Rest in Peace Pakistan (1947-1974)

Re: # 62


though wikipedia is an UNRELIABLE soure, yet still.... accordingly.

14.5 Million people were forced to transfer.

about 9.1 Million in Punjab.

about 3.2 Million in Bengal

about 1.2 Million in Sind.

the remaing balance from elsewhere.

the source of these figures as given there is

^ The Partition of India, Shirin Keen, 1998
^ V.D.Savarkar, Samagra Savarkar Wangmaya Hindu Rasthra Darshan (Collected works of V.D.Savarkar) Vol VI, Maharashtra Prantik Hindusabha, Poona, 1963, p 296
^ Jalal, Ayesha Jalal, The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, The Muslim League and the Demand Pakistan, Cambridge University Press, 1985
^ Thomas RGC, Nations, States, and Secession: Lessons from the Former Yugoslavia, Mediterranean Quarterly, Volume 5 Number 4 Fall 1994, pp. 40–65, Duke University Press
^ a b c d Spate, O. H. K. 1947. ``The Partition of the Punjab and of Bengal.`` The Geographical Journal, 110(4/6):201-218.
^ Death toll in the partition
^ Muslim League Attack on Sikhs and Hindus in the Punjab 1947 by S. Gurbachan Singh Talib - Chapter 1
^ Religious cleansing of the Hindus by Dr. Koenraad Elst
^ Panel 33 European Association for South Asian Studies
^ Gandhiserve Who`s Gandhi
^ K.Z. Islam, 2002, The Punjab Boundary Award, Inretrospect
^ Stanley Wolpert, 2006, Shameful Flight: The Last Years of the British Empire in India, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-515198-4
^ Richard Symonds, 1950, The Making of Pakistan, London, ASIN B0000CHMB1,


I have checked Shirin Keen artile , it gives an estimate of about 15 Million.




about death tolls ,
it has given various figures, as

India (1947): 500 000
The rioting and dislocation associated with partition cost how many lives?
1984 World Almanac: 200,000
Hammond 500,000
Eckhardt: 800,000
D.Smith 1,000,000
B&J: 1,000,000 (1945-48)
Hartman: 1,000,000
Stanley Wolpert, A New History of India (1993): 1,000,000
Collins and Lapierre, Freedom at Midnight (1975) cite these sources:
Khosla, Stern Reckoning: 500,000
Moon, Divide and Quit: 200-250,000
Hodson: The Great Divide: 200-250,000
Chanduli Trivedi, governor of Punjab: 225,000
P. Johnson puts the death toll at 200-600,000. In addition to some of the Collins and Lapierre sources, he cites these authorities:
Stephens, Pakistan (1963): 500,000
Edwardes, Last Years of British India (1963): 600,000


from

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm#India


....

without any further comments..

#56 Manto

Where do you get these imaginary figures from? They are silly and reveal your biases. And, yes, the complete extinction of hindu-buddhist culture from pakistan is an issue that does need to be emphasized and discussed.

Here is what Mushirul Hasan, distinguished indian historian, has to say:

[quote]

No one knows how many were killed during the Partition violence. No one knows how many were displaced and dispossessed. What we know is that, between 1946 and 1951, nearly nine million Hindus and Sikhs came to India, and about six million Muslims went to Pakistan. Of the said nine million, five million came from what became West Pakistan, and four million from East Pakistan. In only three months, between August and October 1947, Punjab was engulfed in a civil war. Estimates of deaths vary between 200,000 and three million. An anguished Amrita Pritam appealed to Waris Shah ``to speak from the grave`` and turn the page of the book of love.
[ quote]

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2002/01/03/stories/2002010301241000.htm

In one of my post a few months back, I made the point that the decision in 1974 by ZAB was the most opportunistic and horrific decision ever made in the history of Pakistan. Bhutto looked at the political exigencies at that time and never paid attention to what the long term implications would be. Ahmedis are an insignificant minority. It was easy to scarify them at the political alter to appease the marauding mullah. Bhutto thought by doing what he did, the issue would just go away.

If he had taken a stand there, he probably would have punctured the Mullah balloon that was able to ride on its political success and later came back to haunt Bhutto as PNA.
Ahmedis supported Bhutto from the very beginning. They contributed to his political campaign and held some important positions in his government; still Bhutto failed to stand up for them as they never had the power to vote any one in or out of the government. Bhutto knew he could win elections without Ahmedi support but he could not keep his power base with mullah opposition.

However, I strongly disagree with Manto that that was the singular event that turned Pakistan’s ideological base upside down. Pakistan died in 1971. The ideological integral which was never there from the very beginning was formally buried on the beaches of Cox’s bazaar, Chattagaon and pultan maidan of Dhaka.

Bhutto talked about a new Pakistan. He was not talking metaphorically. He meant it. The new Pakistan should have gotten rid of its two nation theory thingamabob and should have established itself as a nationalist secular country following the Indian model.

The problem with Bhutto was that he understood what things mean but he was only interested in keeping himself in power. He wanted to stay a step ahead of the generals and he wanted to appease the groups that he perceived were close the army.

The issue was and still is that if Pakistan were to follow the Indian model, what is the point of its existence? There were several factors that justified Pakistan’s existence based on nationalism and secularism. Once the break with India was complete in 1947, the two nation theory should have buried in the hot sands of Sindh and Cholistan and smashed against the Rocky Mountains in Balochistan. 1971 gave a great opportunity to define Pakistan as a new state but Bhutto could not steer it to a pluralist, populist and secular polity. But it was wrong in the first place to expect that Bhutto would follow through on what he knew was the right thing to do.

However, in the larger scheme of things, the 1974 amendment is a minor blimp. It was not the defining moment. It was wrong and it should be condemned but Ahmedis paid a political price for being too close to throne from the early days of Pakistan. Ahmedis were the most vocal supporters of the two nation theory in Punjab and still are. The problem is that you will not find very many Ahmedi who support secularism. They are as dogmatic as their counterpart, the mullah.

HP your comments on the following statement


<<< Jinnah has a greater ``real`` role to play in the origin of the Mullah`s political inroads in Pakistani society (regardless of his secular vision/speeches) than any civilian leader thereafter >>>

Please explain your point keeping note of the history of Pakistan`s creation...

Thanks

Post-1971 Pakistan was ripe for going fundo. Absolved of a significant non-Muslim minority as well as its middle-class majority, there was little to hold back the serpents of Islam from entrenching their poisonous fangs into the heart of Pakistan.

There is nothing more shamefull than living under these legal spears of bigotry aimed at an innocent minority. The 1974 Amendment is akin to the Jim Crow laws of the South.

Re: # 67

Are you saying that the Hindus and Sikhs migrated to India out of their free will? They didn`t ask for separate country and it was their homeland. They had every right over Pakistan as any other natives and more than the momin immegrants from India.

P-Mishra,

They are not silly nor are they based out of bias. The majority of the killing happened in Gurdaspur and environs and if you honestly study case by case reports you will see how these figures are actually the safest and most accurate estimates. The figures as mentioned by historians vary from 200 000 to 600 000 and you may study individual cases to see how and why it happened.


Cobra,

Yes... I know according to Indian nationalist mythology... 5.5 million Muslims who were forced to migrate to Pakistan either migrated out of free will or did not migrate at all...

However the facts are that a situation was deliberately created by Mountbatten, possibly at the behest of Jawaharlal Nehru, to send as many refugees to Pakistan as possible to cripple the new country at birth.

These are the excerpts from a research article by Hugh Tinker in the Journal of Asian Studies (Aug 1977):

---

When Cyril Radcliffe, who had left Delhi on the eve of independence, called at
the Commonwealth Relations Office (CRO) after his arrival in London on 19 August,
it was observed that he appeared very tired. A memorandum was prepared for
the Minister of State (Arthur Henderson) to communicate to his colleagues; it gave
the observations of Radcliffe himself, and of the CRO, upon the award. In general,
Sir Cyril Radcliffe has stated that the Indian members of the Commission made no
attempt to reach compromises and the award represents his own decisions. . . . What
was difficult for them, particularly the Pakistan members, was that they were acting
under orders.

Concerning Gurdaspur, the memorandum observes:

The reason for this change is understood to be that the headwaters of the canals
which irrigate the Amritsar District lie in the Gurdaspur District and it is important
to keep as much as possible of these canals under one administration.

---

Gurdaspur was linked almost irretrievably with Amritsar by the Upper Bari Doab canal
system; but Ferozepore was equally vital to the canals of the Sutlej Valley Project,
overwhelmingly in Pakistan. Alternatively, if Radcliffe had regarded the majority
population argument as more important than the economic argument, then he ought
to have allocated Gurdaspur, less its Hindu-majority tahsil, to Pakistan. However,
Michel finds that Radcliffe`s solution was right overall, in relation to the greatest of
the canal systems (the Triple Canals Project), in preserving its unity within West
Punjab.

---

Doubtless, careful steps were taken to safeguard the secrecy of details of the award until its publication; but almost certainly Chaudhri Muhammad Ali would pass on to his chief, Liaqat Ali Khan, the news that Gurdaspur District with its bare Muslim majority would not be given to Pakistan.lo On I I August, Liaqat Ali, in an interview with Ismay, told him that if
Gurdaspur were given to India for political reasons, this would constitute a ``breach
of faith`` on the part of the British. On the Congress side, Sardar Patel-perhaps in
consequence of a ``leakage`` of information to him regarding the Bengal boundarybegan
to make it known that the award of the Chittagong Hill Tracts to Pakistan
would be resisted.

---

Radcliffe`s first award-that defining the Bengal boundary-was handed to the Viceroy`s office
late on the evening of Tuesday, 12 August. The Viceroy ``deliberately refrained
from reading it.`` He intended that, in future, no question of doubt could arise about
his influencing the decision. However, V. P. Menon did look at the award, and he
informed the Viceroy that ``Congress would blow up.`` On hearing this, Mountbatten
decided to postpone any announcement until after the I 5th. He was to depart
for the celebration in Karachi at noon next day; he would study the award after his
return to Delhi on Thursday night.

---

Hamdani ji,

A very good article with thought provoking arguments and analysis. But I agree with last two words the most which are `Absurdities abound`. Because if you stretch backwards `74 to `47 or even further to the year when the demand for Pak was first made, the absurdities become even more evident. Had India remained united it would have been a genuinely secular country (even better than what it is today) and then the Pak and the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent would not have to live in foolishness of sectarian divide which abound not only in Pak but in India too with some difference.

Can this be reversed? Just curious. If not, what you foresee about the future of Pak? I for one, see a very violent and hideous future. Really. And allow me to say, it would be for too much of religion.

Samar

dost-mittar #: ``And here is my opinion on this topic in one sentence. Ordinary Pakistani does not ordinarily care about the Mullahs but when the slogan of ``islam khatrei mein is raised``, all bets are off.``

this is an correct statement..........and is true for all religions, historically.........

the ordinary pakistanis (as well as the extraordinary ones) are not a follower of mullahs........they are a follower of religion, but not of the mullah variety.......mullahism and secularism (the only two topics on religion that get discussed on chowk) are totally alien to pakistan........

........take a look at the history of the areas of pakistan.........what was the status of mullahs in this area.........is there any significant islamic orthodoxy that appeared from here........are their tombs of famous orthodox islamic scholars here..........i certainly haven`t seen any.......do name a few........

.........the area is awash with tombs of sufis etc..........they still, till today, get millions of visitors..........the number of people who visit data darbar, alone, today is more than the combined number of people who visit any orthodoxy........data darbar is just one site.......

........the status of a mullah, rightly or wrongly, has been quite low in the geographical areas of pakistan..........read every thing from bulleh shah to heer ranjha to parveen shakir.......

the status of religion, howeve, has been quite high........pakistanis will come out into the street if they think, ``islam khatray mein hae,``.........it is their right to do so...........why shouldn`t they?...............however, they will not come out into the street if they think ``mullah khatray mein hae``........

.........there are three political and social events that have strengthened the mullah`s position, somewhat..........these have nothing to do with religion, however........they are as follows:

- soviet and usa invasion of afghanistan - the mullah was and is on the forefront of fighting the invaders and has, thus, been able to establish some credibility........much like in a non-mullah society, like lebanon, hezbollah has established credibility through fighting israel......

- corrupt non-mullah poltiical entitites - the army and the political parties have all failed pakistan........due to this, mullah is being seen as, perhaps, an alternative........do keep in mind that, despite 60 years of failure of the generals, and ppp`s and pml`s, mullah can still only get 10% of the vote.

- lack of ability of state to provide education - this has led to a proliferation of madrassahs, which provide free education and free lodging to the poorest of kids.........leaving no option for parents to send them there.......though i am quite sure if the govt. opened up a branch of beaconhouse, next to each madrassah, nearly eveyone would send their kids to beaconhouse.........

the historical ethos of the pakistani provinces, is religious, but not mullah.........specifically for sind and punjab..........all mullah influences have come in from outside......much like all secular and western influences are from outside also.........

Re: # 79

Samar,

It is ridiculous that you want me to buy your notion of history or everything else according to you is absurd. I think what is absurd is to have large centralised states containing a billion + people... but then thats just me.

Had you considered the salience of my argument in terms of industrial and bourgeoisie development... you would see that without Pakistan we would be a third rate agricultural raw material producing backwater of India. Seen on economic terms alone, the kind of enrichment it has brought to people like me... the real bourgeoisie that has emerged and the Industrialisation that has taken place... (Pakistan has - by all estimates- industrialised by 500% to 800% from what it was under United British India... as opposed to India which was already industrialised)...

As for your claim that Ahmadis would be better off in United India... my father, who happens to be an Ahmadi, believes it is much better to be a Non-muslim in Pakistan than being a Muslim in India... after all ...in just one week you burnt more 15 times more Muslims alive in Gujurat than the number of Ahmadis killed by religious intolerance in Pakistan over 33 years since this amendment.

You say that Ahmadis would be better off in United India... yet most of the material progress made by the Ahmaddiya community is and continues to be in Pakistan... I say this as someone who was born in an Ahmadi family. So my suggestion is that you don`t try to interpret my article according to your wishes and see that it has a certain audience and none of this is written to please Indians like yourself who are mired in ignorance and arrogance as is. A visit to Pakistan would lay to rest these misplaced concepts of superiority that you entertain.

Re: # 71, Hamdani ji,

Sorry, if you don`t consider partition itself as absurd then you should expect much much more absurdities then which abound in Pak today.

By the way, had India been united Pak would have tested the benefits of progressive policies of Nehru and its people would have freed themselves from the shackles of landlords and moneylenders long back. Also, Ahmadis would have been better off in united India. Your claim of Muslims (including Ahmadis) having gained a fighting chance due to creation of Pak is absurd in the light of your article itself.

I wrote my previous post immediately after reading your article only and not all the posts. After reading the posts, including yours, I am a bit disappointed because when you (particularly intellectuals like you) engage in suspecting, scrutinizing and declaring others as Muslims or non-Muslims then what you are left with is Pak where absurdity is bound to abound. This has been the most useless, rather most harmful discussion which I come across very frequently on Chowk. If Chowk is a kind of mirror of Paki intellectual environment then there is no way Pak could be saved (from these absurdities).

Samar

Samarji,

``Had India remained united``

Read H M Seervai`s ``Partition of India legend and reality`` to see how or who is responsible for what...

But I don`t share your point of view as I find it naive. I thank god every day that we did not turn into another state of the Indian Union... however loosely confederated.

Had that been the case... given that under British rule this region was agriculture and martial hub .... we would still be living under Unionist coalition government of Muslim Landlords and Hindu moneylenders....

Pakistan`s creation... thanks to the civil disobedience of Muslim League and the Communist Party of India ... gave the ordinary Muslim- Ahmadis included- here a fighting chance.. mind you in all of Pakistan - as it exists today- there were only 85 000 industrial workers - mostly seasonally employed- according to Census of India 1930.... as opposed to 400 000 in Bombay alone....

Thus ...in a united India... the situation for us would be infinitely worse then.

M.Asadi,

I can`t affect any decisions of the chowk staff... but if you wish I can get you kicked out of Government College ...

Do you wish that?

#72 now, now, now, there is no need for this kind of threat mantolives (a smirk and a finger wagging icon)

Poor Masada Complex, has had to endure a lot of indignities to reach where he is today, pliss show some mercy on him - and let your ``elitist`` sensibilities reign supreme. After all you, as a member of the elite, can make use of his brains!

#70 by bulleya on June 29, 2007 3:16am PT


the ordinary pakistanis (as well as the extraordinary ones) are not a follower of mullahs


we keep hearing that and yet week after week after week we read about some paki busted for terrorism/islamic jihad...and then there`s the whole issue of 60+ pakis in gitmo and no indian muslims....