The Conspiracy Theory

Re:pavocavalry#155

Very thoughtful and interesting analyses!! I would like to take issue with you regarding the concept of domination - muslim domination before 1857 or fears of hindu domination. The reality is way more complex than that. Muslim invaders did establish political rule over India, but the reality is that they established a system that coopted hindus in a big way. Mughal rule could hardly be called muslim domination, given that hindus were in top positions in basically an inclusive, meritiocratic system. Even military generals were Rajputs like Man Singh or Jaswant Singh under Mughals. In fact the Mughals would send Rajput generals to fight against the Marathas. Secondly from an economic point of view, both hindus and muslims were in the same boat. In fact, during mughal rule the treasury and finance areas were managed by hindus. The subcontinent was a rich place under Mughal rule and attracted attention all over the world for its riches. It is a fact of history that during entire Mughal rule, there was not one instance where all hindus joined forces to fight against Mughal rule - compare that to the middle east which saw religious jihads and crusades for centuries. One can speculate that it was because hindus were cowards, but then how do we explain the rebellion of 1857 where hindus wanted to violently get rid of the british?

The fact is that british rule was the worst period in Indian history for ordinary Indians - hindus or muslims. Economically India was reduced to penury - massive famines the likes of which were never seen before nor have been been seen since. The only jobs were government jobs, given that industry was non existent thanks to the british industries dumping goods, while agriculture was exploited viciously to impoverish people. The fabuluously rich subcontinent - sone ki chidiya - became a third world state under british rule. Politically the british were never inclusive keeping a strict racist attitude towards all indians and excluding indians from higher positions. Finally the british did everything possible to make hindus and muslims fight against each other - deliberately egging on each community against the other by scaremongering. You are right that fear was the motivation for Pakistan, but that fear was created by british propaganda coupled with the fact that government jobs were the only source of employment, ergo if you didnt have complete political control, you had no economic future.

It is indicative to see how the subcontinent has evolved after the accursed british left. The inherent diversity of the subcontinent has forced India to retain a democratic and reasonably secular system, where different communities compromise with each other as needed. There is no absolute control by any one group of people. The economic resurgence of India is not surprising either. That is the natural order of things, until the british showed up with their 'manhoos' presence. Hindu-muslim relations are coming out of their 200 year mutual paranoia and settling down to what it always was - mutual respect and non-interference. I will submit that ordinary Pakistanis now understand the dynamic of the subcontinent and want to embrace it as well. The lack of desire to fight India any more is quite evident. On the contrary, I think Pakistanis want normal relations with India and take part in its economic resurgence. Most Pakistanis want to focus on economic progress and have little interest in religious extremism.

So the bottom line is that the British rule created enormous deformities in the natural order of things in the subcontinent and that situation is naturally correcting itself.

Re: # 160:-- I agree with your idea that Mughals could not rule without Hindu support.As a matter of fact there is a school of thought which thinks that Hindu advisors manipulated the Mughals into crushing the Sikhs because the Hindus feared the Sikh religion which I think was the most dynamic religion that India produced.

Amin sahib,

First of all a warm welcome to chowk. Very much appreciate the articles you have put up, only one gripe. The paras are too long and very hard on the eyes. If you could kindly shorten them a bit for readability.

Re: # 150

{{{(1) Why he kep Section 9 of 1935 Act allowing Governor General the power to dissolve the Assembly.Ghulam Mohammad made use of this later to dissolve the Assembly }}}

Pakistan became independent on Aug 14, 1947 and MAJ (pbuh) died within a year of that event. Maybe he did not have the time. Do you have any evidence to suggest that MAJ (pbuh) had intended that provision to stay on for ever? When did India abolish section- 9- I presume only on Jan 26, 1950 when the Consitution was adopted. However I may be wrong on this, if so please correct me. If however what I say is true, India took almost 2 and a half year to frame a constitution and mind you India (and INC) had a much bigger talent base to go about framing a constitution which Pakistan and ML did not have to the same extent. In any case, between 9/11 (of 1948) and 1954 there was enough time to frame a constitution and repeal Section 9. So why was it not done? Can you blame MAJ (pbuh) for it?

{{{.(2) Why Jinnah did not agree to Mountbatten's formula (Refers HV Hodson) that Muslim majority states join Pakistan and Hindu Majority states join India .}}}

This indeed was extremely foolish on MAJ’s part. If he had accepted this formula Kashmir would have been Pakistan’s. India was in 1947 far more concerned about Hyderabad and other Muslim and non-Muslim enclaves within India and wud have happily foregone J&K. But MAJ (pbuh) wanted not only JK on demo grounds but was also angling for Hyderabad and Junagadh (Muslim rulers) and also intriguing with Zubeida to get Rajputana principalities for Pakistan (on God knows what basis). The result India too resorted to similar double standards and since India carried a bigger gun, India got what they wanted, Pakistan was left with POK and NA only.

Ranjit bhai,

(The lack of desire to fight India any more is quite evident.)

Unfortunately, nowhere is this "lack of desire" more reflected than on the cricket field (most of the times). With the result that Indo-Pak matches are about as exciting as WI-NZ.

Regards

#159 Posted by viqarm,

There's nothing common politically between the Swat militancy and that of Waziristan, though ideological basis may be the same.

Firstly, Mullah Fazlullah and his men were never fighters but merely agitators. Their Lal Masjid connection forced them into militancy. They had no direct political nexus with the situation in Wairistan, but with some helpers from Waziristan and Bajaur they were able to take control of 5 out of 7 Swat districts from paramilitary and police, but had to vacate when regular army moved in with heavy artillery. Now they're in the mountains and will carry out hit and run attacks on army checkposts till a political settlement (i.e. implementation of Nizaam-e-Adal Ordinance) is achieved and that will be that.

Secondly, Swat has no border with Afghanistan therefore any logistical assistance from Taliban to them has to come from Bajaur and pass through upper Dir. That is the crucial territory which if things worsen and Bajaur's Mullah Faqir's militia decides to jump into Upper Dir, that may make things very difficult indeed for the Pakistan Army and it will be tough to maintain government control in Swat.

Very interesting times, indeed.

Re:majumdar
"With the result that Indo-Pak matches are about as exciting as WI-NZ."

No kidding!! I was in Delhi last month when the first Indo-Pak test match was taking place at Feroze Shah Kotla. No one seemed to be interested in what was happening. Even after India won, there were no firecrackers or jubiliation. People just clapped and went home. I was telling my dad that finally we desis are becoming civilized and treating cricket as just a game.

On the other hand, there was a trade fair going on in Pragati Maidan. Pakistan had a huge pavilion with a food stall by some famous Karachi restaurant. The crowd was unbelievable as they were buying up pakistani goods and gobbling down the food. There was an Afghan stall as well and they were doing roaring business as well. Baap bada na bhaiyya, subse bada rupaiya... :-)

... contd ...

As for Swat retreat impact on Waziristan, there is none. FATA is quite another story as Pavo has so efficiently elucidated.

Zee sahib,

(They had to vacate when regular army moved in with heavy artillery. Now they're in the mountains and will carry out hit and run attacks on army checkposts)

I have been saying this ever since the Swat insurgency began even though I have never been North-West of a straight line drawn from Jamnagar to Patiala!!!

Regards

Re: # 154

Majumdar:

HP said:
"(Pakistan is the direct result of INC's adventur-ism of the Quit India movement.)"

You said:
"I know that"

Your comment may be to corner and beat another point out of HP's ignorant comment.

It is absurd to call it an adventurism. Terming Quit India Movement as adventurism shows HP's ignorance, and his lack of understanding of Congress's role and actions to secure independence even. HP's ignorant comment insults those masses who, in the absence of their leaders, launched the most successful non-violent movement in the history.

Jails were filled, not just leaders were jailed. This made Brits realize just how many people they can jail.

There was a system to support QIM that worked even when Congress leaders were jailed. There were volunteers who will go to the polce line in batches after batches, day after day. There were women at the line, ready with first aid and bandages to nurse beaten and injured volunteers. The only violence was by the police. After a while even system started to overflow, and there were situations when there was no room let in jails. Brits did not know how to deal with QIM.

Pakistan was not a price of QIM. Pakistan was the result of partition of minds, that started when first time in early 1900's group of muslim leaders, and fuedels wrote the first letter to Lord Curzon (??) demanding separation. Muslim League believed in this letter and came out with its 14 (??) point agenda.

Jinnah for some time was a member of both Muslim League and Congress. He did not see a conflict. Probably, he saw Congress, just as other hindu nationalist did, as an organization with the sole goal to attain independence.

Congress could have have been disbanded shortly after the independence, as Gandhi had suggested. Although, the consequences of no Congress period, could have desastrously delayed or damaged the process of building of democratic institutions in India.

Jinnah only delivered the partition. Minds had been partitioned a long before. Quit India Movement, and not Jinnah's typewriter, delivered independence of India. It also became a reason for Pakistan's independence also. This movement convinced the Brits that governance of civilians in India would no longer be possible with few brits, brown babus, police and officers of armed forces. The entire system can be overloaded to a grinding halt.

First nail in the coffin of British Empire would be a more appropriate name for QIM.

The jailed leaders could not tried for treason, sedition and similarly charges that were brought against them to put them in jail, who would then have to be freed. Many local regional leaders would turn into even harder liners.

In Congress leadership and Muslim League leadership Brits saw moderates who would work with them in post independence situation. There are reasons to be accept that Brits had felt that Pakistan lacked leaders, yet they were in a rush to get out. Brits owed sterling debt to India (and Pakistan) after the war, which could not be immediately paid back. British economy was devastated by Hitlers bombings and long war had drained resources. It did not have the same benefit of Marshall Plan that Germany and Japan had. Britain had to rely on Commonwealth for trade and commerce for reconstruction and rebuilding. Brits repaid their sterling debt mainly through preferred trade with the Commonwealth of nations.

Commonwealth citizens, including from India and Pakistan had equal benefits to the U.K. citizens in 40s and 50s. They introduced a voucher system to allow Indians and Pakistanis to come and work in England. There were welcoming centers to welcome these workers, talk about the difference of race issues later. As late as late 60s, Indian citizen living in England could vote in British elections.

Re: # 162

Pavocavalry Sahib:

You have poured in a lot of very interesting stuff to read. I wish you would have put it over a period. Your article on Chamb Sector completely aborbed me. If possible please put all your articles (e.g. impact of 1857-59 on Muslims of India and Pakistan) as separate essays here.

Your articles are refreshing change.

Anil sahib,

(First nail in the coffin of British Empire would be a more appropriate name for QIM. )

The nail in the coffin of the British Empire was struck by the "white Aryan racist, fascist,casteist, misoygnist bigoted freak" and the (willing/unwilling) sacrifices made by his German troops. Besdies, India had probably become a burden rather than asset for the Brits. So the "QIM" was a useless exercise as far as achieving Indian independence was concerned. But mercifully what it achieved was that it poisoned the Brits against the INC and made them more inclined towards ML and partition. The terms of the partition could actually have been worse of course (for instance J&K and undivided Bengal/Punjab cud have gone to pakistan) but fortunately JLN retrieved the situation well in time by bending backward to please both the Judge sahib and his wife (while MAJ (pbuh) was happily calling them two thorns).

Having said that I do think QIM, the Dandies' March and such other useless karnamas were not necessarily bad things-they created a sense of politicisation among the Injun masses which made transition to democracy a far more smooth affair than in Pakistan.

(Jinnah only delivered the partition. Minds had been partitioned a long before.)

I am glad you said this. MAJ (pbuh) was not solely responsible for partition as some Injuns (including on chowk) argue. Partition happened becuase large sections of Hanuds and Muslas were unable or unwilling to get along with each other.

Regards

Re: # 170:-- There is no doubt that Congress was the eal party.The Muslim League was a bunch of toadies.

Re: # 163

Dear Comrade

Please refer to Destruction of Democracy in Pakistan.India abolished Section 9 immediately after partition.

The Nizam of Hyderabad had heavily financed Muslim League so Mr Jinnah thought that somehow Hyderabad could be secured.A highly utopian and wishful ideal.

The constitution of Pakistan was delayed by all West Pakistanis including Liaquat so that the Bengalis chances of securing power could be sabotaged.

As you know the Bengalis were in majority and both Hindustanis and Punjabis regarded them as an inferior race.

A sad fact of Paki history.

regards

Agha

Amin sahib,

(India abolished Section 9 immediately after partition.)

Can you provide the source please. Thanks in advance. If India did indeed abolish this section immediately after Partition, it reflects indeed very well on the Indian politicos line of thinking.

(The constitution of Pakistan was delayed by all West Pakistanis including Liaquat)

Quite true. Only I hope you do not intend to saddle MAJ (pbuh) with the whole blame for it.

Diesel,

(There is no doubt that Congress was the eal party.The Muslim League was a bunch of toadies.)

Although I am otherwise staunchly pro- TNT/MAJ and anti-INC on this I am with you. INC was a very well evolved political party in 1947, while ML was a worthless entity if you take out MAJ (pbuh) himself.

Regards

Re: # 172:-- MAJ also mistrusted the Bengalis.He was surounded by Hindustani Muslims who manipulated him into the faux pas of declaring Urdu only as the national language of Pakistan thus severely damaging Bengali self esteem.However in case of constitution the prime miister can be blamed.

Source is Destruction of Democracy in Pakistan by an American jurist published by Oxford University Press.My froend Chief Justice Sajjad ALI Shah borrowed it in 2002 and has not returned it o date so I dont remember the authors name.

#zeemax various


ChachaZee,

Jhooth bolna achchhee baat naheen hai !!!!

In February 2007, you wanted us to believe that US itself had created 9/11.

All your original "conspiracy theories" have now been proved to be pure bunkum.

It is high time you decided to stick to facts and go low on conjecture.

All the best....