Communists and the Making of Pakistan

drlokraj:
Thank you dr saheb. I had been wrongly telling people on the basis of this verse that Guru Nanak used Allah also as a name of God.

In Kashmir, I believe the communist leader, Taragami, is one of the most consistent fighters against militants.


GT:
I have done some googling and you are right. Same name, same ideological orientation but different persons.

Dr. sahib,

Very few remember the communist opposition to the Khalistanis. I am told (second hand) that Gill had a tremendous respect for their grass-root movement. Even now, when "commies" are slaughtered by Kashmiri terrorists you get to read "hindu" killed. The same story repeated from Bhagat Singh onward. I am told that the RSS types "pray" to Bhagat Singh.

dm sahib:

The wiki has a write up on Joshi, I doubt that he was in IEG. Uttaranchal still has a solid CPI base due to Joshi.

As far as I know, most of the communists spoke against partition,,,at least no punjabi communist supported it.
Even recently, communists were the main opponents of the khalistani separatist movement. Majority of the political leaders killed by khalistanis in punjab were communists including respected people like Darshan Singh Canadian, Arjun Singh, Deepak Chopra, Cheema, Baldev Singh, Harbans Bika, Paash , just to name a few. Communists were the ones who gave them fight at grassroot level by forming armed village protection committees.

GT:

I agree with you completely. I have an impression that there was perhaps quite a big division within the communists on the issue of Pakistan and, to my knowledge, they did not take an official position on the issue. As I said, none of the Hindu and Sikh communists stayed in Punjab. On the other hand, Punjabi communist fellow-travellers like Manto, Saifuddin Kichlew and Sahir Ludhyanvi were against the partition and Sahir, though forced to go to Pakistan during the ethnic cleansing, returned after a short stay in Lahore. Most of the taraqi-pasand writers (progressives in English), such as Khwaja Ahmad Abbas stayed in India.

BTW was this PC Joshi a lean and mean looking man. I remember vaguely knowing a Dr. P. C. Joshi at the Institute of Economic Growth. He was a die-hard communist and I only knew him through attending some seminars where he was present. I was a student and he was a senior member of the faculty.

Harimau,

Why the new nick? Chowk banned the earlier one? These guys are getting more and more pathetic.

Re: # 72
DM ji, 'awwal allah noor upaya,kudrat kay sabh banday
ek noor tay sabh jag upjeya, kaun bhaley ko manday' is by Kabir ji.

I dont know whether Charvaak said anything about 'vaNd chhakna'. I was responding to kaal's ineteract where he said that communist ideology and islam had lot in common. In fact, communism has more commonalities with the social message of bhakti tradition and its philosophical aspect of historical materialism has many commonalities with ,any schools of ancient Indian philosophy particularly Charvaak and even some of the shastras like Sankhya Shaastar which is more scienitic in its explainations of the relationship betmeen matter and the conscious. No other religion has dealt with this basic concept more deeply than the Indian shastras.

Re: # 78

Is that you, Harimou?

Re masanamuthu #55

[A lot of people supported Pakistan even from within Congress. Rajaji of Congress, chief of Madras Congress was one. And the opponents of Rajaji in Madras, Ramasamy naicker of DK (called as Periyar) supported Pakistan too. Infact he wanted a Dravidastan along the lines of Pakistan too.. I wonder if those claims are equally supported by the communists.]

Rajaji suggested that the Congress accept the inevitability of Pakistan. He didn't say anything about giving Jinnah everything he or Chaudhri Rehmat Ali wanted.

E V Ramswamy Naicker (Periyar -- in reality, Thanthai Periyar [Father Big Man] to you and people of your ilk) supported Pakistan because he thought that would give him leeway in getting a Dravidastan. He and his followers, which includes Doctor Artist Leader the Fund of Compassion, demanded that British stay on in India if they were not going to grant them Dravidastan and went so far as to mark August 15, 1947 with a black flag procession. In any country, such traitors would have been hanged from the nearest lamppost before sundown the same day but when you had an effeminate faggot like Jwahirullah Nehru as Prime Minister, these people not only stayed out of jail but ended up in power in Tamil Nadu.

Doctor Artist Leader the Fund of Compassion goes around claiming that he supported the demand for Pakistan as early as 1937... when he would have been 14 and just discovering how to jerk off.

As they say, Communists unfurl their umbrellas in India when it rains in Moscow!

Chennai,

"He was promptly banned from entering Pakistan and died in penury in Cambridge...."

If he was banned from entering Pakistan as you say ... what was he doing in Pakistan in 1947-1948?

Can you quote me your source please.

Dear VRV,

"How can u miss AIML in the group of Cong and Comms"

Because before 1938 only real attempts were made by Congress and the Communists.


"2.The so called martial race are Turko-Iranians (as the British called them) but their composition is not that much as compared to the %age of Punjabis in Indian Army."

The relevant point is the percentage of Punjabis. I don't care which was the superior martial race according to the British.

"Moreover, British never depended singly on these 'martial' soldiers. They had regiments in all parts of India i.e Baloch regiment, Madras, Tibet Border Police, Goorkhas (height criterion was relaxed for them since they are the sturdiest ppl in Indian army; therefore it's not the martial races in NWFP that British depended}."

The point again was Punjab's importance as a recruiting base. So this is pointless really even if we accept your claim as is.


"3. 'Therefore the British preferred to deal with local notables through the bureaucracy with wide ranging political powers.'

Haha, it's nothing typical of British towards Punjab. It's a pan-Indian policy."

I am afraid you are wrong here. The British divided the Indian Empire into two distinct regions i.e. Regulated and Non-Regulated Provinces. Punjab was a regulated province where the Chief Commissioner had wide ranging powers. These are the facts whether you like it or not. In your case I'd say laughing without investigating is a dangerous proposition.


"I never make any sense of this line. What industrial middle-class did we have in other parts of India when the primary-sector contributed more than 90% to GDP kitty? Except pockets of Bombay city, Ahmedabad (Manchester of India) and Calcutta, there's nothing called industrial burgeosie in India then."

Really... where were the Birlas, Tatas, Dalmiyas, Habibs, Seghals, Monnoos, Isphahanis, Premjis, located pre-1947... in what is today India or Pakistan?

The Industrial workers in the whole of Punjab were 1/4th of the number in Bombay according to the 1930 census... and lets not forget that Sindh, Balochistan and NWFP were not even industrialised.


Facts often seem a new version of history to the brainwashed.

"Running a govt in Punjab under 1935 GOI Act is called collaboration with British? (rolling eyes)"

Ironic... the same Congress Party leaders in Punjab routinely denounced Sir Sikandar Hayat, Sir Fazli Hussain and Sir Chotu Ram as collaborators. Now you are saying they were not.

"If u want to know (& the statistics were given b4 on Chowk), the highest precentage of people who faced jail & death sentence for freedom struggle were sikhs and they are Punjabis. To say that there is no spirit of freedom struggle in Punjab is untenable."

Don't put words in my mouth. I am not denying that Punjabis were in the frontlines of Independence struggle... but all the efforts by All-India parties were brought to nought by the Unionist Party's rural Jatt consciousness behind which was an alliance of Muslim, Hindu and Sikh landowners.

"The first part is wrong. India was never conceived either by Congress or by British as a unitray state (rolling eyes)."

Again little knowledge. There is a big difference between the terms Unitary center and Unitary State. Unitary Center itself can only be in a federation. There is no center in a Unitary state. A unitary center means a single center for a federation.

"8. 'A Congress-Muslim League coalition at this point would have been a terrific blow to the British control over Punjab.'

Day dreaming in 1946 when AIML wanted no truck with
Congress?"

You need to read more.



"9. 'Shortsightedness on the part of the Congress made sure such a ministry would never come about. Congress chose instead to join up with the Unionists and the Akalis to form their own ministry, which dealt a death blow to the Communist expectations.'

Is it shortsightedness if Congress doesnt go with ML?

Ideologically Congress, Akalis, Unionists oppose ML for the idea of Pakistan, then how they form coalition with ML? It's plausible that like-mided parties join."

So being likeminded had nothing to do with driving out the British... which was clearly not a Congress priority. So much for your glorious independence struggle.

Communism rocks

#50 Posted by HP

Superb post and very informative. I would like to read the continuation too.

Just to add a bit about post-partition. Actually, nationalism for the communists was as defined by Stalin (primarily following the question regarding the Uzbeks?). Joshi could not convince the rising stars like Namboodripad etc (who fluctuated between positions). Post partition the communists took diametrically opposite positions vis-a-vis the questions of Manipur and Nagaland (who were more "nations" than Indian Muslims). The Gorkhaland movement turned their "position" into actions. They opposd Khalistan and several members of the CPM and CPI-ML were systematically killed by the Khalistanis. Their role in fighting against the Khalistanis should be highlighted. In Kashmir, the story is being repeated (though Kashmir never had the cadre base that Punjab had). {An interesting side-note is that Praveen Swamy who himself is quite left wing, barely highlights the role of communists in Kashmir}.

Even though the communists fought against Gorkhaland, Khalistan and the movements in Assam and Kashmir; they opposed state oppression. For this I, grudgingly, have to support them. Today, the CPM opposes the CPI-ML in the Andhra - Chattisgarh belt. But that is another story.

drlokraj:

"ek noor tay sab jag" is it Nanak's or Kabir's?
BTW, are you sure that Charvak believed in "vand chhako". I thought he was more of a hedonist although he did not believe in the caste system.

Re: # 51
muzzy

"Islam may have a thousand faults but there is one good thing to be said about it- it does not allow communism to survive"
How do you explain majoriy of Middle East excluding Soodi like Iraq Syria Egypt really being stalinist leninst.They all used russian MIG against American & Israelis in 67 And &73 wars..
Saddam hussain once said he wants to be like Stalin to die comfortably like Stalin in his bed and not violently.
Except for orthodox muslims who up front like allah more and see godless communism as infidel
If they get pass that ,Communism economically has the same policy as Islam
Take from the rich give to poor as Zakat sadka male mulqiyat .
Communism also does the same make all wealth belong to the state.Unfortunately this ONLY idealism
and neither is Islam nor Communism practiced.

The most muslim populous states kerala & W. Bengal have had majority communist govt.
in Bengal for 20 years and in Kerala on and off thanks to Indira gandhi & congress using communal card to seperate muslims

Lemme dissect this article.


1. 'Indian National Congress and the Communist Party had been unable to make inroads into the feudal heartland of Punjab,...'

How can u miss AIML in the group of Cong and Comms (who're unbale to make inroads; providence wud have have it that the Punjab Premier died in the nick of time for Jinnah to make the best out of it)?


2. 'From Potohar Plateu to the rugged North West Frontier, Punjab produced the “martial race� of soldiers that made the bulk of the cannon fodder for the armies of the British Empire in the two world wars.'

The so called martial race are Turko-Iranians (as the British called them) but their composition is not that much as compared to the %age of Punjabis in Indian Army.

Moreover, British never depended singly on these 'martial' soldiers. They had regiments in all parts of India i.e Baloch regiment, Madras, Tibet Border Police, Goorkhas (height criterion was relaxed for them since they are the sturdiest ppl in Indian army; therefore it's not the martial races in NWFP that British depended}.

3. 'Therefore the British preferred to deal with local notables through the bureaucracy with wide ranging political powers.'

Haha, it's nothing typical of British towards Punjab. It's a pan-Indian policy.

4. ..Punjab did not have the industrial bourgeoisie that other areas of the subcontinent did.'

I never make any sense of this line. What industrial middle-class did we have in other parts of India when the primary-sector contributed more than 90% to GDP kitty? Except pockets of Bombay city, Ahmedabad (Manchester of India) and Calcutta, there's nothing called industrial burgeosie in India then.

5. 'Congress’ push for independence found no support in a sufficiently collaborated Punjab.'

A new version of history? (rolling eyes)

Running a govt in Punjab under 1935 GOI Act is called collaboration with British? (rolling eyes)

If u want to know (& the statistics were given b4 on Chowk), the highest precentage of people who faced jail & death sentence for freedom struggle were sikhs and they are Punjabis. To say that there is no spirit of freedom struggle in Punjab is untenable.

6. 'Still, by 1938 Sir Sikandar Hayat thought it prudent to enter into what is referred to as the “Sikandar-Jinnah Pact� which benefitted the Unionists more than it did the Muslim League as the latter failed to get any real organization going in the presence of the dubious allies in form of the Unionist Party. The pact fell apart in the 1940s and Muslim League was up in arms against the Khizer-led Unionist Party.'

It's Jinnah who wanted a deal with Unionists desparately, not the otherway round. Again it's AIML who got benefited from the pact ultimately, not the Unionists. Jinnah tried very hard to break the hold of Unionts in Punjab and he did it thru subterfuge.

7. 'Muslim League’s case was based on the premise that the unitary centre for India was a British creation...'

The first part is wrong. India was never conceived either by Congress or by British as a unitray state (rolling eyes).

8. 'A Congress-Muslim League coalition at this point would have been a terrific blow to the British control over Punjab.'

Day dreaming in 1946 when AIML wanted no truck with Congress? (rolling eyes)

9. 'Shortsightedness on the part of the Congress made sure such a ministry would never come about. Congress chose instead to join up with the Unionists and the Akalis to form their own ministry, which dealt a death blow to the Communist expectations.'

Is it shortsightedness if Congress doesnt go with ML?

Ideologically Congress, Akalis, Unionists oppose ML for the idea of Pakistan, then how they form coalition with ML? It's plausible that like-mided parties join.

(HERE THE LID OF MODERATION COMES-OFF AND THE FANGS OF NARROW-MINDED IDEOLOGY IS VISIBLE.)

10. 'The British encouraged and egged the Congress on, seeing in its actions a new lease of life for itself. The Congress-Unionist-Akali coalition instead of soothing the tensions amongst communities only exacerabated the issues since it was viewed by Muslims of Punjab as a great betrayal by the Hindus and the Sikhs.'

No idea what is meant by egging and where the proof of such egging?

Why a coalition of Unionits-Congress-Akalis wud exacerbate the issue? Dont the ppl who backed these parties including the Muslim Punjabis constitute a democratic majority? Why it's a betrayal of Hindus and Sikhs? Even some Punjabi Muslims wud have voted for Unionits then and the election results is an indication of such voting pattern.

Here an attempt is made to show that Muslims constitute a divine group of ppl who had god-given right to subjugate non-Muslims.

If ppl gave this verdict in elections in 1946 i.e.

1. Muslim League 75 seats
2. Congress 51 seats
3. Unionists 20 seats
4. Panthic Sikhs 23 seats
5. Miscellaneous 4 seats

it's obvious that the people of Punjab didnt give mandate to AIML. It's 98 Vs 75. Which group shud have precedence over the other? A group of 94 or 75?


Conclusion:

This article mangled facts and the basic approach to the question is faulty i.e Muslims are supermasters of everybody.

The only point I cant disagree is that Communists are known for perfidy.