The Summer of ’47

Agreed that the primary responsibility for law and order at time of partition fell on the British, with Mountabatten being most directly responsible. What about the Indian and Pakistani leaders doing at the time (other than Gandhi who at least attempted to curb the violence)?

I have asked this (rhetorical) question before, so I think I better move on to some other subject on chowk. :-)

And certainly the Mountbatten Papers (I did not realize these were not public by now) should be made public.

Had people not killed each other in such large
numbers during the 1947 Partition, Mountbatten’s legacy in India and Pakistan would have created a very powerful South Asia with two economically prosperous and large countries not at each other`s throats for over half a century.
But such a scenario did not seem to be in the long term interests of the Gora Sahibs.

Ras

Mountbatten had one ambition in life: to become the First Lord of the Admiralty, the position from which his father was forced to resign during WWI because of the family`s German origins; even the name Mountbatten is an Anglicization of the original family name Battenberg. Mountbatten extracted a promise from Prime Minister Attlee that his Naval career would not be interrupted by his absence as Viceroy of India and asked that he be given full plenipotentiary powers to deal with Indian independence without having to wait for instructions from Whitehall. This is explained by his desire to get it over with and return to England and to the Royal Navy ASAP.

As far Corfield is concerned, the man was trying to push the idea of independence for princely states, whereas Nehru and the Congress were adamant that newly independent India would inherit all the rights and obligations of the British government; which would have meant that India (and Pakistan) would exercise paramountcy over the princely states. Corfield maneuvered around Mountbatten and got the Secretary of State for India to declare that paramountcy would lapse; this theoretically meant that the princely states became independent in law on Aug 15, 1947. The only question was how to ensure that the economic union that already existed between the princely states and British India was not disrupted. With the smaller states, the advantage was in favor of India in that the princely states derived greater benefits by association with India; with the larger states, their viability as independent states was questionable at best. To claim that land-locked states such as Mysore, Hyderabad and Kashmir had a chance to survive independently in disingenuous at best and mischievous at worst. All states signed standstill agreements regarding trade and transit of people and goods by Aug 15, 1847, so that normal life would not be disrupted. In fact, it has been recorded that Pakistan caused disruptions to civil supplies in Kashmir by violating the standstill agreement it had signed, hoping this would stir up the population against Maharaja Hari Singh.

The real question that needs to be answered is why Jinnah suddenly turned so anti-India after Aug 14, 1947. After proclaiming amity and friendship between the two countries, he allowed his Foreign Ministry and Army to run the affairs of state so that from its first day of existence, Pakistan had only Junagadh, Hyderabad and Kashmir as the lynchpins of its India policy.

History would be better served if Jinnah`s papers and Government of Pakistan papers are released to the public. After all, it is 54 years since the partition and the current generation can accept and deal with the truth. It will be interesting to find out if Jinnah was nothing but a tool, albeit an unwitting one, in the hands of the Pak Army generals.

re Ras Siddiqui

``But such a scenario did not seem to be in the long term interests of the Gora Sahibs.``

Ras sahib, pardon me but this seems reflective of our knee-jerk reaction to blaming the English for everything that went wrong. Let`s face it. The English came in because Indians (by that I mean the entire sub-continent) were woefully unable to govern themselves in 1757. Two hundred years later, as the partition showed, we were still learning. Indians clamored for a `quit India now` solution. Well, we got what we deserved.

British withdrawal and partition, if there had to be one, ought to have been delayed not until 1948 but perhaps until 1998.

Heck, at least our people could have travelled the world under the protection of the British Lion instead of being treated as third class people at every foreign consulate and aitport in the world.

#: 34
Pravin
Editors, please publish. Urgent.

Raj (eklavya) has been in a near fatal road accident near Xenia, Ohio. The Urgent CareUnit of the Greene Memorial Hospital must contact his parents in India immediately. If anyone knows his India number, call Bart Thompson, Urgent Care Unit, Green Memorial at 937-372-8011. Hurry because physicians may want to transfer Raj to Dayton orColumbus for emergency care. You can also send me the number (pravinbajpayee@yahoo.com).

Tahmed:

``Agreed that the primary responsibility for law and order at time of partition fell on the British, with Mountabatten being most directly responsible. What about the Indian and Pakistani leaders doing at the time (other than Gandhi who at least attempted to curb the violence)?``

Its Gandhi`s politics that caused overriding of what other leaders were trying to do at that time. The point however is we can play the blame game forever. The question to ask is what are the leaders doing now?

I was hopeful that with a leader who is as straightforward as Musharraf, we would be able to undo whatever hostilities we harbor over Kashmir. But with Vajpayee squeaking humorously over ``Kashmir integral part of India`` there is little hope for the people of Kashmir or Pakistan, or even India. When we all agree that we will have no peace if we stick to our positions of the past. If we keep doing what we have always done we will get what we have always got.

It is very sad to see the typical ``muu mey ram baghal mey churri`` attitude. When will it change? Does India really want it to?

-------

http://www.dawn.com/2001/07/29/top3.htm

Musharraf not serious about peace: Vajpayee

Monitoring desk

NEW DELHI, July 28: Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee said on Saturday that President Pervez Musharraf came to the Agra summit ``as a military man with a specific self-serving goal and was not serious about restoring peace`` between the two nations.

The prime minister was addressing the national executive of the Bharatiya Janata Party on the second day of its three-day meeting here, according to the Indo-Asian News Service website. Mr Vajpayee adopted a tough stance when he said that ``from day one (of the summit), it appeared that the talks were going to break down because of Musharraf`s attitude. He (Musharraf) even refused to acknowledge the Simla Agreement of 1972 and the Lahore Declaration of 1999.`` ``By afternoon on the second day, Musharraf became quite desperate as he realized he would have to return to Islamabad empty handed,`` Mr Vajpayee said.

The prime minister remarked that Gen Musharraf often appeared ``ignorant`` about Indian politics and history. India, he felt, had not lost anything from the Agra summit. ``The world has seen India`s resolve to achieve peace in the sub- continent,`` he pointed out.

Mr Vajpayee`s 30-minute speech was laced with humour and also contained a strong message that his government was not going to compromise on Jammu and Kashmir. ``We have given a message to the world that India can never compromise on Jammu and Kashmir. It is an integral part of our country.``

The national executive also passed a resolution on the Agra summit, saying that ``it must be clearly understood that no meaningful dialogue with Pakistan can be conducted as long as the Jihadi mentality dominates the Pakistani establishment.``

The resolution further warned that ``if Pakistan continues to adopt a negative posture, the government of India should draw appropriate conclusions and plan for the future accordingly.`` During the discussion on the resolution, some members opposed the opening of additional points on the India-Pakistan border for issuing visas, which is one of the confidence building measures announced by India on the eve of the Agra summit. Said a delegate from Rajasthan: ``If we allow easy passage for Pakistanis in India, very soon Jodhpur and other cities in Rajasthan will turn into another Kashmir.``

AFP adds: The BJP blamed the ``obduracy, intransigence and unifocal approach of the Pakistani side`` for forcing a stalemate (at Agra). ``Musharraf failed to recognize the merit of India`s multi- dimensional approach and stuck to his one-point agenda,`` the party resolution said. ``He (Musharraf)) virtually poured cold water on any prospects of a positive outcome by his injudicious utterances. He described cross-border terrorism promoted by Pakistan in Jammu and Kashmir as freedom struggle,`` it added.

The party said Gen Musharraf had used the visit to India just to garner electoral support in Pakistan. ``We want peace and dialogue because there is poverty in both countries, but this cannot be perceived to be a sign of our weakness. Under no circumstances would India bow down to terrorism,`` PTI quoted Mr Vajpayee as telling the party members. ``It seemed that Musharraf had not come for peace talks. He was a soldier in uniform who had made his intentions clear and showed his inexperience in international affairs,`` he added.

To F.R. Khan, tahmed321, Ras Siddiqui,

All of you are missing the forest for the trees in trying to blame the horror of partition on mountabatten, indo-pak leaders of the time, or the “gora sahibs.”

the real reason is simple human nature. partition was madness that would have occurred in anytime and with any people. To divide land and villages based on religion and force people from their lives and homes would unleash the most demonic forces in any of us. I don’t say this to offend, but pakistanis who are surprised by the bloodiness of partition or feel it could’ve been avoided by changing certain circumstances just provide further evidence of how deluded Pakistan is.

Indian Ex-Air Vice-Marshal, 7 others held for leaking out secret documents

Updated on 2001-07-29 13:17:14





NEW DELHI, July 29 (PNS): The Indian Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has arrested eight persons, including a former Air Vice-Marshal for allegedly ferreting out secret information from Air Headquarters here relating to defence purchases.

A case has been registered under various provisions of the IPC, the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Official Secrets Act against the accused - Air Vice-Marshal J.S. Kumar, Y.S. Tomar, K. Karuthu, H.K. Nagpal (all retired Wing Commanders). Sergent K.C. Saini, working at Air Headquarters, S.P. Bajaj, accountant with the Purchase Department of the Defence Ministry and two businessmen Kishore K.Bajaj and Bhagat Ram.

While Air Vice Marshal Kumar (retd) and Saini were arrested Friday night after the CBI laid a trap at the former`s Sainik Farm House in South Delhi, other accused were arrested this morning after the sleuths of the CBI`s Anti-Corruption Branch raided 13 places across the Capital, CBI spokesman S.M. Khan told newspersons.

The CBI action followed a complaint from Air Headquarters a couple of days ago about the racket. The CBI has so far not been able to arrest three other accused - Flt Lt V.K. Anvekar and two other businessmen Sudhir Oberoi and V. Subramaniam. End





Post your Comments

IMPORTANT To All Chowk Posters: It appears one of our own, Eklavya, has been in a bad traffic accident (See Pravin #3 on this board). Let us all pray for his early and full recovery.

Everybody was in a hurry to run with half a loaf of a country -- of course, for the religion-using, secularist Mr. Jinnah (for an unexpected dream-come-true)-- but for the secular Pandit Mr. Nehru as well (sooner the prime minister than later).



Don`t blame Mountbatten for the mess.

He was just the proverbial monkey between the two chair greedy cats.

Re:Reply #: 3

Pravin,

This is a shocking news. I hope everything turns out fine. Please keep us informed.

Sridhar

Re:Reply #: 7

sarwari,

I have posted several artilcles substantiating my claim that Musharraf lacked diplomacy. He missed a good chance of progress in Agra since he came with a rigid mindset (Kashmir only). Being a Army man, he is used to people taking his orders. Vajpayee has shown flexibility. His invitation to Musharraf, the kind of reception he got all go to prove that he was ready to move forward. He had already made clear to a letter to Musharraf before the visit that Kashmir will be on the agenda. One side cannot hijack the agenda and say this is what he wants. From all appearances, it looks like Mushy boy was playing to the home gallery. Either that or the guy needs a lot of coaching in diplomacy.

What you are hearing from ABV is reflective of the mood of people. Talks will go on at foreign minister`s level but you can bet ABV will not visit Pakistan for some time to come. Substatial decrease in Jehad in Kashmir has to take place before that happens.

Sridhar

A very good read, Feroze. I have a couple of immediate questions/observations: Even if the papers are released, do you think that it will influence the direction of the politics regarding Kashmir? The one key point that struck me was the extent of the qualms felt by the other British political and military figures - they seemed to know very well the results of mountbatten`s direction. Yet, even if the papers reveal Mountbatten`s culpability, what effect is it going to have on events today? Perhaps the main value of the papers may be that of a reinforcement of the moral position of either country. How well that is parlayed into an strong political platform would be an interesting scenario. BUT by far, the strongest paragraph in your article is the one that goes into the moving of the Partition date from 1948 to 1947. I am still trying to come to grips with the ramifications that would have had on our nations and people. No doubt about it, that single decision, all by itself, has probably been the reason for the state we are in. When I think of what could have been done in the time between 1947 and 1948 ... I have a hard time believing that it was anything but deliberate ...

Sarwari (#7), what is going on in Vajpayee`s camp is damage control. The Indian side did not come off very well in the summit, and now the media reports are of the rebuilding the facade and position variety. All this is for domestic and international consumption to a certain extent, but it is also setting the groundwork for the next meeting in Islamabad. What is key here is how the Indian delegation will deal with someone who has gone to the heart of the matter and who cannot be bought as easily as Nawaz Sharif. Will they decide that confrontation and a tough, no-give, line will be the right one to take ...?

It might be nice, Feroz, if you were to give appropriate citations and proper credit in this work. As it is, I would have to say that it is rank plagiarism of the worst type. Large chunks of this article seem to have been lifted straight from ``Lord Mountbatten`s Deceit`` by Andrew Roberts. The text of this paper can be found on www.pak.gov.pk/public/kashmir/mountbatin.htm

I think that the similarities between the two are obvious. I would have to assign this paper a failing grade for plagiarism if it had been turned in to me in its present form: without sources, citations or attribution.

The fact that I agree with the genereral tenor of the article is irrelevant to the plagiarism issue. I think Mountbatten disgraced the British Empire in the way that he rushed to Partition India. In effect, he adopted Wavell`s ``Operation Scuttle`` plan and decided to leave the natives to kill each other, as long as they left the British alone and did not harm their commercial interests. To paraphrase Dickens, nothing disgraced the British more than the manner in which they left India.

harish #10 I think you excuse those in power at time of partition (i.e. the Indian and Pakistani political leaders, and the British administration) too easily. The formation of Pakistan did not mean that people were to be forcibly uprooted from their homes due to their religion. That was due to the breakdown in law and order which allowed thugs on both sides of the border to attack and intimidate people of the ``wrong`` religion. Under good leadership, countries can split without affecting the ordinary citizen: See how Czechoslavakia gently parted into the Czech republic and the Solvak republic. Under bad leadership, as in Yugoslavia just a short distance away, it can become a nightmare. There is no escaping the fact that the Brits were more concerned about getting out of India before they were forced out in a bloody confrontation, and the political leaders of India and Pakistan did not do anything to prevent the bloodshed. Gandhi is the only man who cared enough to try and stop the bloodshed. The truth comes out over time, and the truth is now clear for all to see.