Nehru’s Legacy: Time to pay tribute

Yasser,
I want you to read post#743 by sanatani. The analysis though somewhat tainted still captures as to how the Indian National congress attempted to blackmail the British.

I will discuss that some other time but the essence of the whole drama that was played from 1939 to until the Congress abandoned the quit Indian movement, tells the story of a failed congress blackmail, attempt to cleanse itself of the radical Indians, launch quit India movement and later abandon it to make peace with the British....

Re:HP#799

You know what you are right. Muslims are all pure like snow. They can never harm anyone and all hindus just left peacefully with all their wealth. Such delusions...

#800

Yasser,

The thing to remember is that most of the Union ministries in Punjab were supported by the Congress. Unionist had Sikh and Hindu support or coalition. The unionist made an alliance with Muslim League only when they saw the writing on the wall.....

Re: # 796

``Let’s not forget that incidents of communal violence in Muslim dominated provinces were rare and there was no pattern. whereas, pretty much all Hindu dominated provinces had almost a routine of communal violence and in 99% of the cases it was the minority community which suffered most of the losses.

In fact, by all accounts in the central India, Majority Hindu community was responsible for starting the communal violence in every area….This is the fact…..They still do the same....People have lost count of number of Gujarats in India since the partition.... ``

It will be completely irresponsible for people like you and I not to confront Sadna`s obfuscation with facts like these which have been deliberately been hidden from the light. Indians are clearly an unrepentant lot for the crimes that they have committed against humanity.

Communist Party of India`s analysis of Muslim League`s mass mobilisation and civil disobedience movement is completely different from Sadna Gupta`s analyses and her praise of the imperialist unionist party which was in alliance with the Congress:

``The task of every patriot is to welcome and help this democratic growth which is at long last is now taking place aongst the Muslims of Punjab. The last strong hold of Imperialist bureacracy in India is being invaded by the League. Let us all help the people of Punjab capture it``

Sajjad Zaheer ``League Unionist Conflict P. 33``

Unionist Party, that Indians have suddenly discovered as a great patriotic party of India because it supported the Congress in the dying days of the raj was a creature of the British powers... The communist Party lent complete support to the Muslim League to defeat it starting April 1944... and through the massive civil disobedience movement the League carried out against it.

As for ML using Barelvis... Barelvis, sufis and pirs represent the heterodox popular Islam...
unlike the straitjacket Deobandi Islam which was lined up behind the Congress Party... the difference between a Barelvi and a Deobandi is between a sufi and a mullah...

#797 by ranjit

Ranjit,

Now you are making up another story. You talked about your both maternal and paternal side...Now which side was in Sindh and where were they treated so shabbily?

Sindhi Hindu did leave their property back but they left Sindh with all their cash, Jewelry and life through a safe passage not in 1947 but mostly in 1948.

#794 by Mantolives

This whole thing is just the continuation of the conspiracy theory so ardently believed by every uneducated Indian mind that the British created Pakistan to keep ``a check on India`s potential``. As if the British had the crystal ball and knew exactly what India`s potential was going to be in the 21 century.

I have already asked these morons to have a debate on this. Muslim league has barely ten years of History in pre partition India whereas the Congress sat with the British for over 50 years in different capacities.

Let these idiots come forward and I can easily show them who asked for more favors and got more favors from the British right up to the partition.

Re:HP

We had property in Sindh and relatives living in Punjab before partition. While we lost our property in Sindh, my relatives were killed in Punjab while making their way to India.

#775 by ranjit

“We lost all our property and several people from both maternal and paternal sides who were brutally killed in the violence.”

That is a complete lie! You claim to be a Sindhi Brahmin…Provide me the name of the area in Sindh where your “maternal and paternal sides who were brutally killed in the violence”.
There were a few isolated incidents of communal violence in Sindh in 1947. There weren`t many who died maybe <10 in the whole province. You are simply lying….

Sadna quotes from British Bureaucrat whose job was to stop the violence in Punjab and the British admin did not do its job and later blamed whosoever it found convenient to blame.

But the Brits were not doing their job Since the early 20th century when communal violence became a norm in all Hindu dominated provinces…UP, Bihar, MP AP, Bengal to just a name a few.

Let’s not forget that incidents of communal violence in Muslim dominated provinces were rare and there was no pattern. whereas, pretty much all Hindu dominated provinces had almost a routine of communal violence and in 99% of the cases it was the minority community which suffered most of the losses.

In fact, by all accounts in the central India, Majority Hindu community was responsible for starting the communal violence in every area….This is the fact…..They still do the same....People have lost count of number of Gujarats in India since the partition....

Re:anil#785

[..Think and answer why Hinduism surived?....]

Interesting question!! Hinduism was able to avoid the terrible fate of other faiths that opposed Islam e.g. Zoroastrianism got almost wiped out in Iran. You are right that hinduism is in our minds more than our physical space. In that sense, hinduism has a lot more depth than other faiths and a deeper hold amongst its followers.

However there were several other factors acting in our favor as well. First of all, the subcontinent is vast and the population of hindus is massive. Any muslim ruler in the heartland found it challenging to exterminate such a huge population and equally challenging to convert everyone. Any muslim ruler, who would be far off from his own homeland, needed a kingdom and subjects to function and the hindus were willing subjects. So the muslim rulers preferred to just impose imperial rule on hindus and enjoy a life of privilege rather than waste time, energy and resources in exterminating/converting hindus.

An equally important criteria must have been racism as well. When it was easy to rule hindus as subjects, why bother to convert them to Islam and extend equality to some extent? I am sure the central asians did not find the thought of making all hindus their equals to be very appealing.

However, the biggest factor helping hinduism was - Punjabi Muslims. Typically Islam had always spread when a newly converted people focused on converting their neighbors - a sort of daisy chain, if you will. For instance, the arabs converted persians, persians converted turks, turks converted afghans, afghans/turks converted punjabis etc. Logically speaking, Punjabi muslims should have jumped on their neighbors, Punjabi hindus and converted them. In turn , they would have converted UP and Rajashthan, UP would have converted Bihar and so on. It did not happen. God knows why but Punjabi Muslims broke the daisy chain that had started in Mecca and simply did not take up converting. There is not one incident of Punjabi muslims organizing any conversion exercise to the east. My personal guess is that Punjabi muslims were themselves reluctant converts and it took them a long while to get used to their new faith. They have gone evangelical only after partition with their Laskhar-e-Toiba and Jaish-e-Muhammad etc, but now it is too late. When they had the chance, especially with a Mughal Emperor or Sultan to back them up in Delhi, they chose not to do anything. Our good fortune, I guess. :-)

`` it is Indians` own fault for promoting a false history where the Indians including Indian Muslims resisting the Muslim League were all communal and the Muslim League was alone secular``

Yes... it is the Indians` own fault that some of them are honest enough to see through the hogwash that has been shoved down naive minds... I salute those Indians who have dared to challenge the lies perpetuated by the Congress Party and their latter day goons.... I salute those who have dared to tell the truth about partition.

Long Live India of those brave people who have told people like Sadna to go to hell.

Re: # 780


This is why I call Indians like Sadna and A`null nothing but dishonest crooks... A`null`s argument accords us ample opportunity to see the ugliness of this mind at work. It is amazing how the elections upon which the Congress claimed its majority are now being decried by their most fervent supporters as being ``unrepresentative``.

Why don`t you tell us what fraction of the Indian Muslim population in 1946 had the franchise... clearly much greater than 1937... which meant a clear victory for the Muslim League. So 100% expansion in electorate from 1937 to 1946 ... 100% increase in victory for the Muslim League.

``and now they can`t deal with Afganistan``

Yes... because Sadna thinks Afghanistan is 99% Hindu... Since Indians are so fond of Afghans, why don`t they take in the 4 million Afghan Refugees that have sucked Pakistan dry?

``score academic points against Manto``

She wishes... Sadna Gupta is trying to score points by fudging the facts. Muslim League`s civil disobedience movement only provoked as much violence as Congress` antics did for the last 20 years... Despite all of her tall claims... we find that many more Muslims were killed... and it was the government of Pakistan that raised the issue of holocaust at the UN... India`s answer through VP Menon: That is merely communal disturbances..

Partition of Punjab was Congress’ countermove as the sore losers put in place by the resolution of March 8, 1947, against ironically even Gandhi’s strong opposition. The reason…. Divided Punjab and Bengal would destroy Pakistan. Ironically, the date Lord Mountbatten and Nehru triumphantly decided to inflict such a horrible price on Pakistan was the 1st of April to make it repent.

The more I read the drama at the very end of the partition saga, the more I realize that Gandhi had seen the error of his ways at the very end… I suppose this following is the reason why Jinnah had described Gandhi as a friend of the Muslims after the latter’s death, despite the latter’s obvious role against the Muslims.

Mohandas Gandhi wrote this following letter to Mountbatten on May 8, 1947:

“I feel sure that the partition of Punjab and Bengal is wrong in every case and a needless irritant for the League… Whilst the British power is functioning in India, it must be held principally responsible for the preservation of peace.” (TOPP Volume X 667-668)

On May 17 Mahomed Ali Jinnah made this following appeal to reason – which Mountbatten and Nehru had none:

“The 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… the principle underlying the demand for the establishment of Pakistan and Hindustan is totally different… In the name of justice and fairplay, do not submit to this clamour. For it will be sowing the seeds of future serious trouble and the results will be disastrous for the life of these two provinces.” (Jinnah’s letter to Mountbatten TOP X, p 852)

Sir Eric Meiville met with Jinnah on May 20th and reported the following to Mountbatten:

“At the end of our talk he (Jinnah) took my arm and said ‘I am not speaking as a partisan, but I beg to tell Lord Mountbatten once again that he will be making a grave mistake if he agrees to the partition of Punjab and Bengal.” (TOPP X 916)

What had Jinnah offered the Sikhs: Essentially a signed blank cheque… inter alia autonomy, defence ministry, permanent position as the Forces Chief…I remember Dullah Bhatti once asked Sadna this and Sadna refused to verify it. This is confirmed by Terrence Shone’s discussion with Jinnah . According to Terrence Shone, Jinnah said that he had offered 3.5 million Sikhs and Master Tara Singh everything he wanted, but “Sikhs in many ways admirable people lacked the leadership of the highest order”. (TOP Volume X P. 280)

On Bengal, Suhrawardy came up with the plan of a United Bangladesh endorsed and completely supported by Sarat Chandrabose and Kiran Shankar Roy… the major reason as John Tyson, Burrow’s special representative at the Governors Conference, reported was that

“Eastern Bengal alone was not going concern and never would be. It could not feed itself … it would become, in Sir Frederick Burrows words, a rural slum… Muslims knew all this as well as the Hindus- so they felt that the object of the cry to partition Bengal was to ‘torpedo Pakistan’”.

Mountbatten replied: “ Anything that resulted in torpedoing Pakistan was of advantage.”

(Minutes of the Governors Conference, 15th April. Page 255 TOP X)

To quote Stanley Wolpert:

“Two weeks later, Mountbatten asked Jinnah what he thought of Suhrawardy’s proposal to create a separate sovereign Bengal, expecting him to be shocked at his Muslim League lieutenant’s treachery. Much to Mountbatten’s surprise, Jinnah calmly replied: ‘I should be delighted. What is the use of Bengal without Calcutta; they had better remain united and independent. I am sure they would be on friendly terms with us.” And when Mountbatten added that Suhrawardy would like Bengal to remain in the Commonwealth, Jinnah retorted, ‘Ofcourse, just as I indicated to you that Pakistan would wish to remain within the commonwealth.’ Had Mountbatten followed the advice of Gandhi, Jinnah or Suhrawardy, instead of listening to only to Nehru, Punjab and Bengal might have been spared the deadly horrors, and a richly United Bangladesh, with its capital in Calcutta, would have emerged instead of the fragmented, impoverished Bangladesh born from its eastern half a quarter of a century later.” (Shameful Flight, Page 142)

I think we can make out very well that the partition of Punjab and Bengal was imposed on the subcontinent by Nehru and Mountbatten… with Patel absenting … Jinnah, Gandhi and to some extent Azad opposing …. Had this not been undertaken, perhaps the violence and the legacy of violence would not have existed… there would have been three more or less secular republics i.e. Pakistan, Hindustan and Bangladesh…. existing with mutual understanding in this great common subcontinent of ours… as opposed to the three polarized and hostile ones today.

ranjit#783

It was a paranoia about Hindus which led to creation of Pakistan, separated East Pakistan and made the rest 97% Muslim. Not only did their paranoia about Hindus render them unable to deal with majority Hindus, later they couldn`t deal with minority Hindus in East Pakistan and now they can`t deal with an independent Afghanistan.

``Eternal vigilance`` is the price of pluralism, not ``paranoia``, which only destroys all options except the very worst one. I too think like you do that there is continuity in what is happening in J&K and what happened at and before partition. The thing to remember however, is that the Indian state is now invested in preserving its own integrity. Even when India was weak and at mercy of foreign powers for its food and arms in the 40s, 50s and 60s, it didnot compromise on J&K.

You might not know but even Gandhi supported sending troops to J&K to fight back Pakistani invaders.

Gandhi in November 1947:
Problem And Solution
WHAT IS the situation? It is stated that a rebel army composed of Afridis and the like, ably officered, was advancing towards Srinagar, burning and looting villages along the route, destroying even the electric power house, thus leaving Srinagar in darkness. It is difficult to believe that this entry could take place without some kind of encouragement from the Pakistan Government. I have not enough data to come to a judgment as to the merits of the case. Nor is it necessary for my purpose. All I know is that it was right for the Union Government to rush troops, even a handful, to Srinagar. That must save the situation to the extent of giving confidence to the Kashmiries…..

The result is in the hands of God. Men can but do or die. I shall not shed a tear if the little Union force is wiped out, like the Spartans, bravely defending Kashmir nor shall I mind….. Muslim, Hindus and Sikh comrades, men and women, dying at their post in defence of Kashmir, that will be a glorious example to the rest of India. Such heroic defence will infect the whole of India and we will forget that the Hindus, the Muslim and the Sikhs were ever enemies. (H, 9-11-1947, p. 406)


Gandhi in December 1947:
I am amazed to see that the Government of Pakistan disputes the veracity of the Union’s representation to the UNO, and the charge that Pakistan has a hand in the invasion of Kashmir by the raiders. Mere denials cut no ice. It was incumbent upon the Indian union to go to the rescue of Kashmir when the latter sought its help in expelling the raiders, and it was the duty of Pakistan to co-operate with the Union. But while Pakistan professed its willingness to operate, it took no concrete steps in that direction…..

A war will bring both the Dominions under the sway of a third power and nothing can be worse. I plead for amity and goodwill….. The understanding should however be genuine. To harbour internal hatred may be even worse than war. (H, 12-1-1948, p.509)



(Speech at the Prayer Meeting on 4th January 1948)

Today there is talk of war everywhere. Everyone fears a war breaking out between the two countries. If that happens it will be a calamity both for India and for Pakistan. India has written to the U.N. because whenever there is a fear of conflict anywhere the U.N. is asked to promote a settlement and to stop fighting from breaking out. India therefore wrote to the U. N. O. however trivial the issue may appear to be, it could lead to a war between the two countries. It is a long memorandum and it has been cabled. Pakistan’s leaders Zafrullah Khan and Liaquat Ali Khan have since issued long statements. I would take leave to say that their argument does not appeal to me. You may ask if I approve of the Union Government approaching the UNO I may say that I both approve and do not approve of what they did. I approve of it, because after all what else are they to do? They are convinced that what they are doing is right. If there are raids from outside the frontier of Kashmir, the obvious conclusion is that it must be with the connivance of Pakistan. Pakistan can deny it. But the denial does not settle the matter. Kashmir has acceded the accession upon certain conditions. If Pakistan harasses Kashmir and if Sheikh Abdullah who is the leader of Kashmir asks the Indian Union for help, the latter is bound to send help. Such help therefore was sent to Kashmir. At the same time Pakistan is being requested to get out of Kashmir and to arrive at a settlement with India over the question through bilateral negotiations. If no settlement can be reached in this way then a war is inevitable. It is to avoid the possibility of war that the Union Government has taken the step it did. Whether they are right in doing so or not God alone knows. Whatever might have been the attitude of Pakistan, if I had my way I would have invited Pakistan’s representatives to India and we could have met, discussed the matter and worked out some settlement. They keep saying that they want an amicable settlement but they do nothing to create the conditions for such a settlement. I shall therefore humbly say to the responsible leaders of Pakistan that though we are now two countries – which is a thing I never wanted – we should at least try to arrive at an agreement so that we could live as peaceful neighbors. Let us grant for the sake of argument that all Indians are bad, but Pakistan at least is a new-born nation which has more ever come into being in the name of religion and it should at least keep itself clean.

But they themselves make no such claim. It is not their argument that Muslims have committed no atrocities in Pakistan. I shall therefore suggest that it is now their duty, as far as possible, to arrive at an amicable understanding with India and live in harmony with her. Mistakes were made on both sides. Of this o have no doubt. But this does not mean that we should persist in those mistakes, for then in the end we shall only destroy ourselves in a war and the whole of the sub-continent will pass into the hands of some third power. That will be the worst imaginable fate for us. I shudder to think of it. Therefore the two Dominions should come together with God as witness and find a settlement. The matter is now before the UNO. It cannot be withdrawn from there. But if India and Pakistan come to a settlement the big powers in the UNO will have to endorse that settlement. They will not object to the settlement. They themselves can only say that they will do their best to see that the two countries arrive at an understanding through mutual discussions. Let us pray to God is to grant that we may either learn to live in amity with each other or if we must light to let us fight to the very end. That may be folly but sooner or later it will purify us.``


Speech at Prayer Meeting, January 20 1948
I have a wire from Lahore, from the President of the Kashmir Freedom League. He says:
Highly appreciate your magnanimous gesture for Hindu-Muslim unity. Kashmir is the root cause of the present tension and a stumbling-block in the way of any rapprochement. Must receive top priority if peace actually desired. Withdrawal of aggressive Indian troops from Kashmir and handing it over to whom it rightfully belongs to is the only satisfactory solution of the problem.

The wire distresses me. If there is no settlement over Kashmir, does it mean that things must continue in their present state? Must Muslims be enemies of Hindus and Sikhs and must Hindus and Sikhs be enemies of Muslims simply on account of Kashmir? Besides, I do not agree that the armed force our Government has dispatched to Kashmir has committed aggression there. The armed force was sent in response to the appeals of Sheikh Abdullah, the Premier of Kashmir, and the Maharaja. It is true that Kashmir should go to whom it belongs. In that case all those who have gone there from outside, be they Afridis or any other, should get out of Kashmir. I cannot object to people in Poonch revolting but I object to their rebelling in order to grab the whole of Kashmir. I can understand it if every outsider leaves Kashmir and no one interferes from outside or sends help or complains. But I cannot understand it if they say that they themselves will remain in Kashmir but that others should get out.

Re: # 787

Kaal:

I really do not believe that the reach of Hindu thought is shrinking.

It resides in mindspace, which does not need temple or idols. I was trying to search what Einstein has said about religion to quote here, but somehow cannot find it. Hindu thoughts fill a need for spirituality, for basic needs its institutionalized rituals and caste system fall short. In fact caste system is dehumanising, Hindu thoughts must emancipate from this curse. The need for sprituality in knowledge society will only grow.