Nirmala Deshpande - A Truly Great Soul

#96 Posted by majumdar

Majumdar bhai, if I'm not mistaken you once said that the bloodshed during the Partition occurred because the British had advanced the date by a few months. You have also blamed the Congress and not Jinnah for the Partition.

Re: # 96

Harish Brother,

BJKumar's emotions against partition is quite understandable. He comes from Punjab and partition had a direct effect on the people of Punjab. There are many good things that has come out after the partition in the ensuing years. I am not sure if India had remained a single entity, it would have walked down the same course and the results at this point of time could have been undesirable.

I think neither of the majority, living today, feels bad about what happened earlier. It is time we exorcised the sadness, if at all.

I subscribe to Majumdar's thoughts on this. It is time we started living as good neighbours and stop enriching the wallets of others by sustaining hostilities.

#98 by vengatramanan

Vengat bhai, I am absolutely not against the Partition. It is the manner in which it was accomplished that I am against. While Pakistan escaped the harmful effects of that, it is still visible in India because we have a substantial Muslim population and the distrust it brought between the communities can still be seen and experienced.

Harishbhai,

(you once said that the bloodshed during the Partition occurred because the British had advanced the date by a few months. )

Indeed that is ture. I have balemd Brits for the violence not for the Partition.

(You have also blamed the Congress and not Jinnah for the Partition. )

Sigh! Why wud I "blame" someone for a thing that was good? All I have said is that niether INC nor ML were willing to come to terms.

Vengat,

Re; 99

Thanks. It is time we (Injuns/Pakis) reconciled ourselves to separate existence and learn to live amicably rather than fight all the time.

(BJKumar's emotions against partition is quite understandable. He comes from Punjab )

He comes from Bihar, not Punjab. And incidentally my folks come from what is now B'desh and I have not the least regret that Bengal got partitioned and that my ancestral village wud forever be a foreign land for me.

Regards

#101 by majumdar

I have balemd Brits for the violence not for the Partition.

Majumdar bhai, I am well and truly flabbergasted now. If there was no Partition, would there have been violence? Who raised the Partition demand? Wasn't it Jinnah? So logically, shouldn't he be held responsible? When you can blame Gandhi for India's poor economic growth, why can't Jinnah be blamed for the violence during the Partition?

Harishbhai,

I have never blamed MKG for India's poor economic growth, I have merely blamed him for making JLN the PM.

Re: Partition

Had INC accpeted all of ML's demands there wud be no Partition either.
Had INC formed a coalition with Fazlu in Bengal and Allah Bux in Sindh and formed honourable coaltions with ML in Punjab and UP, therw ud have been no partition.
Had MKG not first roused the Muslims during the Khilafat movement and then abadnoned it without a word to Muslims after Chauri Chaura Hindoo Muslim distrust may have been halted.

Regards

Re: # 103

Majumdar,

I am not a student of history. Whatever it is, you cannot ascribe partition motives to Gandhiji. Do you mean to say that we should have been perfect and have yielded to all the whims of Muslims to keep the country intact?

To my knowledge Gandhiji was ready to go all the distance, human wisdom at that point of time would have allowed. Muslims (majority of them) never expected the partition demand to go through. They thought it would be wiser on them to keep Gandhi&Co on tenterhooks.

Vengat...
Improperly managed partition had destroyed Punjab and Bengal (most powerful states in British India). Punjab recovered. Bengal was totally neglected by successive govt. It was Jinnah and ML's greatest work againt India ( damage two most powerful states).

#103 by majumdar

I have never blamed MKG for India's poor economic growth, I have merely blamed him for making JLN the PM.

Majumdar bhai, in #91, you said the following:

#91 by majumdar

I blame him for imposing JLN as India's PM who (along with his daughter) screwed up India's economy.

If we go by the logic in this post, since Jinnah asked for the Partition, and the British for whatever reason did not/could not prevent violence and since the violence happened, Jinnah is to blame. Isn't it?

Had INC accpeted all of ML's demands there wud be no Partition either.

The ML demands were atrociously unfair and against the very principles of democracy. Do you seriously think the INC could have accepted those and still remained a true and fair representative of all Indians?

All said and done, I don't want to press you on this anymore lest we repeat another Derby here :-) You are entitled to your opinion.

Vengat,

(Do you mean to say that we should have been perfect and have yielded to all the whims of Muslims to keep the country intact?)

No. And thankfully we didnt and allowed the Partition to happen. The point is that the Muslims and Hindoos had different POVs and it was best to go separate ways.

But do I take it that you agree that Muslims had far too many whims and fancies that were not acceptable to Hindoos. In that case would it not be unfair to blame MAJ (pbuh) for the Parttition, rather the blame shud be put on the entire Muslim community.

(Gandhiji was ready to go all the distance)

He did say "the country will be divided over my dead body" but didn't keep his word on Aug 14-15, 1947.

Regards

Harishbhai,

(The ML demands were atrociously unfair and against the very principles of democracy.)

From our POV, yes. But from the POV of Muslims who feared Hindoo domination, no?

(Do you seriously think the INC could have accepted those and still remained a true and fair representative of all Indians?)

No. The ML demands were not acceptable to Hindoos and INC wud have been untrue to Hindoos had they accepted it.

(lest we repeat another Derby here )

Nothing wrong in having a derby as long as decorum is maintained. And to be fair you have always been polite and fair as far as interactions with me is concerned.

Regards

Re: # 102
Haris...
Ans: Partition without violence was quite a possibility. The Brit administration was quite capable enough to handle such situation. At the time of direct action day, Brits just allowed Surawardy to carry out massacre.When British Govt. decided to leave, they had almost allowed the anarchy to prevail.

Re: # 107

Majumdar,

"But do I take it that you agree that Muslims had far too many whims and fancies that were not acceptable to Hindoos. In that case would it not be unfair to blame MAJ (pbuh) for the Parttition, rather the blame shud be put on the entire Muslim community."

The foremost duty of a leader is to censure if his followers go wrong. When Gandhi could reproach his Hindu brethren, why not Jinnah?

Periyar makes a good example...

Re: # 107; majumdar sahib,

" And thankfully we didnt and allowed the Partition to happen. The point is that the Muslims and Hindoos had different POVs and it was best to go separate ways."

Have they gone separate ways sir? There are as many (at least) muslims in India as the population of Pakistan.

How happy and supportive would you be if they all decide to have a repeat of 1947 in the future?

I think we all need to move on from this parochial attitudes like I said on the other board

Khuda Hafiz

Re: # 102
Haris...
Jinnah was representing moslems. They will resort to any level to achieve their goal. They are not loosing anything. Why should not we/indians make it in such a way that, it does not create ugly situation?
Couple of gems from MG...
"Islam unites, it does not devide...The division of India will be unislamic"- So, he was preaching Islam to moslems. How Islam unites? Khilafat movement...and India will be under Khalifa of middle east...