslims were very afraid at the growing miltancy of some
organizations...led by ex-Congress presidnets...so many Muslims,
Untouchables, and Sikhs, the growing militancy of some Hindus would put
them in a very precarious position....and they wanted MORE autonomy for
themselves...and this brought them in conflict with the FEDERALISTS in
the Congress...the same issues cropped up in the U.S> constitutional
crisis which was actually never resolved....and ultimately led tot he
Civil War...
In our patch of the world...it led to partition...and then further
partition in Pakistan..India faced the same FEDARALISTS vs. PROVICIALISTS
dilemna but was able to sovle many of the issues through democracy and
dialogue...Sri Lnaka and Pakistan did not ahve the sophisticated
machinery of democracy to resolve the problems and still face the
issue...not that they have gone away in India
LIncoln Innn bred Jinnah and The Muslim League and the minorities more or
less trusted the
Harrow-Eaton and Oxbridge led Indian National Congress BUT how could they
trust the likes of the RSS (that was growing)
The Muslims, Jinnah and other minorities were really running scared of the
humongous power and the militant power of the Hindus as diplayed in
cultural and other aspects...(please see Ira Lapidus...History of Islamic
SOcieties...and please aslo see Francis Robinson...Seperatism of Indian
Muslims).
This part of our common history is NOT understood by many
To prove that the Muslim were and SHOULD HAVE been afraid of the BJP type
of parties let me post some excerpts from....
NEHRU: Tryst with destiney by Stanley WOlpert...
Those two tyrants soon merged in his mind, for loyalist Congress
moderates--Gokhale's liberal Anglophile wing of gentlemen like Motilal--
Page 72: In India, the elections to the provincial councils as well as
the Central Assembly were held in 1926, and Motilal was forced to bear
alone the full burden of the Swaraj campaign, for his dear friend and
president of the party, C.R. Das had died...I hardly had any workers
worth the name to help me in my province." Not only had Jawaharlal
deserted him, but former friends and old allies, Pandit Madan Mohan
Malaviya and Lal Lajpat Rai, both ex-Congress Presidents, founded their
own Nationalist Party that year, a Hindu first communal party, which won
many seats in the United Provinces.....
Malaviya was president of the Hindu Mahasaba,a conserative communal
society that focused on saving cows and slaughter Muslims while trying to
force the conversions of Muslims to Hinduism, arguing that most of
India's Muslim population had originally been Hindus but had forcibly
been converted to Islam during some five hundred years of Muslim rule.
One of the most militant popular Hindu communal leaders of that
"reconversion" (shudhi) movement, Swami Shraddhanand, was assassinated in
Delhi that December by a Muslim extremist. The swami, like Lala Lajpat
Rai, belonged to another fundamentalist Hindu society, the Arya Samaj,
which advocated turning back India's history more than three thousand
years to an ancient Aryan tribal polity, reflected in Vedic scripture,
when Brahmans and cows were treated as gods on earth.
I also want to post some statements of Rai that would force Jinnah and
others to DEMAND MORE AUTONOMY and a CONFEDERATION .....
Khuswant Singh in an interesting article on Indian Muslims says the
following:
Long before Chaudry Rehmat Ali propounded his views on Pakistan, and
Mohammed Ali Jinnah put forwarded the TNT, as early as 1924 Lala Lajpat
Rai, the most prominent nationalist leader of Punjab and a pillar of the
National Congress endorsed the view of the Bhai demand of the Hindu
Mahasaba that Punjab should be partitioned into two provinces, Western
Punjab with a large Muslim majority to be a Muslim-governed province and
the same principle can be applied in Bengal.
He went on to add:
Under my scheme Muslims will have four provinces, the NWFP, West Punjab,
Sindh and Eastern Bengal. Lajput Rai elaborated: It should be distinctly
understood that this is not a united India. It seems a clear partition of
India into Muslim India and non-Muslim India.
The mistrust of the Muslims was exploited by the Hindu leaders who
dwelled on the fact that the Muslims were aliens in India. Here is an
excerpt of Gurudev Rabindranath Tagore's fears about the divided loyalty
of Muslims published in th 'Times of India' April, 18, 1924.
.... A very important factor which is making it almost impossible for
Hindu-Muslim unity to become an accomplished fact is that the Muslims
cannot confine their patriotism to any one country. I had frankly asked
many Muslims whether, in the event of any Mohammedan Power invading
India, they would stand side by side with their Hindu neighbours to
defend their common land. I was not satisfied with the reply I got from
them. I can definitely state that even such men as Mr. Muhammad Ali has
declared that under no circumstances it is permissible for any Mohammedan
whatever be his country to stand against any Mohammedan. .......
Gurudev was also quoted by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in his Pakistan, see page
272-273.
The above is parhaps one of the best reasons for the creation of
Pakistan, for as long as India was one country all Muslims would be
aliens in their own land. Todays Indian Muslims are suspected ofto
Pakistan. Facing Iran or Arabia or Afghanistan, Muslim loyalties would
always be under suspicion in a united India.
Here is another quote by Lala Lajpat Rai in "Muslim Leaders cannot
override Quranic and Hadic injunctions?"Lala Lajpat Rai wrote to C.R. Das
(in 1924):
..........I am not afraid of seven crores (of Muslims) of Hindusthan but
I think the seven crores of Hindusthan plus the Armed hordes of Central
Asia, Arabia, Mesopotamia, and Turkey will be irresistible. I do honestly
and sincerely believe in the necessity or desirability of Hindu-Muslim
Unity. I am also prepared to fully trust the Muslim leaders, but what
about the injunctions of the Quran and Hadis? The leaders cannot override
them. Are we then doomed? I hope not. I hope your learned mind and wise
head will find some way out of this difficulty. .......
Pakistan, by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, page 274.
: among the people to gain a foothold, and then to commit acts of economic
: exploitation. However, I refuse to believe that after the British left,
: the ONLY way to prevent this sort of domination from happening again was
: to form a centralized power base. I think that Indians would (and could)
: learn from their mistakes, and never let this sort of thing happen again.
: They could have formed a federation that had minimal central power but
: provided for the common defence, and used the autonomy of the independant
: regions for PEACEFUL economic gain (as opposed to squabbling). As it is,
: there were people who feared that the centralized power would crush them
: (and they may have been justified), and as such broke away when they
: realized that the course was layed in. Hence the creation of Pakistan and
: India as two separate states. This partition, in my opinion, clearly
: indicates that this philosophy of "central authority to prevent future
: exploitation" had its INTRINSIC faults, and was NEVER thought through
: clearly. In fact, this philosophy merely replaced the British parasites
: with Indian ones. (The question is NOT whether it is better to be
: exploited by the British or your own people. The question is whether it
: is better to be exploited or not.)
: At the time of partion, ANYONE could tell that India is a diverse land;
: as such, any exaltation of one land, or one language, or one government
: over the others was bound to have SERIOUS problems (the ramifications of
: which we see today), or even fail. The creation of the central
: authority, while necessary for removing the British, was NOT necessary
: for governing the country. Again, it belies a "faith-in-your-neighbor"
: attitude which was not there (for communal reasons) in the time of
: partition, but is not there EVEN NOW among the people of the
: sub-continent. (A common stereotype among Indian people is that they
: don't trust other Indians).
: >
: > Nehru was a complete believer in this theory. Additionally he
: > also was a socialist which made him even stronger believer in a strong
: > central authority. Jinnah was a shrewd lawyer and he had support from the
: > zamindars and Nawabs of north and west who could see India becoming a
: > secular democracy. To be fair to them, they saw India claiming the
: > secular democracy but maintaining hindu traditions which meant secularism
: > of BJP or Shivsena. This they saw as a complete loss of power unless they
: > could get out of the secular idea.
: I think you fall into the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy here. The
: BJP or ShivSena were not prevalent in the time of partition. AS such, the
: Muslim League and/or the NW zamindar/nawabs could not be afraid of "a
: secular democracy that maintained Hindu traditions" due to the BJP. It is
: true that the Muslim League, Jinnah, and his allies feared tyrannical rule
: by a Hindu majority (at worst) or having their voices continually drowned
: out by the majority (more practically). Their solution? *Another*
: centralized authority! (which, ironically, did more to decentralize the
: power in the sub-continent). The only solution that they did not explore
: in this case was TOTAL decentralization of political power-- i.e. making
: each region autonomous in its own right-- with a minimal central provision
: for currency, common defence, inter-nation squabbling, etc. But of
: course, Nehru and Jinnah both believed in centralized power, and could not
: let this happen.
: >
: > It was this motivation that drove Muslim league to ask for
: > different things that had to be opposed by anyone who wanted a forward
: > looking, secular India. Those northern and north western zamindars have
: > dominated the politics of Pakistan for the last fifty years. They have
: > even now not given up their powers in Pakistan. As far as scripps plan is
: > concerned, it was bound to fail and result in a Bosnia type solution
: > where we would have always needed the British troops to keep the warring
: > factions separate.
: This is fundamentally true, except I believe that a "Bosnia-type"
: situation could not have occurred if people had been given proper respect
: and acceptance of their own autonomy. It is BECAUSE of the partition
: that communal riots occurred, not vice versa.
: There was one idea, started at the time, that only RECENTLY has come into
: fruition (in Europe, of all places!). The idea was to form a united
: ECONOMIC community, but decentralized POLITICAL autonomy. Essentially,
: the forerunner of the modern European Community (EC). But forming an
: "IC" on the sub-continent went contrary to the primary leaders of the
: sub-continent at the time (Nehru and Jinnah), and so this plan,
: revolutionary though it was for its time, was scrapped. The only
: difference between the EC now and the proposal in pre-Partition was that
: the "IC" would provide for common defence. Mastricht does not.
: > Congress in those days claimed to represent India including its
: > culture and history. I am not saying they actually did but congressmen
: > were holier, better and character wise unreachable by the ordinary people.
: > That congress cannot be persuaded to go along with a religious idea like
: > creation of a muslim majority provincial government. However far fetched
: > and stupid this attitude of the Congress may seem, that was the majority
: > perception in India and Jinnah and Muslims had no alternative but to get
: > Pakistan as big as they can get.
: >
: I agree with this. First, an aside. Always beware of people who claim
: to represent an entire people. Chances are that they use this as empty
: rhetoric or as an excuse to shirk their responsibility to the people they
: supposedly represent. This is the fundamental failure of all
: "democracies" (actually republics)-- it creates, inherently, a class
: structure, which is magnified with the number of people that it
: controls. Thus, a democracy of 800 million people is very inefficient.
: A democracy of 100 million is more manageable. The Greeks understood
: this, which is why they were divided into city-states. Yet they managed
: to hold off a Persian force of 10,000 (under Xerxes) with only 100 people.
: On another note, Congress DID have the right motive in refusing to divide
: India along religious lines. However, they never did enough to ease
: Jinnah's fears of Hindu domination. In fact, their insistence on central
: authority is probably what drove Jinnah over the edge and to call for
: "direct action day". I am not saying that Jinnah was justified in doing
: what he did (in fact, he was not), but Congress, if it TRULY BELIEVED its
: primary mission, could have prevented it. The primary mission was an
: undivided India, not central authority.
: > Jinnah's dream was for a Pakistan stretching from Sindh to kashmir
: > in the north and connecting a strip running through Ayodhya and Aundh to
: > Bengal in the east with possibly Hydrabad in the South. Thanks to Nehru
: > and Patel's strategic thinking he never could achieve what he had dreamed
: > of.
: >
: I have no care for Pakistan's territorial ambitions. The fact is, NWFP,
: Sindh, Punjab, Bengal, UP, Kashmir, whatever... they should have ALL been
: independant states, solving their own problems (without interference from
: a central goverment(s) run by leaders who have no STAKE in the solution
: except political mileage and/or corruption) and living out their own
: perceived destinies. As of now, an ex-CM elected from, say, Karnatak,
: can hold enormous power over the Assamese who, in reality, pose no real
: threat to the people of Karnatak.
: > Considering all this we do not seem to have done as bad as it
: > could have been.
: I disagree. With countless people killed in communal riots in Punjab and
: Bengal, with each state of India losing its culture and vitality to Hindi
: homogenization and the "Bollywood" way, with all the problems in Pakistan
: (trying to elect, and then keep, a stable government), I think the people
: of the sub-continent have made a pretty good mess of things. We are the
: laughing-stock of the world! We have more intellect, and more people than
: practically EVERY OTHER COUNTRY in the world, and yet we wallow in
: third-world status. We can't even get along with our neighbors, and yet
: we try to build a first-class nation!? How does one institute pride in
: one's work, when one doesn't even have pride in one's country? What
: motivates the people to build a better country when the issue facing each
: and every person in the morning is "How will *I* survive the day?" and not
: "How can I help my countrmen?". What will then keep this person from
: robbing, stealing, and looting his neighbors? (and don't fool yourself--
: corruption occurs ALL OVER the sub-continent). What logic is this? What
: are the roots of our ineffectuality? I think we must go back to the time
: of partition to answer these questions. And under microscopic analysis,
: it will show that the answer to the questions itself is "partition".
: >
: > Kirtidev Bhatt
: __________________________________________________________________________
: Saptarshi Bandyopadhyay
: sapt...@coewl.cen.uiuc.edu
: Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high
: Where knowledge is free;
: Where the world has not been broken up into fragments by narrow domestic walls;
: Where words come out from the depths of truth;
: Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection;
: Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the dreary desert
: sands of dead habit;
: Where the mind is led forward by thee into ever-widening thought and action;
: Into that heaven of freedom, my father, let my country awake!
:
: -- Rabindranath Thakur
Moin Ansari
Nalinaksha Bhattacharyya (bha...@unixg.ubc.ca) wrote:
: Nihar Kirtidev Bhatt (sto...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
: : I am interested in Mr. Bandopadhyay's analysis of the motivations and
: : forces that existed during those times. At the time of independence, the
: : prevailing theory about why India with 400 million people and a land area
: : as large as the whole of Europe except Russia can be ruled by a small
: : island country at the edge of Europe was that India was divided and the
: : British made fools of Indian Kings. Only way to avoid that mistake was to
: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: : create a strong center that is powerful enough to hold such fissiparous
: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: : tendencies at bay.
: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: But the age of kings has passed. In a modern democratic polity the power
: is supposed to be with the people. And given the diverse nature of India
: the problems in India are essentially local in character and requires
: local solution. You can keep fissiparou s tendencies at bay either by
: having a strong army or by ensuring that every constituent unit feel that
: they have a striking chance of success in the federal arrangement. The
: present fissiparous tendencies in India show that regional aspirations
: were not met in India.
: : Nehru was a complete believer in this theory. Additionally he
: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: We have discussed this earlier. Nehru sabotaged Cabinet Mission plan.
: After having agreed to the Cabinet Mission plan, Nehru publicly declared
: that the congress would not be bound by it. This raised the old suspicions
: in the Muslim League and they backed out. I have drawn up the following
: chronology from the book "Modern India-1885-1947" by Sumit Sarkar,
: Macmillan India, 1983. The quotes are also from the same book.
: 24 March to June 1946
: - Cabinet Mission formulates proposal along with Lord Wavell.
: [
: Page 428] "Wavell was very suspicious of the Cabinet Mission being over
: friendly with the Congress"
:
: [Page 428] "Yet if the Cabinet Mission at times seemed
: to lean marginally towards the Congress, this was ... what Wavell himself
: on 29th march described as the 'necessity to avoid the mass movement or
: revolution which it is in the power of the Congress to start, and which we
: are not certain that we can control'. It is difficult to avoid the
: conclusion that the Congress leadership once again spiked its own guns it
: its eagerness for quick and easy power and desire at all costs to preserve
: social order."
: 16 May 1946- the Cabinet Mission Plan comes out.
: [Page 429]"After initial negotiatons had been stalled as
: usual on the rock of Jinnah's insistence on Pakistan, the Cabinet Mission
: on 16 May came out with a plan which for a brief moment promised to break
: the deadlock. This confronted Jin nah with a choice between a moth-eaten
: Pakistan and a loose, three-tier confederal structure in which Muslims
: would have the chance of dominating the N.W and N.E. province of a
: still-united country. ... The alternative suggested was a weak centre
: controll ing only foreign affairs, defence and communication, with the
: existing provincial assemblies being grouped into three sections while
: electing the constituent assembly: Section A for the Hindu-majority
: provinces, Section B and C for Muslim -majority provin ces of the
: north-west and north-east."
: 6 June 1946- The Muslim League acepts the Cabinet Mission Plan.
: 24 June 1946- Congress accepts the plan.
: [Page 430]"The League wanted grouping to be compulsory, with
: Sections B and C developing into solid entities with a view to future
: secession into Pakistan....The Congress argued that compulsory grouping
: contradicted the otherwise oft repeate d insistence on provincial
: autonomy, and was not satisfied with the Mission's clarification (on May
: 25) that the grouping would be compulsory at first, but provinces would
: have the right to opt out after the constitution had been finalized and
: new electio ns held with it"
:
: [MY COMMENT: So we see that
: a)The Mission was perceived to be more favourable to Congress.
: b)The provinces had the option to go out of the grouping after finalising
: the constitution and after holding elections. ]
: 10 July 1946- Nehru declared at a press conference that Congress is not
: bound by Cabinet Mission Plan.
: 29-30 July 1946-League withdraws its acceptance of Cabinet Mission and
: gives call for Direct Action.
: 16 August 1946 - Communal violence in Calcutta. A very interesting
: revealation is "More Muslims seemed to have died than Hindus, a point made
: not only by Wavell but also by Patel"[Page 432]
: 10 March 1947- "Nehru was telling Wavell in private that 'through the
: Cabinet Mission Plan was the best solution if it could be carried
: through-the only real alternative was thepartition of Punjab and Bengal"
: [Page 436]
: Therefore you see I really cannot believe that Nehru had Indias interest
: at heart when he sabotaged Cabinet Mission. Otherwise why would he tell
: Wavell what he did on 10 March 1947? Nehru and Patel wanted to rule over
: India unchallanged and their actions were motivated by that. Another
: motivating factor was that the Indian trader/capitalist class also had an
: interest in the stron centre and Nehru and Patel were protecting its
: interests.
: : It was this motivation that drove Muslim league to ask for
: : different things that had to be opposed by anyone who wanted a forward
: : looking, secular India. Those northern and north western zamindars have
: : dominated the politics of Pakistan for the last fifty years. They have
: : even now not given up their powers in Pakistan. As far as scripps plan is
: : concerned, it was bound to fail and result in a Bosnia type solution
: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: : where we would have always needed the British troops to keep the warring
: : factions separate.
: I don't think that Muslim League was saintly and had the interest of
: Muslim masses at heart. They had the interest of their Zaminders and
: trading class. Ispahani was the backer of Muslim League and Birla was
: backing Congress. However, you have not justified your statement
: underlined above. I assume you mean Cabinet mission plan when you talk of
: "scripps plan". Under this plan, the federal govt would have powers over
: defence, foreign relations and communication and the provinces would have
: power over the rest. In my view, this plan would have eliminated the arms
: race in the subcontinent, would have given everybody space to develop
: their potential, would have avoided the Indi-Pak wars, would have avoided
: the displacement of refugees. why should it have led
: to a Bosnia type situation?
: : Congress in those days claimed to represent India including its
: : culture and history. I am not saying they actually did but congressmen
: : were holier, better and character wise unreachable by the ordinary people.
: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: Were they? Gandhi himself complained about growing corruption among the
: Congress ministers formed as a result of the first election under Govt.of
: India Act, 1935. If I remember correctly this was held in the year 1936.
: : That congress cannot be persuaded to go along with a religious idea like
: : creation of a muslim majority provincial government. However far fetched
: : and stupid this attitude of the Congress may seem, that was the majority
: : perception in India and Jinnah and Muslims had no alternative but to get
: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: Pakistan as big as they can get.
: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: Voting rights were restricted. There was no adult franchise. So we really
: don't know what the majority perception was on anything. Congress however
: was not as altruistic as the official Indian history would lead us to
: believe.
: : Jinnah's dream was for a Pakistan stretching from Sindh to kashmir
: : in the north and connecting a strip running through Ayodhya and Aundh to
: : Bengal in the east with possibly Hydrabad in the South. Thanks to Nehru
: : and Patel's strategic thinking he never could achieve what he had dreamed
: : of.
: Jinnah was after his own power. So were Patel and Nehru. The price were
: paid by the murdered and displaced millions of Bengal and Punjab.
: : Considering all this we do not seem to have done as bad as it
: : could have been.
: Have you been following this thread ? In particular did you read my
: earlier posts which reproduced the story of the sabotage of Cabinet
: Mission by Nehru from the writings of Maulana Azad and Rajmohan Gandhi?
: --
: Nalinaksha Bhattacharyya
Moin Ansari
khusro saeedi (ksa...@PO-Box.McGill.CA) wrote:
: > sto...@wam.umd.edu (Nihar Kirtidev Bhatt) writes:
: > : __________________________________________________________________________
: >
: > I am interested in Mr. Bandopadhyay's analysis of the motivations and
: > forces that existed during those times. At the time of independence, the
: > prevailing theory about why India with 400 million people and a land area
: > as large as the whole of Europe except Russia can be ruled by a small
: > island country at the edge of Europe was that India was divided and the
: > British made fools of Indian Kings. Only way to avoid that mistake was to
: > create a strong center that is powerful enough to hold such fissiparous
: > tendencies at bay.
: Or, the only way to prevent India from falling apart was to create a federal structure with a weak centre to allow the
: natural diversity of India to express itself. The components of the federation would co-operate at the cenre in their common
: interests. I think that this was the prevailing view of the British by the 1920's. They did think india was fissiparous, but that
: Federalism, not tight centralism, was the solution. It may have been somewhat naive to suppose that the country would
: throw up enlightened regional politicians who would realize their common interests, but it is a viable theory. I personally think that
: India could do with a dose of decentralization. The centre's power to dismiss state governemtns has been especially misused.
: >
: > Nehru was a complete believer in this theory. Additionally he
: > also was a socialist which made him even stronger believer in a strong
: > central authority. Jinnah was a shrewd lawyer and he had support from the
: > zamindars and Nawabs of north and west who could see India becoming a
: > secular democracy. To be fair to them, they saw India claiming the
: > secular democracy but maintaining hindu traditions which meant secularism
: > of BJP or Shivsena. This they saw as a complete loss of power unless they
: > could get out of the secular idea.
: >
: I don't know if the leaders of the muslim majority provincers in the NW were that intelligent. And they did not have an enormous
: amount to fear from a secular democracy. Why? Well, the Zamindars certainly did not want the radical utopian ideas of the
: Jamaat-i-islami. And Muslims were in a majority in the NW (and BEngal--but barely) so they would rule themselves regardless. What
: did they care who ruled the centre, muslims would always rule Punjab. One thesis put forward was that the zamindars took Congress
: land reform rhetoric for reality. The fear of Congress land reform led them to seek an alternative voice at the centre. Jinnah was
: looking to legitmize the Muslim league as the voice of all Muslims. He had pitiful support in the Muslim Majority provinces and
: needed help. The bargain was that the zamindars would deliver the vote to Jinnah and call themselves Muslim Leaguers in return for
: a free hand at the provincial level. Thus a muslim League whose natural constituency was the Muslim Salariat (civil servants, middle
: class) was delivered over in Punjab to the Zamindars and large landowners. Of course, when this bargain took place, no one had
: any idea what the end result would be. The PAkistan resolution was yet to come. The same bargain in Punjab was made in Bengal,
: but with a differeent twist. The muslim voice in Bengal was a radical Peasants party which feared the domination of the Hindu
: landlords. The league provided a way to counter the hindu landolord at the centre. And again, they got a free hand at the provincial
: level. I don't think either province (NWFP had a congress ministry) had musch to fear from a secular (though slightly hindu) nation.
: Their sights were at the provincial level and they had a mojorityu. The group who was scared was, of course, the muslim minority in
: UP and Bihar.
: > It was this motivation that drove Muslim league to ask for
: > different things that had to be opposed by anyone who wanted a forward
: > looking, secular India.
: I don't know, The landlords simply wanted to maintain their dominance. THis could have been done in a United India--hasn't it been
: done in other provinces. As to what Jinnah wanted, see below. Pakistan in it's eventual state (two wings, punjab,bengal partitioned)
: was very low on his list. If had to do it agian, I think he would have prefferred a united India (with muslim safeguards) to what
: actually occurred.
: > Congress in those days claimed to represent India including its
: > culture and history. I am not saying they actually did but congressmen
: > were holier, better and character wise unreachable by the ordinary people.
: > That congress cannot be persuaded to go along with a religious idea like
: > creation of a muslim majority provincial government. However far fetched
: > and stupid this attitude of the Congress may seem, that was the majority
: > perception in India and Jinnah and Muslims had no alternative but to get
: > Pakistan as big as they can get.
: I think you believe that Jinnah wanted a theocratic state. This is most definitely *not* true. Punjab and Bengal (barely) were already
: Muslim Majority, as well as NWFP ad BAluch of course, so there was no question of "congress going along" with a provincial muslim
: majority. It was already a fact. That was not what Jinnah was demanding.
:
: > Jinnah's dream was for a Pakistan stretching from Sindh to kashmir
: > in the north and connecting a strip running through Ayodhya and Aundh to
: > Bengal in the east with possibly Hydrabad in the South.
: That was Jinnah's wish at the end. of course, it was utterly unrealistic. Only supreme incompetence by Congress would have
: allowed this eventuality. Even mediocre statesmen could have (and did) prevent this.
: I think that what Jinnah really wanted was a way to safeguard the muslim minority and the majority areas. The majority areas did not
: really need his help, as they could control their own destiny. But without the majority areas votes, Jinnah could not calim to be a
: spokeperson for all-muslims.
: Aside: In South africa today Afrikaaner dreamer try to map out a territory that is majority white and could be a basis for a separatist
: movement. But whites are spread out in SA so much that any proposed area inevitably leaves out some whites' land. Those who
: are left out naturally scream and shout and oppose any such plan. Thus a territitorial white separitist movement is impossible.
: Keep the above in mind. Now, Jinnah master plan (in my view) was to have a government in the muslim majority provinces
: **undivided**. yes, undivided. say it again, undivided. Just under half of Punjab, and just (barely) under half of begal woul;d be
: hindu. the "pakistan" would be alteast 30% and maybe 40%+ hindu. Then, this "pakistan" would reach a ***constitutional***
: agreement with Hindustan about their respective minorities; a sort of mutual hostage plan. See that word, ***constitutional***. Tha's
: what the Pakistan resolution (Lahore) says. That word implies that some overarching document would cover both Pakistan and
: Hindustan. And only together these two components copuld create India. There could be no India wihtout Pakistan, only
: Hindustan. Congress, of course, refused to allow this. eventually Jinnah was faced (after failure of cripps plan) with the choice of a
: "moth eaten Pakistan" (his famous words) or no Pakistan and just the hope that in the constitutional negotiaitions he would be able
: to gain some sort of security for muslims, especially minority muslims. I think (again, my opinion) that Jinnah would have taken the
: latter plan if he was secure in the support of the Muslim league representaives to the constuent assmebly in the centre. But he had
: given away control of the Punjab and Benagl leagues in exchange for votes. He could not absolutely count on the representaives
: from those regions following his lead. Punjabe & benagl make up approx 2/3 of muslims in Brtiish India. Jinnah had to go with what
: was sure, a moth eaten Pakistan, over the potential of a united India with Muslim safeguards.
: What's wrong with this picture? It abandons the 1/3 of muslims livng in minority areas of India. They were faced with the choice of
: migrating or staying and beeing viewed as members of a potentially traitorous minority. As one of the chants of the communalists
: rioters goes "pakistan jao ya kabristan jao". go to pakistan or die. If the minority muslims would have had any idea that they would
: be left out of the eventual Pakistan--with no safeguards whatsoever, they would never have aquiecesed. See expamle of white
: SAfricans. Who failde the minority muslims and the interests of a united india? Obviously Jinnah, who bargained himself into a
: postion of abandoning his staunchest supporters in a hostile state. His iron fisted ruel of the muslim league prevented any alternative
: viewpoints from challenging his disadvantageous bargain. But Nehru and Congress also failed. The contradiction in the muslim
: leagues ideas were obvious. Even a small degree of sensitivity to Muslims and an elucidation of the leagues postion could have
: prevented partition. A relationship of trust with Jinnah, convincing him that congress also cared about muslim (especially muslim
: minority) would have helped. A prominent Congress leader who was muslim would have been good as well. The creation of
: Pakistan required a large number of improable events to occur. Consider if WWII lasted a little longer. Jinnah would have died
: before independence and the league light have fallen apart. Or if the labour gov't hadn't been elected and sped up the tiometabel.
: Or Churchill hadn't delayed the 35 reforms. OR the Khalifat movement hadn't been so divisive. Or congress had agreed to form
: coaltion gov't with the league or...
: > Considering all this we do not seem to have done as bad as it
: > could have been.
: Considering all this, it is a lot worse than it could of been.
: >
: >
: > Kirtidev Bhatt
:
: Khusro Saeedi
Moin Ansari
THis still REMAINS The best thread on the SCP and SCI, and I have tried
to preserve its sanctity by porting it to
soc.culture.pakistan.history...so that the percussion is not
hijacked by our friends who are more interested in flames than
historical discussion.
Without going into the merits of the case on the politico-religious
revival in India. It is evident from
the voting patterns of the minorities, that the minorities in all Indian
states today feel very uncomfortable with the Indian FIRST mentality of
the religious rightist parties.
FOr many minorities, Indian first may signify HINDU FIRST, and there are
various definitions of Hindu...from the enlightened definition of Hindu
that considers all residents of India who are loyal to India as Hindu
...to the parochial that defines Hindu in pure caste or religious terms.
If the narrow definitions are taken...and many political movements are
hijacked by communalists....then the minorities surely have something to
worry about.
Todays Indian sceniorio on the subject of minorities surely mimmicks the
political scene in the Subcontinent 50 years ago ....
WHether the RSS was a reaction to the decline of HINDU POWER or a front
aginst the Britsh raj can be debated till the cows come home...the fact
remains that the rise of Lala in the Punjab and others MOVED the INC to
the right, and this scared the Muslim League and this led to the creation
of Pakistan..
Looking forward to continueing this discussion...IT HAS BEEN MOST
enlightening...as soon as the percussion begins to deteriorate...let us
move to soc.culture.pakistan.history where I WILL NOT ALLOW the flames
but will SURELY ALLOW ALL POINTS OF VIEW
Moin
Saptarshi Bandyopadhyay
(sapt...@cehpx34.cen.uiuc.edu)
wrote: : On 4 Mar 1997, Nihar Kirtidev Bhatt wrote:
: > Saptarshi Bandyopadhyay (sapt...@cehpx34.cen.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: >
: > : I think you fall into the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy here. The
: > : BJP or ShivSena were not prevalent in the time of partition. AS such, the
: > : Muslim League and/or the NW zamindar/nawabs could not be afraid of "a
: > : secular democracy that maintained Hindu traditions" due to the BJP. It is
: > : true that the Muslim League, Jinnah, and his allies feared tyrannical rule
: > : by a Hindu majority (at worst) or having their voices continually drowned
: > : But of course, Nehru and Jinnah both believed in centralized power, and
: > could not
: > : let this happen.
: >
: > I am not sure what you meant by Post hoc or propter hoc. (The words are
: > new to me.) However what I meant by the secularism of the BJP or Shiv
: Post hoc, ergo propter hoc = Latin for "after, therefore because of"
: (loosely translated). The meaning is that just because event A happens
: AFTER event B, A is not necessarily the *cause* of B. I am merely
: reporting that the BJP, as a force, post-dated partition, but did not
: rise in power as a reaction *to* it.
: > sena is concerned, I did not mean that the Nawabs or Zamindars were afraid
: > of the BJP which was forty years before it was born. That hindus of India
: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: > maintain a" better than thou" attitude towards everyone else in
: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: > the world is a fact of life. BJP and Shivsena only represent politically
: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: I think the same can be said about any fundamentalist, irrespective of
: religion.
: > what most hindus feel in their hearts. Muslim establishment was afraid of
: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: The BJP does represent the sentiments of a great number of Indians who
: feel down-trodden by Western influence, as well as those who are
: fundamentalist Hindus. But I don't know if this constitutes "most"
: Hindus (i.e. 51%). I would argue that most Hindus are tolerant and
: understanding; it's the few misguided "Hindus" who wield enormous power.
: > this hindu sentiment which was in control because of Gandhiji and Nehru's
: > influence but finally they knew a democratic India was going to be mainly
: > hindu India with sops thrown to Muslims but never truly accepted as
: > equals.
: The BJP originally started out as a "India first" political party-- i.e,
: they wanted to develop INDIAN industries and markets, rather than be
: swayed by foreign ones. I think later on they took their religious
: overtones (i.e. "Indian religions first") as some sort of misguided
: outgrowth of the above. I am referring here to the evolution of the BJP
: from the pieces of the former parties (the Janata Party, etc.)
: > your second point that of Jinnah also making the same mistake as Nehru in
: > the fact that he made a rival muslim center competing against the "Hindu
: > center does not take into account the fact that the idea of Nation as a
: > unit of political identity is European and European thought is even now
: > given more prominence and is given more weight than any other thought.
: And yet, if I may be so bold, I doubt whether WESTERN (or European)
: thought and solution is ALWAYS applicable to EASTERN problems. India is,
: as you say, a diaspora. The concept of a "Nation", IMO, cannot exist in
: the same framework as it does in Europe.
: > Even DeGaul was more French than a European and Margaret Thacher was more
: > British than Europe first prime minister. Therefore, if Nehru or Jinnah
: > were not more advanced in their thinking we should forgive them. Again it
: > is very clear that evaluating past leaders for their judgments
: > which were made in reaction to particular situations that existed at that
: > time, is an exercise in futility which can only lower our opinion for the
: > leader. Would you like to see Abrahm lincoln evaluated for his attitudes
: > towards the blacks? or Thomas Jefferson for his anti-egalitarian
: > attitudes?
: Yes. And these evaluations HAVE been made (by people other than me)--
: that is how we heard of them. Lincoln DID write a letter in which he
: propounded white superiority (although he thought it fair that blacks be
: given freedom, he thought whites were naturally superior). But we
: remember him primarily for his actions, not his thoughts. Contrarily,
: Nehru and Jinnah can ONLY be remembered for their actions-- acting like
: impetulant children at _the_ defining moment of the sub-continent--
: although their thoughts may or may not be validated.
: > Not to defend Congress, but Jinnah was difficult to please at his best and
: > cantercarous at his worst. Personal chemistry of the leaders of those
: > times just did not meld well.
: We should not isolate Jinnah. Nehru was a vain man, a womanizer, and by
: some accounts, power-hungry. One can see how one could dislike him.
: Moreover, the leaders of the time REALIZED their personality conflicts;
: however, at this _decisive_, _critical_ juncture in the sub-continent,
: they could not (1) put personal matters aside, nor (2) step aside for the
: good of the people. There is this aspect to leadership-- when one is
: unable to lead, one should step aside. You cannot justify the shirking
: of their "responsibility" on the grounds of "personal chemistry". There
: was more at stake than two people's ability to get along, whether they
: realized it or not.
: But I agree with your other point... this dialogue will only serve to
: lower our opinion of those leaders, and is quite unproductive. What needs
: to be done is answer the question "What can be done now?". That is where
: the focus should go. I will refrain from commenting on past leaders
: furthermore in this thread after I post this article.
: > : laughing-stock of the world! We have more intellect, and more people than
: > : practically EVERY OTHER COUNTRY in the world, and yet we wallow in
: > : third-world status. We can't even get along with our neighbors, and yet
: > : we try to build a first-class nation!? How does one institute pride in
: > : one's work, when one doesn't even have pride in one's country? What
: > : motivates the people to build a better country when the issue facing each
: > : and every person in the morning is "How will *I* survive the day?" and not
: > : "How can I help my countrmen?". What will then keep this person from
: > : robbing, stealing, and looting his neighbors? (and don't fool yourself--
: > : corruption occurs ALL OVER the sub-continent). What logic is this? What
: > : are the roots of our ineffectuality? I think we must go back to the time
: > : of partition to answer these questions. And under microscopic analysis,
: > : it will show that the answer to the questions itself is "partition".
: > My sympathies are with you but the history of last five hundred
: > years demonstrates very effectively that the importance a country gets has
: > very little to do with how big in area or population of the country is, it
: > matters very little if the leaders of the country are really far sighted.
: My point was simply that India and the rest of the sub-continent has a
: lot of potential, and that potential is not being realized. Why?, you
: ask. Partition, I answer. Until we get rid of that blight, both
: physically and mentally, it will be EXTREMELY difficult (next to
: impossible) to fulfil our "Destiny".
: > At different times different diasphora get more or less importance
: > depending upon something called (I hate to use this word)"Destiny" which
: > makes for a good life or rotten life for its population. Indians have no
: I think "Destiny" is an active word, not a passive one. It can be
: effected by a group of people, by a combination of gathering wisdom and
: implementing it.
: > corner on stupidity or wisdom just like all the people in the world. They
: > can make SAARC a great success and provide greater internal independence
: > to all the provinces and finally give up on the central strong authority
: > completely but even then complaints against the SAARC headquarters will be
: > very strong and the history will move along.
: I agree with you in all points except the last one.... We have seen the
: problems inherent in centralized power. I would hope that the SAARC has
: only has as much power as it needs over defence and market laws, and
: leaves the rest to it's citizens. If it doesn't overstep it's bounds,
: then there should be few (if any) complaints.
: > Kirtidev Bhatt
: > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Thank you for this dialogue. It has been very informative for me... one
: does not always get a chance like this. I look forward to your reply.
Moin Ansari
Shahab has indeed summarized it well...Please see my response on
soc.culture.pakistan.history regarding Nehru and Tryst with destiny. Shahab
Mushtaq (smus...@KNOX.EDU)
wrote: : I would advise people arguing about the subject to read two very
: informational books, they're both biographies. The first one is Jinnah's
: Pakistan and the second, Nehru: A tryst with destiny. They're both
: written by Stanley Wolpert a historian at UCLA. Reading these books,
: you'll find that Jinnah, out of all the political leaders in India at the
: time, was the most capable leader for India. He managed to persuade the
: British to come to the negogiating table with far more than any of the
: other leaders ever did. Twice he managed to persuade the British to
: agree to give India dominion status with eventual indepedence, like
: Canada and Australia, but the plans were shot down by Congress leaders
: like Nehru and Gandhi, who wanted everything given to them from the
: beginning. Calling Jinnah "a shrewd lawyer" underestimates his
: achievments and abilities considerably. He was the best statesmen out of
: the lot, and the one with the best chance of leading a united
: India/Pakistan peacefully.
: Shahab Mushtaq
: smus...@knox.edu
: Knox College
: "Friends with hearts collected are better than treasure"