Communists and the Making of Pakistan

Re: # 115

Yes. Shujaat Hussain was playing Chotu Ram. That makes PML-Q the Unionist Party.

Thankfuly they have been defeated.

Re: # 110

I am afraid you've not understood what I've written. Your responses to points 1,2,3,4,5 are plain nonsensical. Your response to 6 is just plain funny.

Your response to point 7 shows me that you have no comprehension of the English language. A federation consists of a Unitary center. A unitary center is different from a unitary state.
For example India is not a Unitary state but has a unitary center called New Delhi.

Your response to point 8 is your prejudice. As for Congress... its actions are self evident.


Thanks for the reference. Grateful.

Thank you dear YLH for reviving our memories.

Btw, are not the Jats of Gujrat, Ch. Shujaat, Parvez (There another Parvez has come up but he is Keyani),etc., playing the role of Sir Chhotu Ram today?

Alas, Sir Sikandar Hayat died at a crucial moment in history. Had he lived he and Chhotu would not have allowed Punjab to be partitioned with the resultant internecine carnage of Punjabies.

GT,

I agree to most of what u said but what I meant when I said that Commies cant play electoral politics is that they dont know how to grow.

The theory behind the split is true but I never saw them growing outside WB, Tripura and Kerala and CPI was derecognised as a national party. CPM is one its way to de-recognition.

Had they know to play electoral politics they'd have been reinventing from time to time and gaining in strength.

GT, agreed entirely.

A few points:

1. The CPI gave up on "revolution" and joined electoral politics. So did the CPM. The CPI-ML split with the two precisely because of this. Electoral politics is what made the Indian commies survive and outlive its international brothers. Today splinters of CPI-ML have also joined electoral politics. Essentially revolution gaya tel lene.

2. Implementation is not their cup of tea. The reason is as follows. Essentially, communism is a Western concept (even though some elements of materialism might have been present in the sub-continent a long time back). The "leaders" are mostly far removed from ground realities. The 'dedicated' cadre between "leaders" and the unwashed, have no say in policy matters. They are like Oscar the horse in Animal Farm. Intra-party democracy is totally absent in Indian communist parties. Cadres who oppose this structure are removed from the party. A very good example is that of the once upcomming leader Saifuddin Chaudhury. Google should be enough to find out more about him and the story.

3. Though Marx got the essence of capitalism correct (he hardly said anything about communism), Marxists got the system of free competitive markets totally wrong (except for Paul Baran perhaps). As a result they ended up supporting the cause of public monopolies and sympathising with national monopolies. Deng was the first to recognize this (though even Lenin flirted with the idea of privatization but not fully). One should note that reforms in China preceeded those in India by a decade. Having said this, communists in general have contributed to the ushering in of capitalism by bringing about land reforms in many parts of the world. But so has the US, especially in Korea! Their record on education and health is good in some parts of the world but not in others.

Corections:

ML did try its best to make inroads...it just took time to crack the pot and it happened in 1946.

Each provice had it's own core competency and for Punjab it's food productiion; again when the contribution of industry to GDP was less than 10% it doesnt make any substantial affect on economy or politics. So ur middle-class theory is a non-starter.

The ppl with surplus money (Parsis, Gujjus and the enterpreunarial class like marwaris) got attracted towards Bombay. It's natural.

#75 Posted by MantoLives on October 25, 2007 8:58:52 am

Yaar Yasser,


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

Commies never played electoral politics not in Punjab or anywhere in India. They always act like agony aunties....

ML did try it's best to make inroads...it just took time to crack the pot in 1946.


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

They recruited from all stocks of Indic people not just those 'martial races'.



3. 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 am afraid. It's British India and Princely States. The finer distinction as u mention is of no consequence insofar as the British control in India is considered. The elected govt NEVER had that of powers as u and I think now-a-days. It's the British zilla collectors who had supreme powers in day2day affairs of any domain under their control.


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

Yasser, pl think of core-competency. Birlas if they were cud have established their business in arid Rajasthan but they didnt. They were operating outta Bombay with their business establishments in the places where there's proximity to raw materials.

As for Premjis, they're selling oils in those days. They were rich but not tycoons. Punjab has no port (for exports/imports). The only industry I can think of in Punjab is rice milling industry. Each provice had it's own core competency and for Punjab it's food productiion; again when the contribution of industry to GDP was less than 10% it doesnt make any substantial affect on economy or politics.

5. 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.

Mmmmm.. that way the rest of India shud feel aggrieved abt Bombay. The success of Bombay has a different story. The Parsis became middlemen btw natives and British. Gujjus are a mercantinle civlisation. Bombay was the major trading port and the major commercial centre. The surplus ppl (Parsis, Gujjus and the enterpreunarial class like marwaris) got attracted towards Bombay. It's natural.

6. 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.

Yasser, even Jinnah said one for press, other things for his cadre and something for public consumption. These political allegations are allegations, either by Congress or ML.

7. 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.

You mean to have multiple power centres in the name of one India?? (rolling eyes). It's unthinkable, chubby.


8. 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.

That's my point as well. Why Congress need a truck with ML; ML was constantly collaborating with British for Pakistan. How allaince btw Congress and ML wud drive out British? The Constitutional developemnts in India had nothing to do with whom Congress/AIML ally with.

8. Driving out British is not the Congress' priority??

Need to know ur history more.


****************

As for my point on armymen rebuked by Jinnah for contesting elections, I guess u can find the info in this book (I am not sure though but of all the books I read, this cud be where u can find that stuff).

Quaid-e-Azam's correspondence with Punjab Muslim Leaders

Edited by Qaim Hussain Jaffri,

Aziz Publishers, Lahore (1977)

Re: # 104
Agreed, I think that was extremely well articulated and gave a remarkable insight within few lines. The solution has a problem but intentions are noble. I think other than a bloody revolution, which communists think is absolutely essential to root out the status quo and change the ownership of means of production, another problem is recommendation of a powerful state. Any state with absolute powers is always likely to abuse it and the rulers would do anything to cling to the rule. Marx was of the view that state with the passage of time would wither away. It did wither away in Russia and East Europe but leaving capitalists in charge.

Re: # 104 I wonder Indian comunists are bent on destruction and violence, like jehadis who are making havoc for islamic revolution like here for bloody socialist revolution or they are tamed by local market forces ?

Re: # 104

well said dulla

its not just about the bloody revolution, its about saving lot of blood also.

UK and other European countries wouldn't have created welfare states without the threat of socialist revolution breathing on their necks.

US would not have dared to act like a mad dog it is now and done this to Iraq, had USSR been in the same position it was few deecades ago.

Re: # 91

kaal bhai, you can spend a life time in understanding those constructs to find out that they are infact not as monstrous as they sound to some or some of the communists have made them look like.

I can reccommend few books, which can help you:

1. A series of Introductory booklets on the ideology by Shiv Verma (who was Bhagat Singh's close ally)
2. Roots of Historical Materialism by Bhag Singh MA
3. History, Mythology and Historical Materialism by Bhag Singh Sajjan

This should be enough to start with, but the problem s that you may have to get these books from India and possibly learn Punjabi as well as the last book was published only in Punjabi.

Let me tell you something intersting about the no.3 book, which was also called 'Yellow Book' whwen published in 1980s and was written by one of the most learned comrades from Punjab who was contemporary of HS Surjeet but was never interested in any post etc. He spent his entire life like our Rishis of gthe old tradition, managed his diabetes andother physical problems on his own with ayurved or homeopathy. He conducted party schools and taught the basic philosophy of communism. His book dealt with the evolution of the ideology throughout Indian mythology and history. Interestingly, his own party, for which he spent his whole life, banned the book, You may still get it from some old CPM comrade who is not affected by the petty politics.

Re: # 76 Mantolives:"Can you quote me your source please."

Here is the source

http://www.khalidhasan.net/fridaytimes/2004-10-15.htm

Enjoy!

kaal, you are right... communists in general have their hearts in the right place and their larger view of how things should be in terms of justice, equality etc are fine things..even if a bit idealistic, it is good to have ideals to aim than not have one. problem I see with communists is their solution is all out revolution with absolutely upside down system compared to existing whatever. my few dozen gray hairs tell me that incremental change/progress is easier to achieve, with less bloodhsed and suffering and has better chances to sustain in the long run than an all out bloody revolution for exreme utopian change - utopia that will require crude force and authority to implement and sustain.

on the other hand the whole idea of communism, marxist left have played and can continue to play a positive role without achieving the revolution. it is acting as a counter weight to the right and retrogressive forces and encourages reforms for work place equality etc. inspite of occasional seemingly anti-nationalist blunders like support of TNT, opposition to nuke deal etc, overall they are a positive influence...until they turn fundamentalists and then they become hard to distinguish from the cave dwellers of tora bora.:-)

Communists are good people trapped in the swamp of bad theory. As good people, their rank and file tend to have right instincts. With bad theory, their leaders come up with naive/terrible solutions.

Indian communists including their successor communists in Pakistan were imo, a naïve bunch. Their ability to understand problems is remarkable but they fail to articulate a proper response or find a solution to the problem they very intelligently identify.

Throughout the 20th century people saw that the communist became a victim of their own ineptness in dealing with the day to day political issues. Big picture and all that are fine but a political party must be able to identify opportunities to further its cause.

Recently, in India, the communist again fell from the grace for the same reasons that had destroyed their politics in 1940s. They had correctly identified the problems with the India-US nuke agreement, but they were never able to offer alternates or make suggestions that would have helped the Sonia Manmohan sarkar present alternate proposals to the US government for a revised agreement.

Politics is not just opposition. The real politics is coming up with solutions that attract the people at large. The communists’ mindset in both countries had been that of opposition. Solutions and alternates are the keys in promoting political goals especially in chaotic political conditions that existed in India before the Partition.

The communists in 1940s were not sure of the solutions to the quagmire that was developing in India due to the conflict between the Congress and the ML. Their first instinct was to stay with the congress. Ideologically, they were closer to the Indian National Congress and there was not a single communist in India who did not believe in united India. Still the CPI, very late in the game, came out with a resolution that was contrary to its long held support of a united India. Their support of Pakistan was based on a desire to not prolong the communal rift and put it behind as quickly as possible by accepting the partition rather than resisting it, which in their opinion would have caused more bloodshed.

Incidentally, the communalist within the majority Hindu community also reached the same conclusion. Even Gandhi was convinced that the situation would get out of hand. The motive was to get the independence quickly before the British leave India without any resolution of the communal conflict. The idea was that if the British left without resolving the communal issues, the united India would see a bloodbath the likes of which were never seen before in the human history.

India did see a bloodbath but it sure was smaller in scale than expected and perhaps all political parties in India heaved a collective sigh of relief when the communal riots did not cross the Punjab borders.

I also think that Yasser’s conclusions about the communist role and ability to control events in Punjab are a bit exaggerated. Communist had very little influence in Punjabi Muslim intelligentsia. Most of their membership in Punjab consisted of Hindu and Sikhs of east Punjab. There were very few Hindu or Sikh communist in the western Punjab which was Muslim dominated. A few Muslims who were part of the communist party lived in Lahore and one Dada Amir Haider, I believe, was from Pindi.

Lokraj, no doubt communists had a softer corner towards creation of Pakistan...may be more prominent members were not happy but general feeling seems that it might help bring revolution faster hence good or OK to happen..let feudals divide themselves now, we can always put the 2 countries together after revolution. what happened later probably made comrades in India feel guilty (while Pakistani comrades are still licking their wounds on their lifeless bodies after 2 generations). My feeling is punjabi comrades' bold opposition to Khalistanis was partly due to the realization of their failure in 1947...it was a repeat that they couldn't afford to let happen again..secondly communist cadre was many times stronger in 80's than it was in 40's. it probably could not give fight in 40's that it gave now.

correction: deepak chopra was not comrade...was not he son of lala jagat narayan?

The communal-minds (led by the vamp Jinnah) and the ever-opportunist Communists, they made good bedfellows – and who am I to call them strange?! Clearly, it is no coincidence that both these groups loved to lick British boots and bad-mouth the Indians who sought freedom. Their kinds cherish each other’s company so much even after all that time – as in Afghanistan in 1979, Chechnya now, and in countless other places. By all means, they should spend as much time in each other’s company as it pleases them – as long as they both just stay the heck out of Amrikka! It is too bad that the Indian Communists missed a chance to accompany Jinnah to the land of the Pure – perhaps such a grievous error can still be corrected for the present day Indian communists who would be no doubt welcomed with open arms, perhaps even with a bear-hug, by the Pakistani mullahs. They would truly make a “Ram-milai-joDee�!

Re masanamuthu #98

[The truth is Rajaji / Periyar had no bones in the Pakistan / Partition stuff.. So they can coolly support Jinnah's demands whereas the North Indian Congress leaders cannot.]

Rajaji was an astute observer of the political scene. By the early 1940s, he had seen enough of the intransigence of Jinnah-bhai that he realized that the mad man was bent upon Pakistan and would not stop at mass murder to get it. It had nothing to do with not having any bone in the Partition stuff and everything to do with having a brilliant intellectual approach to politics.

E V Ramaswamy Naicker thought that if the British conceded any partition demand, that would automatically support his wet dream of Dravidastan. He had no principles or scruples, a trend that continues in today's Tamil Nadu.

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.


:-) Harimau, how r u?.

whether dravidastan or gangulistan, life is good now.. that's all that matters.. have some fun.

The truth is Rajaji / Periyar had no bones in the Pakistan / Partition stuff.. So they can coolly support Jinnah's demands whereas the North Indian Congress leaders cannot.

CreateAlpha

That seems like an interesting possibility....thanks.

(communism seems like a watered-down, much flawed, near childish form of religion. No wonder it died so soon everywhere except in India)

kaal yaar, since you like religion so much..try weaving that into religon as well. It works just the same...

LOL GT bhai, but people like my uncle ACTUALLY believe in their UTOPIA, without really knowing anything about it.

Utopia and ignorance (and guilt, as createlpha suggests) must go hand in hand. Yet for those at the bottom of the ladder, the desperation of their situation/needs might lead to real passionate pursuit of utopianism. The less one knows, or the 'guiltier' one is, the more one believes.

At the top of the ladder, a majority of the leadership might well understand these things as little more than brute powerplay.

-------------

drsahib, I would really appreciate if you could explain where my understanding of communism (in terms of those six elements) might be mistaken. Thanks.

#93 Posted by CreateAlpha:

Good one!

GT, this is nothing new. Most commuistleadership through out the world came from landed gentry and the upper classes. Call it Rich man's guilt.

kaal:

"I suspect most Indian communists never find their sheila dixits."

Yaar kaal, they do not have to. They have nothing but have everything. Most of Jyoti Basu's family is into big time bidness. Yechury's family are big time landlords in Andhra (unlike Namboodripad they still own the land). Prakash and Brinda Karat (related to Pronoy Roy .. yep the media and congress wallah) spend Christmas in Goa along with their neice who lives in LA who in turn makes a movie on Delhi riots which in turn is reviewed by Ras (?) in chowk. Small world, bhai sahib and sheila dixit fits in nicely somewhere. Aur aap nikle hein ideas pe baat karne!

drsahib, entirely possible that I misunderstand communism. Which one(s) of those six basic elements would you say do not belong to communism? And if they all do, which ones can we reach beginning with charavaka or Guru Nanak's teaching?

(It's a genuine question, not a rhetorical one. I am actually ashamed I have not once read all of Guru Granth Sahib :()

Dr. sahib, Kaal is right. When the literacy rate is so anemic in the region..the options are things that promise utopia. be it communism or islam....

kaal ji, you seem to have similar view of communism as average Pakistani has of hinduism. Indoctrination and concretization needs to be left behind if one really needs to learn something about alternative world views.

We may be once again focusing on people (communists), and not on ideas (communism).

Let me recount a real story.

One of my uncles in our village (I have many many uncles) was particularly dil-phenk.

There wasn't a village-belle he would set his eyes on who would not totally steal his heart.

One day, he fell in love with communism. He must have been around 25 years old then.

One can say with fair confidence, my communist uncle didn't know one real thing about communism, never read a book or article on the subject (in fact, no one ever saw him read anything but jasoosi kahaniya type of stuff). But uncle liked the idea of 'justice.' Who wouldn't, if you are also dirt poor, and hate working hard?

Anyways, this uncle of mine took communism seriously for many years, became politically active, atteneded rallies etc.

One morning of course the charm broke, and he became a follower of sheila dixit. Haven't kept track of his political evolution ever since.

I suspect most Indian communists never find their sheila dixits. But looking at their individual behaviors we will never be able to say anything about communism, or about the leaders who espouse that ideology.

drlokraj ji

Could you please further explain communism's relation to Indian traditions. Let's get to the heart of communism:

1. Dialetical/historical materialism.
2. Alienation
3. Revolution
4. Dictatorship of the proletariat
5. Redistributive justice
6. A millennial world-view of world domination.

By combining insights from charvaka and Guru Nanak do we reach any of the above basic elements of communism? Thanks.

Bombay, in 1947, had Muslim and Hindu workers living in very close proximity. Ever wonder why they did not kill each other in large numbers ..... yep, you guessed it - the commie trade unions.

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.

Re: # 65: This is what Chaudry Rahmat Ali had to say of Jinnah.

"(“Mr Jinnah has acted the Judas and betrayed, bartered and dismembered the Millat, animated by ambition for recognition as the Quisling-e-Azam of Pakistan and Bangistan… a far worse traitor than Janki in 712, Mir Jaffer in 1757 and the Muslim aristocracy in 1857.�)

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

Any parallel between him and Nawaz Sharif's case is purely co-incidental, I guess....

Muthu,

I have heard another derivation of the word Pakistan- don't know whether that was RA's coining or someone else's imagination- Punjab, Afghania (incl. NWFP), Kashmir, Iran, Sind, Tukharistan (Tukharistan being the whole of the central Asian Republics)and Balochistan.

Regards

manto (YLH) do you think Ralph Peters thought could become a reality sometime in the near future?

Muthu,

(partition of Punjab / bengal was suggested by many folks well ahead of Mountbatten's time)

Not only that, Bengal was actually partitioned in 1905 (later annulled) on very similar lines to 1947, except that the whole of Assam went to EB.

(Things would have happened more or less in the similar fashion and Jinnah would not have gotten nothing more even if it was not Mountbatten.)

Exactly. No matter who was the Viceroy, there was no way that any INC leadesrhip would have agreed to relinquish control over the vast lebensraum (the reference to a term coined by the white Aryan racist, fascist, misogynist, bigoted freak is purely accidental) populated by a Hindu/Sikh majoriy in E. Punjab, WB and NE, to Pakistan. They would have fought tooth and nail and got what they wanted.

Regards

Adding to my earlier comment, Chaudhary Rahmat Ali, the one who coined the name "Pakistan" seems like an interesting character. He was so offended by the "moth-eaten" Pakistan, he started disparaging Jinnah after he returned to Pakistan in 48.. He was denied a Pakistani passport and finally ended up dying as a loser in Cambridge.

If MAJ (pbuh) had indulged in some brahmacharya with Lord and Lady M he may have got something more than a moth-eaten Pakistan. Unfortunately he chose to call himself a rose and Lord and Lady M two thorns.


Yeah.. too bad. only Mantolives finds Jinnah attractive, looks like Mountbatten and Edwina fell for Nehru..

But jokes aside, partition of Punjab / bengal was suggested by many folks well ahead of Mountbatten's time and Ambedkar has even written about the scheme (that was later followed) in his book on Pakistan much earlier. Things would have happened more or less in the similar fashion and Jinnah would not have gotten nothing more even if it was not Mountbatten.

"totally incompatible perspectives never compromise, nor should they. Those who advocate compromise without highlighting differences are actually invariably working for the interests of one side or other."

Kaalchakra,
The above is absolutely true. Even if we had remained united at the time of independence, I don't think we would have survived for long as united, so in that respect the division in 1947 was good, because it let us make a fresh start, although I wish we could have reduced the human toll and also could have worked on finding a solution to compensate people who lost property, business, etc.

"History would have been different, had the Congress Party paid heed to the Communists then. "

Doesn't matter, at the end we all got the best thing possible. You got your freedom from us, and we got our freedom from you.

"History would have been different, had the Congress Party paid heed to the Communists then. "

Pathetic YLH, get on with it, now that there is an islamic republic of pakistan, mak it truly historic in terms of islam, create records, and you have the latest one,

most people killed by a suicide jihadi

Get over the blame game, stop blaming Zia and gandhi for the jihadis of pakistan, take some responsibility, why not you smash a few photos in pak govt offices for a start.

Read wolpert, the man responsible for pakistan is Jinnah, full stop.

Muthu,

I have seen that map first on a site called Mughalstan.org, dont know if the site still works. Bangistan was Undivided Bengal + Assam, Osmanistan was Hyderabad, Pakistan is what is today's Pakistan incl J&K and undivided Punjab. Then there were Siddiquistan (Bhopal), Farookhstan (Oudh) Moplahstan (north Kerala) + NE Sri Lanka and a few other stans.

(Anyhow I'm happy that "Don-quixote" Jinnah ended up with a "moth-eaten pakistan")

If MAJ (pbuh) had indulged in some brahmacharya with Lord and Lady M he may have got something more than a moth-eaten Pakistan. Unfortunately he chose to call himself a rose and Lord and Lady M two thorns.

Regards

http://www.shelleys.demon.co.uk/dinia.htm

the link is not showing up.. I've given the URL.

That validates my belief that Rajaji was a wise man. Had his economic policies been followed India would have been some other place now.


It is one thing for Rajaji / Periyar to say that they supported Pakistan. They are far removed from the place of action (being from Madras) and had negligible Muslim population their province but another thing for the Congress politicians from the North to accept it. look at rahmat ali's map.

Anyhow I'm happy that "Don-quixote" Jinnah ended up with a "moth-eaten pakistan" than the one suggested by Rajaji.

In Muslim League’s demand for Pakistan the Communists saw the first really potent slogan that could be used to upstage the Unionist Party in Punjab. For accuracy and in all fairness, it must be remembered that the Muslim League itself had made a similar calculation after 1937. The 1937 elections had shown that Muslim League was essentially a party of the Muslim minority in Hindu Majority provinces which enjoyed little support in the Muslim Majority areas in North West and North East of India. This considerably compromised the effectiveness of the Muslim League to negotiate as the main organization of the Muslim minority in India. League needed a slogan that would have appeal in the Muslim Majority areas. The idea of a separate Muslim state had been talked about for a while and even crudely referred to as “Pakistan our fatherland� by Ch. Rahmat Ali.


That's right. I suspect even in 1946, League was dominated by Muslims from the Muslim minority provinces. And the slogan of a "separate Muslim state" is a bogus one. Why would Muslims in Punjab / NWFP / Sindh / Bengal feel threatened by the coming of democracy ?. Especially with Punjabi Muslims forming a bulk of the Indian army. The "separate state" of "Rahmat ali" is completely different from what "Don Quixote" Jinnah ended up with. :-)

This is what Rahmat ali wanted.. Look at the map of Pakistan / Osmanistan / bangistan and other stans of his dreams.. It is funny.

Muthu,

#55

(A lot of people supported Pakistan even from within Congress. Rajaji of Congress)

That validates my belief that Rajaji was a wise man. Had his economic policies been followed India would have been some other place now.

(I wonder if those claims are equally supported by the communists. )

Dunno about that but Surjeet propounded the idea of Khalistan in the 1940s as part of the nationalities theses.

Regards

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. So what's your point??

A lot of them wanted to get some kind of an agreement between Muslim league and Congress so that Brits can no longer bail out with lame excuses..

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Re: # 42

kaal, now combine Charvaak philosophy with that of Baba Nanak," naam japo, kirat karo, vand chhako"
and Kabir's " ek noor tay sabh jag upajey.." and " ek pita, ekas kay hum baarik"

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

The Commies did do one good thing in their life on the Indian sub-continent- support the cause and possibly enable the Partition of India. However, they would feign amnesia today if they are reminded of it. However one of their main reasoning for supporting Partition was laughable- their belief that ML was an anti-imperialist body

Sadly the Partition did them no good- in Pakistan that is. They have been wiped out there. Islam may have a thousand faults but there is one good thing to be said about it- it does not allow communism to survive.

Regards

This is perhaps the best article ever published on this site. The article brings forth some POVs that have never been discussed on this forum. Thanks Yasser for talking the time to write it.

The independence and the split of India into two countries was not merely a conflict of two sections of the population but was also a result of major intellectual divisions that existed at that time. The forces that pulled and pushed the whole process were not merely the communalists in major religious groups but also the British and other fringe groups that provided lots of fodder to the intellectual discussions that raged before the partition. The communists were the third largest group in India but there were plenty other groups on both Muslim and Hindu sides that played a substantial part in the independence struggle and they also influenced the division of India.

What we forget that almost all Muslim groups and political parties in India barring the Muslim league were against the partition of India. Muslim League had the electoral majority but it never formed a majority in the Muslim intelligentsia.

Where was that Muslim Intelligentsia? It was part of the Congress, congress supported groups, the educated religious scholars such as Azad and other religious leaders. A substantial number of Muslims were also in CPI and they too had strong views against Pakistan. While the Muslim league won the battle of bodies as it ended up with more Muslim bodies (voters) on it side, it never won the battle of minds. A majority of Muslim minds (intellectuals) in central India opposed Pakistan by all means possible.

Even in the Muslim majority provinces, Muslim intelligentsia was not entirely committed to Pakistan. The Sindhi, Bengalis, Pathan and Punjabi Muslims were utterly confused on the issue but they at least had the opinion that Muslim majority provinces might never have an equal share in independent and undivided India. Some of this confusion was partly due to their own national aspirations. They encouraged the thought of independent provinces outside of the mainland India. GM Syed, Ghaffar Khan, the Bengali leadership and a few in Punjab who felt that they might be better off by controlling the Punjab province by themselves. While the Bengalis, Sindhis and Punjabis sided with Muslim League, Ghaffar Khan was easily defeated in a questionable referendum.


There is no doubt that PC Joshi was an intellectual giant and his thesis as quoted by Yassar was an accurate description of nationalist leaders in Muslim Majority provinces.

However, the question is: was he right in asserting this �it had become an anti-imperialist organization expressing the freedom urge of the Muslim people that its demand for Pakistan was a demand for self determination and that for the freedom of India, an immediate joint front between the Congress and the League must be forged as the first step to break imperialist deadlock.�

I think he made a serious error. Muslim league was not an anti-imperialist party. We can assert that Congress too was not an anti-imperialist party. However, the congress in its over all policy had shown, partly due to its dedicated common members, that it did espouse some of the anti-imperialist ideals. (After the partition the congress on many issues definitely took anti-imperialist stands)

The other error in his thesis was giving big latitude to the Muslim League leadership and affording them the mantle of the leadership of Muslim nationalists. The true Muslim nationalists in the Muslim majority provinces were not part of the Muslim League when PC Joshi’s thesis was approved by the CPI.

Despite Joshi’s thesis and the CPI support of the Pakistan demand, ordinary communist party members including Muslim communists never really agreed with the Pakistan ideals and the approach that ML took. The Muslim communists scoffed at the high visibility of the communalists in the ML and despite the party’s instruction never joined the ML. Mian Iftikahar perhaps was the only big name but he was never a member of the CPI. The other person in Punjab was Mazhar Ali Khan. He stayed away from the Muslim league till the end though he supported the Joshi thesis.

More later..

Re: # 48
Also mohajir like Santini from the other side have made themselves super rich and powerfull..Advani sindhi punjasbis .
But still santini feels not at home or unfullfilled

#47
Cliff
Glad to know that.
Thats why i have said in sadnas Education thread that migrated urdu speaking'Mohajir'did better than Indian mUslims despite the graph.

tolks

the muhajirs are the richest community in pakistan and over represented in the govt beurocracy army and what have you.

That being said ethnicity is AS big a political/social issue in pakistan as in india ...hence our constant tu tu me me ...and our chauvanist politics...its laughable to call muhajirs "second class" though.

kaal right back at ya ...i wouldve supported you against borri's accusation but i am not sure that would have helped either one of us :)

tolks actually i did not say pakis were MORE diverse. And neither did i call ALL Indians monolithic. But in my experiance there is a section of indian chowkies who start frothing at the mouth at any signs of a paki not towing the line of caricature which they seem to believe in so strongly.

Re: # 42
Kaal bhai
we are ALL out of love how can we live without you
all those who seperated like couples might not show there hurt but understandable

#25
Sanatini if you feel that way
"than a second class one in India"

so do the mohajirs in Pakistan.


Your neighbour Either Hindu or Muslim was in the long run always was your best confidante even if there might have been transitary bumps,atleast in India with some adaptations

Later thy both get busy with roti kapda ..sarakbijli paani that more overwhelming than religion which i admit is tooooo much both in hidu and in muslim.India loves Religion

Tolki bhai, that's ok. First, we all genuinely love cliffs. Second, this is simply an exchange of views, and nothing more. :)

-------------

Drlokraj, charvaka philosophy is pure individualistic materialism.

Eat, drink, and be merry, who knows if there is any God, or heaven, or hell - that was Charvaka's sutra. :) :)

#39

I meant bringing out the role of the communists, in the first sentence.

#32
Boriville
"You can see from the speech of this Kaalchakra; sanatani; laddu, jay, arjun etc the level of hatred and propoganda"

You can see the same tunnel vision among paki Zeemax ,Ali Manto ,ahmed Madani even masadi when he is not frothing over uSA

Hi Manto:

Thanks for bringing out the role of Muslims. To Indians, this is another "proof" of the perfidy of the communists. But before Indians condemn the commies as traitors, do you know of any resolutions passed by the CPI or its Punjab unit on this issue?

I would be surprised if the Hindu and Sikh members of the Communist Party in Punjab would have supported the demand for a Pakistan. If they had, at least some of them would have been given shelter by their fellow communists and stayed back until the situation improved.

I am aware of only one communist leader who stayed back, a Sindhi trade union leader (as usual I have forgotten his name) who not only stayed back but chose to remain in a Pakistani jail instead of going to India when offered that choice.

#34
Cliff .
Hindutva may be monolithic but not India

How can pak be considered more diverse than India.Pakistan has ownly 4 states and languages .India not only has more than 25 states but atleast 20 regional languages and cultures.

The so called book by PC Joshi is infact a 'booklet' i.e publicity material of CPI in those days. The booklet was translated into all Indian languages.

There's a similar 'book' on the subject with special focus on Jinnah by Vasant Naik.

There're abt 3-4 flaws in this write-up.

Very disappoimnted YLH spending his knowledge and efforts of long gone distinct things.
Hope he can write some informative objective about present goining things in court. Some understanding for Objection to General's election and basis for challenge or Can president shileld corrouption by forgivance Fatawa. I wonder what the highest book of law says about this and is it against equality of Justice as all others corroupt can claim to be given same deal as they have not done as much looting. Some times it comes to find amoung all nations only these things can happen in Pkaistan which was founded by person who was attorney , a peson in law profession.

Sooar ke Chuttar Pakistan approached USSR but India was already in cahoots

all you monolithic hinduvtas please repeat after me

"Im all out of love, Im so lost without you
I know you were right, believing for so long
Im all out of love, what am I without you
I cant be too late to say I was so wrong"

that is the only sensible thing you can say everytime the diversity of pakistanis is pointed out to you. Remember
and repeat !!!

"Then another ignorant Hindu writes "Communists do Moscow's bidding. So, if Commies were pro Pak, how come Pakistan post 1947 itself became Pro America? Serve the commies right."

You fool pakistan had to ally with the US to counter India."

Abay Gadhey kee gand, why did Pakistan not join USSR to counter India? If anything, in the post partition environment, India was closer to US than Pakistan. Indian proximity to USSR only took off later.

Yasser Thanks for bringing out this info. Communists were the only truly secular and neutral force in India if they understood the muslim demand for self determination and their desire to have a substantial weight at the center or a confederal arrangement their must have been some weight and legitimacy in that demand, after all we couldnt live as second class citizens to hindus as the muslims of India do today.

I will give you an example at a hindu wedding I went for they informed me that the girl had been a muslim but we had done her "shuddhi" before she married the boy i.e. the secular hindu Indians had converted her.

Then another asked me stupid questions about eid and ramzan and muslims which a 5 year old in the states would not. I wondered wether he came from a country with 140M muuslims.

He probably thought all muslims were terrorits but was to polite to say that; I wonder in which dungeon they keep their muslims' the guy had probably never interacted witha muslim from his social starta.

You can see from the speech of this Kaalchakra; sanatani; laddu, jay, arjun etc the level of hatred and propoganda

Mohar: "Like J-man himself said, I paraphrase: TNT was born when the first muslim rode his donkey across khyber pass...

So the TNT "seed" is pretty-much organic... There ain't nothing to blame on anyone... it's like a persistent scab on part of the body politic that never really goes away... the choice was to either treat it to keep under control or to expose and pick on it to spread..."

Dude you would sound convincing if it wasnt for the fact that secularists like Jinnah and sajjad zaheer supported the demand.


Then you said: " See - the problem with these "analyses" that YLH vomits out every few weeks is that - it assumes Muslim League was some kind of holy entity whose wishes and demands should have been given any consideration... ML was a gang of feudals and regressive riff-raff who should have been treated with absolute contempt, which is exactly what congress did"


Yes this was precisely Nehru's view, maybe also Gandhi's no wonder no one in the muslim league trusted them.

Another Gem "The theory of incompatible perspectives.

Consider the american civil war - there was sure "incompatible perspectives" between north and south... Had Lincoln compromised with south - where would we be today?... Would you want him to compromise... Of course not... he rightly pulled the plug - fought the southerners hard... whole country is better for that...

In this case - Congress pulled the plug but let them go... and we are all better for that.."

So the muslims of India were/are equivalent to southern slave owning whites? no wonder their was a partition.

Then Kaal chakra writes: "For Indians, it is critical to remember that communits have never been part of the Indian nation, as such." yes Indian as in Hindu nation muslims and communists have never and wil never be a part of; hardluck.

another gem; "mohar11, totally incompatible perspectives never compromise, nor should they." yes and they didnt and we are glad for that.


Then another ignorant Hindu writes "Communists do Moscow's bidding. So, if Commies were pro Pak, how come Pakistan post 1947 itself became Pro America? Serve the commies right."

You fool pakistan had to ally with the US to counter India.


In the end having seen the perspective of the hindus we are glad partition took place.

Communists do Moscow's bidding. So, if Commies were pro Pak, how come Pakistan post 1947 itself became Pro America? Serve the commies right.

Kaal
[...Manto's POV it is critical to point out that the demand for Pakistan was not made by just 'mad mullahs'...]

What the heck are you talking about? As YLH never tires of telling you - mad mullahs were actually opposed to pakiland... YLH has mentioned commie support to further validate and legitimize ML's position as opposed to Congress position...

As for commies - we don't need a reminder from anybody regarding who they are... Actually - I am not too bothered about their so-called support for pakiland... it didn't really matter...

WOW...manto is going all out in his attempts to whitewash pureland's PRESENT as the cradle of islamic terrorism..

sorry manto..pakis love mo more than mao..

Re: # 24
you are joking kaal bhai!

The closest religious philosophy to communist ideology is hindu philosophy of Chaarwaak which has conveniently been ignored by sanatni hindus!

array bhai log, the Congress-Muslim League stuff has been done to death. The interesting aspect of Manto's piece is about the role and the ideology of communists. And that is something important to both Pakistanis and Indians.

From Manto's POV it is critical to point out that the demand for Pakistan was not made by just 'mad mullahs' as Indians brought up on Congressi history might mistakenly conclude. For Indians, it is critical to remember that communits have never been part of the Indian nation, as such.

I was going thru the interacts and was shocked by what Mohar was writing except that by the time I replied 22 had come in place.

So let me say what Mohar can not/shall/not will not say. True Hindu ideologues had said this that Independence was a Hindu problem alone (1 of Savarkar's failings, Savarkar's biggest failing and though NOT the only failing). The Muslims also had to be fought no matter what the cost to get independence.

To prevent parition you had to recognise that the Muslims were bigger enemies than Brits and you have to fight a civil war with them to win this.

So in plain and simple terms we Hindus did not have the balls either to fight as in GODSE but not Savarkar not take it to a logical conclusion a la Ambedkar in exchange of population. We only had it in us to compromise and accept what happened to the Hindus in the Muslim majority areas as unfortunate. Indeed the so called Hindu nationalists were the Arya Samaji scum who themselves did not do anything but later badmouthed the Sardars who were the only Hindus to acquit themselves bravely in 1947. And who incidentally thanks to these same Arya Samists fx are no longer Hindu (though still Bhartiya)

We are now represented by pathetic creatures like these 3 interactors Laddu, Arjun and Jayp who mouth stoopid devoid of intellectuality crap but try and potray secularism. They are similar to chooths like Nehru, Patel, Bose and Kripanani and the assorted bunch of Kangressi bastaaards of 47 and the subsequent bunch of RSS/BJS/BJP bastards who claim to represent the Hindus since 47.

Our tragedy (th tragedy of the Hindus) much more than Pakistan is that we have never had a Hindu leader in India the closest who comes is Ambedkar and who later was an anti Hindu but yet too much of a Hindu to ally himself with the 4M enemies of teh Hindu Dharam (see sabha.info on what these 4 M's are).

I have at times felt it would have been better that my Great Grandfather had embraced Islam in 1947 and then at least 1 would have been a genuinely 1st class citizen of Pakistan than a second class one in India.

Note I feel it some times. But to cut an emotionally charged and intellectually devoid Nehruvian type half drunk rambling:

Gaand mein dum nahin hum kisi se kam nahin. This sums up the entire story of the Hindus.

So what if Pakistan came into being Gandhi won Oscars and Jinnah was portrayed by the Dracula guys.

My potty smells nicer than Paki potty and it is firmer also with nice texture, I can beat any Paki in Potty contest.

Fkkkkkkkk u most of my country men.

Sanatani

P.S I think the smallest minority in India is Hindus in my whole life, WHOLE FUKKING LIFE as a 15 year card carrying veteran of RSS/BJP/VHP 81-96 and a renegade since then I have not met more than 50 in my life and known well exactly 8. By Hindu i merely mean some one who may be atheist or agnostic but has a Hindu consciousness to be very simply described as there are some thing we call Indian that are totally Hindu e.g. Yoga

Also, drlokraj, for communists, the Congress had to be a Hindu organization, out and out. And in religious terms, communism is infinintely closer to Islam than to anything else (except some sort of kibbutz living of the Jews). So, were one to accept a religious framework, Islam-communism unity and political alliance is natural.

drlokraj, I don't think one can be a communist (or communist sympathizer) and look at any of this as a blunder.

"In theory, the communist ideology supports the right of self determination of all the nationalities, but communist parties of almost all the major communist nations have gone against this principle--China is prime example."

Communism does not have any probems with the concept of 'nation' if the nation itself is dominated by communists.

For communists, India did not exist before 1947 (and has only limited use since).

--------------------

mohar11, totally incompatible perspectives never compromise, nor should they. Those who advocate compromise without highlighting differences are actually invariably working for the interests of one side or other.

Kaal
The theory of incompatible perspectives.

Consider the american civil war - there was sure "incompatible perspectives" between north and south... Had Lincoln compromised with south - where would we be today?... Would you want him to compromise... Of course not... he rightly pulled the plug - fought the southerners hard... whole country is better for that...

In this case - Congress pulled the plug but let them go... and we are all better for that...

You should never compromise with fools and black-mailers, no matter what... it will never end... you will be asked to compromise again and again...

That is probably the biggest blunder of the CPI since its inception and it is also worth remembering that CPI was only in its infancy at that time and was trying to drag some land from below the feet of congress. The other factor was Stalin's influence over the world communist affairs at that time who was responsible for dealing with the question of nationalities within the USSR, though there was a big paradox in that.

In theory, the communist ideology supports the right of self determination of all the nationalities, but communist parties of almost all the major communist nations have gone against this principle--China is prime example. But leaving theory behind, on Indian scene, communists have faltered on so many times and the proof is their ever shrinking base.

Nowhere,the communist principle accepts religion to be the basis of a nation.

Kaal
[...we had two incompatible perspectives - that of Congress on one side, and of the Muslim League and the communists on the other...]

yeah - "incompatible perspectives" indeed... commies got wiped out in very system they supported... that's as incompatible as your perspective can get...

Read #19 - Pakiland Movement was a hack-job - the fact that commies supported it proves that even further... it always pays to recognize bad products when you see one... so of course congress didn't buy it... "incompatible perspectives", my foot...

"Pakiland Movement" was basically a hack-job as far as such movements go... it was like hack-jobs bad software engineers sometimes put-out at the last moment before a major release... it would be very effective in short term but will crash and burn the system in long run...

Which is what happened... "Pakiland Movement" was quickly built over a few years by banding together disparate modules of feudals, landlords, unwashed masses and with a somewhat nice "User Interface" (J-man) on the top... there was no compatibilty between the modules, there was no clear specifications, use cases, functionality groups.... it was a classic hack-job...

it worked in the short term, it got the job done... soon after, it crashed... who is suprised?...

That is definitely the Congress view, not the view of the Muslim League or the communists, both of whom obviously viewed the Congress as the spoiler party. :)

Basically, we had two incompatible perspectives - that of Congress on one side, and of the Muslim League and the communists (Muslims and Hindus) on the other.

See - the problem with these "analyses" that YLH vomits out every few weeks is that - it assumes Muslim League was some kind of holy entity whose wishes and demands should have been given any consideration... ML was a gang of feudals and regressive riff-raff who should have been treated with absolute contempt, which is exactly what congress did...

J-man, with his good reputation, did put a respectable facade on this gang of jack-a$$es but that shouldn't and didn't really fool anybody... But then once the banner of islam was adopted and masses were pulled with false promises - there wasn't much congress or anybody else can do about it... except to pull the plug...

Re: # 14
[...then they would continue to face problems even in Pakistan, whose creation they actively worked for...]

Which is what has happened - commies were wiped out in pakiland, whose creation they actively worked for... commies didn't see that coming, they couldn't figure out that they are basically working for their own demise - they are that stupid ... so why should have congress listened to commie proposals?...

And like you said - Muslim league did not get anywhere so long as it was a party of petty feudals... so they picked up the banner of islam to gather mass support... That gave even less reason for congress to compromise... and rightly so...

Communists support for anything is immediate ground for dismissal... commies have been wrong then - and they are wrong now - in most everything they ever do and say...

So the point is moot...

mohar11, in practical terms, the point is that communists continue to live among us.

If they think differently than the rest of us do, we will continue to face unique set of problems from them.

(And if communists reject nationalism for their own ideology, then they would continue to face problems even in Pakistan, whose creation they actively worked for. But probably you were speaking only of India, Mohar?).

Kaal

YLH has a right to bay at the moon... the question is - what's the point?

Kaal

Like J-man himself said, I paraphrase: TNT was born when the first muslim rode his donkey across khyber pass...

So the TNT "seed" is pretty-much organic... There ain't nothing to blame on anyone... it's like a persistent scab on part of the body politic that never really goes away... the choice was to either treat it to keep under control or to expose and pick on it to spread...

The choice was made in 1940's... A limb had to be caught off save the rest of the body...

Yes, and then this party of petty feudals figured out
they could use religion card to incite and excite the
masses to get what they wanted for themselves and it
worked.

mohar, the Muslim league did not get anywhere so long as it was a party of petty feudals, interested in their respective holdings and lands. Besides, YLH has a right to explain to people that the demand for special arrangements for Muslims had the full backing of communists, including communist Hindus.

Yet another example of same-old whining and wishy-washy babbling from YLH... congress did this, congress did that... history would have been this or that...

Congress wanted a united india, but only on their terms... any compromises for sake of "unity" would have compromised the unity itself... it's either that or partition...

Besides - there was no reason for congress to compromise for a bunch of no-good feudals and land-owners ganged up in name of "Muslims League", with no larger mission or vision - except to blackmail and extort privileges for themselves...

It's really that simple...

shah, it may not be possible to figure out who planted the "seeds" of Two Nation Theory.

In India, lots of very different people lived together. One could assign that to Hindu weakeness or Hindu tolerance. Hindu religionists, the Muslim League and the Communists ended up arguing that Muslims were so very different from the rest (or from the majority Hindus) that they could not live together unless very unique arrangements were made specially for Muslims.

There isn't any 'blame' necessary for this view, and certainly not just to apportion it to Mr. Jinnah, if communists too actively supported the making of those special provisions.

Yasser, this is quite interesting, thanks!

if Hindus planted the seed of Two nation theory why did Jinnah bought it lock stock and barrel.

And if TNT was Jinnahs own baby how did it help ALL muslims of he subcontinent.
Muslims lived intimately woven into the fabric of indian villages for thousand of years.


Jinnah is a villain for all Indian Muslims: writer
EXPRESS NEWS SERVICE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --

NEW DELHI, April 18: ``Indian Muslims would shed every last drop of their blood before allowing Pakistan to take over Kashmir. There would be a virtual genocide in case of such an eventuality.''
Speaking on the `Challenge before the Indian Muslim in the next millennium', writer Dr Rafiq Zakaria said in these changing times, if the Indian Muslims want to survive, then they have to take help from all quarters.

They have to stop wallowing in their misery and have to give priority to education and upliftment of their community.

Describing Mohammad Ali Jinnah as the `villain of the Independence movement', he said Jinnah had done more damage to India and Indian Muslims than any other medieval ruler and generations of Muslims would curse him.``Jinnah divided the Muslims into three categories -- Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Indian Muslims.

The Biharis in Bangladesh are persecuted and there are frequent reports of massacres of those who migrated to Pakistan and their leader lives in London. The Indian Muslimsare not much better off since the Hindus think that their loyalties lie with Pakistan. In fact, the Indian Muslims hate Pakistan more than the Hindus because they have suffered a lot because of it,'' he pointed out.

He added that a perusal of history showed that the two communities were very close and it was only in the past 150 years that relations between the two communities soured. To restore harmony between the two communities, the Muslim community should reassure the Hindus that they are an integral part of India, who have played an important role in the development of the country and are as proud, as they are, of being Indians.

if Hindus planted the seed of Two nation theory why did Jinnah bought it lock stock and barrel.

And if TNT was Jinnahs own baby how did it help ALL muslims of he subcontinent.
Muslims lived intimately woven into the fabric of indian villages for thousand of years.


Jinnah is a villain for all Indian Muslims: writer
EXPRESS NEWS SERVICE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --

NEW DELHI, April 18: ``Indian Muslims would shed every last drop of their blood before allowing Pakistan to take over Kashmir. There would be a virtual genocide in case of such an eventuality.''
Speaking on the `Challenge before the Indian Muslim in the next millennium', writer Dr Rafiq Zakaria said in these changing times, if the Indian Muslims want to survive, then they have to take help from all quarters.

They have to stop wallowing in their misery and have to give priority to education and upliftment of their community.

Describing Mohammad Ali Jinnah as the `villain of the Independence movement', he said Jinnah had done more damage to India and Indian Muslims than any other medieval ruler and generations of Muslims would curse him.``Jinnah divided the Muslims into three categories -- Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Indian Muslims.

The Biharis in Bangladesh are persecuted and there are frequent reports of massacres of those who migrated to Pakistan and their leader lives in London. The Indian Muslimsare not much better off since the Hindus think that their loyalties lie with Pakistan. In fact, the Indian Muslims hate Pakistan more than the Hindus because they have suffered a lot because of it,'' he pointed out.

He added that a perusal of history showed that the two communities were very close and it was only in the past 150 years that relations between the two communities soured. To restore harmony between the two communities, the Muslim community should reassure the Hindus that they are an integral part of India, who have played an important role in the development of the country and are as proud, as they are, of being Indians.

Also, shah, Muslim-Communist unity in India certainly tends to be very helpful to Muslims (many if not most of the communists being Hindus). Yet working with communists is/has always been a double-edged sword.

Communists are nice people, but their collective approach tends to be distinctly anti-national (unless one can imagine something like a communist nation) since their entire ideology is 'internationally-focused.' They too can't see nations as valid groups except communist nations.

Shah, when Hindus and Muslims could not overcome their imagined mutual insecurities, despite living together for centuries, speaking the same language(s), eating the same foods, and belonging to the same racials stock, it seems very odd of Mr. Guha to expect that the British would not/ should not have had their insecurities with respect to us....

Or to demand that the British should not have left so soon when they were being clearly told to leave, and Hindus and Muslims did not appear to be in very peaceful mood.

-------------------

More to the point, Mountbatten's biographer too raises the point that has been made earlier here:

Given what Hindus and Muslims were doing and saying in those days, what is the basis of the holier-than-thou belief (except liberal wish for Hindu-Muslim brotherhood) that violence would have abated or lessened had the British delayed their withdrawl, and not actually much worsened and become geographically more widespread?

PAST & PRESENT

Could Partition have been made less bloody?

RAMACHANDRA GUHA

It could be one of the most tantalising questions of modern Indian history.

THE most tantalising question of modern Indian history undoubtedly is: "could the Partition of India have been avoided?" Ever since August 15,1947, this question has been asked by all kinds of Indians, who, naturally, have given all kinds of answers. An equally important question, yet one much less frequently asked, is the following: "Even if Partition was, by 1946 or so, inescapable, could it have come about with less loss of life?"

In February 1947, the Labour Government in London announced that the British would quit India by June 1948. Three months later, the new Viceory, Lord Mountbatten, decided to dramatically foreshorten the date of departure, bringing it forward to August 1947. His official biographer, Philip Ziegler, has justified the decision in the following words: "Once the principle of Partition had been accepted, it was inevitable that communalism would rage freely. The longer the period before the transfer of power, the worse the tension and the greater the threat that violence would spread. Today it was the Punjab, tomorrow Bengal, Hyderabad, or any of the myriad societies in the sub-continent where Hindu and Muslim lived cheek by jowl. Two hundred thousand could have become two million, even 20 million."

Blistering attack


In fact, even while Ziegler wrote (in 1985) the toll of the Partition violence was estimated at one million dead; some later scholars have suggested the figure is closer to two million. How many would it have been if the British had left, as planned, in June 1948? In a blistering attack on Mountbatten's reputation, Andrew Roberts accuses him of softness and vacillation — "whenever he had to exhibit toughness, Mountbatten took the most invertebrate line possible" — of being unwilling to crack down effectively on communal violence and, more specifically, of understaffing the Punjab Boundary Force and not supplying it with air cover. Contra Ziegler, Roberts is convinced that the "over-hasty withdrawal" led "to more rather than fewer deaths".

Mountbatten had been warned by officials who knew the province that the Punjab was where the worst violence would occur. If, when the time came, there weren't enough troops to deal with rioters, one reason was that the British were paranoid that they, the rulers, would be attacked as soon as the decision to leave was made public. This feeling was widespread among British officials, priests, planters, and merchants. In the summer of 1946, a young officer wrote to his family of how he thought that when the British left, "we shall virtually have the whole country against us (for long enough at all events to wipe out our scattered European population) before the show becomes, as inevitably it will, a communal scrap between Hindus and Muslims".

The policy of the Raj in its last days was to make the protection of British lives top priority. In February 1947, the Governor of Bengal, Sir Frederick Burrows, stated that his "first action in the event of an announcement of a date for withdrawal of British power ... would be to have the troops `standing to' and prepare for a concentration of outlying Europeans at very short notice as soon as hostile reactions began to show themselves". In fact, in the summer of 1947, a white man (or woman) was the safest person in India. No one was interested in killing them. But their imagined insecurity meant that many army units were placed near European settlements, instead of being freed for riot control elsewhere.

Postponed


The instinct of self-preservation also lay behind the decision to postpone the Punjab Boundary Award until after the date of Independence. The Punjab Governor, Sir Ewans Jenkins, was very keen that the award be announced as soon as it was ready, so that district officers could be placed in their respective Dominions, Indians in India and Pakistanis in Pakistan; and troops moved to key locations in advance of the transfer of power. The man charged with drawing the boundary lines, Sir Cyril Radcliffe, was ready with the award on August 9 itself. Yet Lord Mountbatten chose to make the award public only after August 15. The Viceroy's explanation for the delay was strange, to say the least: "Without question, the earlier it was published, the more the British would have to bear responsibility for the disturbances which would undoubtedly result". By the same token, "the later we postponed publication, the less would the inevitable odium react upon the British".

In other words, let the natives cop the blame for the horrible fall-out of Independence and Partition.

As a rule, one must only write of history how it happened, not of how it might have happened. Would a more extended time frame — an announcement in April 1947 that the British would quit in a year's time — allow for a less painful process of division? Would more active troop deployments and an earlier announcement of the Radcliffe Award have led to less violence in the Punjab? Perhaps. Or perhaps not. As it turned out, the most appropriate epitaph on the last days of the Raj was provided by the Punjab official who told a young social worker from Oxford: "You British believe in fair play. You have left India in the same condition of chaos as you found it".

E-mail: ramguha@vsnl.com

What else is new.The rt Wing hindu mahasabha etc already blame Left for Pakistan creation .
And the fundamentalists in India Lump 'Pinko' with muslims 'I fact some one have said India has new religion of left with Muslims!!