Where are the Questioning Minds?

Mantolives and Dost-Mitter:
You are talking like jilted suitors!!!
The relationship between US and India is developing due to mutual interests not a one-sided dependence due to a vendetta against a third party.
While with Soviet Union the socialism was not nationalistics and it was coupled with get strong quick approach of Europeans, the Chinese communism is highly nationalistic and deliberate. There is much greater need to contain China than ever was for containing Soviet Union. Furthermore, US is now no longer the Globe controller which it thought once, it was. Hence, a more dependable partner. The drastic actions of this administrations are also needed due to lopsided treatment the Muslim nations give to adherents of other religions.
At any rate we, the Indian diaspora in US, are delighted at the turn the world politics has taken bringing World`s most important two democracies coming together.

agreed.

Uncle Sam is a selfish suitor though. Tread with caution when dealing with the bigamist.

Manto#392:

Arre yaar, yeh kabhi na khatam honay wali daastaaN hai. It`s the usual he-said she-said following a divorce. And now, we have decided to marry the same suitor, Uncle Sam. Khuda khair kare!

D-M..

Thats a very interesting recollection and shows the communal feeling that existed. On another note Khushwant Singh speaks of a very superficial mixing of Hindus/Sikhs and Muslims and that too in upper and upper middle classes..

The question however about the division of Punjab and Bengal was a constitutional and legal one. Pakistan demand was a territorial demand even if it was to solve a communal issue. It was based on secession of provinces ... to divide the provinces up which were recognised units under GOIA1935, the legal basis for British India at that time .. was illegal and devoid of common sense. Why not go further and divide up Mohallas as well? Why stop at districts- why then call Rahmat Ali crazy- why not implement his 10 Muslim nations of India? But the fact is that AIML was a political body which worked according to the framework- just like the Congress ... and the framework was British India and its search for federations to succeed it. AIML had laid claim to Pakistan because of the Majority provinces ... indeed the idea that Muslims were a nation was complete only because they formed those majorities in those constituent units.

I don`t blame Mountbatten for the partition of Pakistani provinces of Punjab and Bengal alone... indeed he was just a front for Nehru, Gandhi and Patel. It was the Congress Working Committee that passed the resolution for the partition of Bengal and Punjab.

Muslim League`s reaction:

`Muslim League cannot agree to the partition of Bengal and the Punjab. It cannot be justified historically, economically, geographically, politically or morally. These provinces have built up their respective lives for nearly a century`

(M.A. Jinnah, the President of the Muslim League, Mid May 1947, in a letter to Lord Mountbatten)

And from the book you quoted: Jinnah said a Punjabi is a Punjabi before he is a Muslim or Hindu .

--

``As you are aware, in Bengal Sarat Bose and Suhrawardi did at least try to make such a case for United independent Bengal. ``

This had the blessing of the Muslim League high command ... Congress rejected it.
You know what else Congress rejected? I suggest you read about something called the Plan Balkan ... Plan Balkan which also had AIML`s tacit approval was rejected by Congress ...


``However, the demand for a separate homeland was made by UPites and led by a Gujarati.``

The actual fact is slightly different. The demand for a separate homeland was made by Punjabi and Sindhi Muslims first and long before Muslim League took it up. UPites led by a Gujurati (as in the AIML) only took it up as a bargaining counter to mobilise the Muslim vote behind them so that they could claim to speak for all Muslims at the centre... after Congress rebuffed them by saying that they did not have any support outside UP and Bombay.

Inquirer

I still have not read Ishtiaq Ahmad`s report, except the particular page (I think page 7) which Ramnujan pointed out to. However, I think that the referneces in the report may be a useful tool in my reaserch.

Although , it seems that my research is a priori because of my stated objective of finding out who organized the genocide but I have promised myself that I will have an objective and open mind, and my results may completely be in contrast with my objectives. So be it.

Re: # 388, Dost-Mitter:
You invoked Allah because:
1. Hindus are not anti-Allah, as most Muslims are anti-any other conception of God.
2. Lahore was 64 percent Muslim and the dominance of Muslims was imprinted on your (Hindu Children`s) minds.

Re: # 386, Dost -Mitter:
We will learn the message only when Pakistan exhausts itself in the sectarian wars. That is the only lesson to be learnt. Pakistan will not be able to get rid of the dictators easily and most likely take long time before it gets to that exhaustion. Military dictators, particularly Musharraf`s types, unlike Zia-type, give Pakistan a respite to persist in their delusionary path. It is becoming clear that the Shia-Sunni-Ahmadi internecine wars will continue. What we really need, to precipitate an end to this metastable state of Pakistan, is to have a Sindhi counterpart of Zia. That will lead to exhaustion sooner and thus the needed reconciliation for South Asia. Meanwhile, India -U.S. relationship has to be strengthened to ward off the dominance of the Chinese influence which Pakistani dictators will invite to keep themselves in power and the delusion going.

Manto:

I think that it is too simple to blame Mountbatten alone for the partition of Punjab. If the demand for a separate Punjab had been made by Punjabis in the name of Punjab, that would be a different issue. However, the demand for a separate homeland was made by UPites and led by a Gujarati. As you are aware, in Bengal Sarat Bose and Suhrawardi did at least try to make such a case for United independent Bengal.

Let me tell you something that I now find amusing. Even us kids were drawn into the frenzy. I remember the slogan we used to shout even before Pakistan was created:

Ya Ilaahi kar tabbahi saare Pakistan ki
Bachaa bachaa maangta azaadi Hindustan ki.

I now find it amusing that Hindu and Sikh kids would be invoking Allah for the destruction of Pakistan.

Dear D-M,

This debate is necessary because ultimately I fear Mountbatten exacted his revenge on Pakistan by bloodying its birth... and no one can deny that we suffered the most as we were a completely new state.

The problem may I add lay not in the secession of Muslim Majority Provinces from British India... as new successor federation. The problem lay with partitioning of the two major provinces of this new federation of Pakistan. My own research shows that Partition of India is a misnomer. What happened in 1947 was a partition of Pakistan. Whether you take this point of view or that... there is no denying that the blood was spilt because of the partition of Punjab and Bengal... because the Pakistan demand was based on provincial units seceding and not the separation of Muslim Majority and Hindu Majority districts in those provinces...

Manto and Inquirer:

I agree with you both. My original post was about the present but got into time-lines in response to someone`s resposne to my post.

What`s important is that we should avoid the kind of hateful atmosphere which created such bloodshed in the past. I wish I could say that we have learnt our lessons from history.

First common sense post from you Inquirer.

However the matter needs to be settled.

It is pointless to quote Hindu Muslim sources regarding the initiation of riots. They existed on both sides. The issues are permanently irreconciliable.
Proper thing is to develop an understanding of the concerns that still divide the parts of South Asia.
We should try to develop the mutual give-and-takes needed to bridge the divide. By thinking in that way we may be able to develop an appreciation of the others` fears.

Dostmittar..

It must be pointed out that League in question is the Punjab league and the leaders are Mamdot and Daultana in particular.

Ishtiaq Ahmed, who I interact with on a daily basis, is now in the process of compiling a new book in which he takes the culpability above and beyond mere Punjab League leaders and points out that a national leader such as Sardar Patel was involved.

anil#373:

This post seems more plausible. Another thing that I am skeptical about in your earlier post was that Mr. Khosla wrote that report after visiting several Pakistani villages. You might want to verify if your memory is serving you right. Moreover, the following quote by Inquirer (#368) from a book by Ishtiaq Ahmad seems to contradict the point you insinuated earlier that Khosla had suggested that the riots were started by Sikhs because of Tara Singh`s statement.

``His (Khosla`s) findings affirm, however, that the Muslim League, its leaders and cadres, initiated the riots that continued as a one-sided affair until mid August. The attacks on Muslims in eastern Punjab against Muslims were a reaction to the preceding events in West Punjab.16``

Dear Harish,

Why do you feel I am convincing you? Please don`t feel that way. I am enjoying you trying to do sommersaults like calling my praise of Seervai selective. I praise him because he wrote an excellent book in which he used nothing but the transfer of power papers and came to the conclusion that the only honorable man in the whole partition debacle was Jinnah. Those who have actually attempted to look beyond the official mythology (both in India and Pakistan) have contradicted the official narratives. Besides I can`t do anything if you fail to grasp simple facts and confuse definitions. That is your prerogative- Ignorance can be a choice and you have definitely made that. In any event, let us stick to the topic instead of repeating the often stated positions.

While you abuse me, your own reading comprehension is so poor that while I am quoting actual election results from 1946, you claim I am basing Pakistan on petty personal grouses. While I quote from Azad`s own book to show that Congress was largely a Hindu Party which discriminated against Non-Hindus, you ignore that and abuse Jinnah and try to restart issues which have already been discussed and dispensed off.

And then you claim you ``provided evidence`` - which you know is a joke. Meanwhile Gandhiji`s clear and blatant statements like ``I am a Hindu first and therefore a true Indian`` or his abuses against black people or his claim that women should be confined to their houses are totally lost on you. All you have is abuse Jinnah by saying that he was a ``misogynist`` because he merely opposed (not stopped) his daughter`s wedding. That he was, unlike Gandhi, giving his own child the right to choose is completely lost on you.
The great thing about the British legal system is that for the kind of specious arguments you bring up every two months or so... there is the principle of res judicata, which is precisely why you denigrate H M Seervai, who is considered a giant amongst practitioners of law and his written word on Constitutional Law is the final authority in the subcontinent.

#379 by Mantolives

[That you denigrate him for being a fairminded person is indicative of your biases.]

Look Yasser, you have serious comprehension issues. I`m only pointing to your selective praise of that man. There are any number of people who`ve written some not-so-favorable stuff about Jinnah. I know what you`d call them, so this is more a comment about you than it is about Seervai.

[Furthermore if you are so confident that Gandhi was this and Jinnah was that, why must you convince me- the fact is that you know its a clever ruse and nothing else. The fact is that the Mahatma was a misogynist casteist racist hypocrite and Jinnah was a principled modern lawyer who stood for equality, justice and fair play.]

Why must I convince you? For the same reason you`re trying to denigrate Gandhi and convince everyone that Jinnah was the best thing to have happened to Muslims. Your arguments about Jinnah being ``fair and just`` have been torn to shreds repeatedly by the evidence I provided. You may call Gandhi names, but that only indicates that your labored efforts are failing.

Jinnah was the misogynist and hypocrite who opposed his daughter`s wedding to a Parsi, despite himself having married one. Jinnah was the casteist and racist who said that Muslims could not allow Hindus to dominate them merely by virtue of being numerically superior. In contrast, never in his life did Gandhi have an adverse comment for Muslims. That itself should say a lot.