Nehru’s Legacy: Time to pay tribute #771
If you read history, you`ll see there were in fact many Muslim political factions(not just the religious ones) who resisted the Muslim League. They had to face the communal Hindus and communal Muslims both and were also dismissed wholesale, sometimes even persecuted by the British who were the patron saints in legitimising Muslim politicians. ( Due to various policies including limited franchise awarded by the British, Muslim parties in general did not have mass bases except perhaps in Bengal. The British picked and chose parties to legitimise among others too, for instance the Congress spent a lot of time banned by the British and Churchill always said it did not represent the Indian masses). Simply because no one today, between hagiography of Muslim League leaders and Congress leaders has the time or inclination to write about those Muslim factions and politicians who resisted the Muslim League, does not mean they did not do so.

Nehru’s Legacy: Time to pay tribute mohar11 #769
That was more than 60 years ago, why are you and ranjit taking it out on Indian Muslims today? Most Indian Muslims were not even born then, in fact I will bet a majority of young Indian Muslims` parents were not born then. Whine about today`s problems if you have to, or even the aftermath of Partition on Indian Muslims and ditch this thing about collective guilt where none exists.

Nehru’s Legacy: Time to pay tribute
ranjit #767
In addition to the stupidities I listed, it is stupid not to realise that there is no difference between those who ethnically cleansed Hindus and Sikhs and those who talk of ethnically cleansing Muslims. Given their total failures in past history(a failure indicated by how a 97% Pakistan keeps whining about Hindus), it is pretty stupid of both genocidal Muslims and genocidal Hindus to continue to fool themselves today that they have the sole moral right to perpeturate indiscriminate violence and to think that such indiscriminate violence on others will succeed. I thought Hindus were more intelligent than Muslims in that respect but somehow I keep being reminded that they are not.

Nehru’s Legacy: Time to pay tribute
ranjit #763
Stupid Hindus like you can`t distinguish between the Muslim League and Indian Muslims, that is why such things are not published widely. Stupid Hindus like you can`t figure even after reading about these things in detail that the Muslim League was NEVER secular-minded by any measure, that is why such things are not published widely. Stupid Hindus like you offer genocidal Muslims cover and victimise peaceful Muslims, that is why such things are not published widely.

Nehru’s Legacy: Time to pay tribute #759

You have quoted Jinnah and Wolpert yet again, but you still haven`t answered my questions in #739. H M Seervai does not answer them either, so no point in waving him as a red herring.

West Pakistan operated a veto on East Pakistan`s share of power from 1947 onward and its last attempt was in 1971. West Pakistan also had control over the bulk of the Pakistan Army. That the same situation did not occur wrt India`s constitution and army is all to the credit of the Congress`s decision in 1947 not to include any regions in India which were not willing to join the Constituent Assembly. And fyi, Gandhi was against the partition of India as a whole, not just the partition of Punjab and Bengal. He felt Congress conceding the partition of these provinces meant Congress eventually conceding the partition of India - as indeed it did.

East Bengal could have reworked its economy making borders irrelevant with West Bengal if Pakistan had not chosen to be hostile to Hindu-majority India by definition - if so many Hindu Pakistanis (1-2 million) had not been forcibly driven out of East Pakistan by violence in the early 50s. Not to have Hindus around was a choice many provinces of Pakistan made very early, some even before independence so to cry over the territory those Hindus occupy today makes no sense for a Pakistani at all.

What Jinnah wanted for the nonMuslim majority regions of Bengal and Punjab was not binding on the nonLeague legislators of the nonMuslim majority districts nor on the Congress who all chose partition.

The Muslim League agitations in Feb-March 1947 had lead to widespread communal massacres and a virtual collapse of the province`s government and administrative structure. Could you possibly check with Wolpert and let me know when he plans to write a book about that?

Ian Talbot `Khizr Tiwana, the Punjab Unionist Party and the Partition of India` :

`Khizr called a full cabinet meeting on the morning of 28 January. This decided to withdraw the ban on the Muslim National Guards and the RSS, whilst reemphasising the Ministry`s committment to maintaining law and order. The Muslim League`s initial grievance had been fully met. But the genie was now out of the bottle. Shaukat uncompromisingly declared that `The Khizr Ministry must be made to go whatever the cost to the Muslim League.` He boasted that the opposition would `put out 15 million Muslims to break the law.`.

[On 3 February 1947, to Wavell, Punjab Governor] Jenkins sombrely concluded that ` the agitation has convinced Hindus and Sikhs that the League wanted undiluted Muslim Raj`. `It is quite impossible to rule the Punjab with its present boundaries. Long term alternatives are therefore reversion to Unionist principles.. or partition which would create intolerable minority problems. Effect of agitation is to force second alternative on non-Muslims and to impair very serious long-term prospects of the Muslim League and Muslims generally. The Muslim League are in fact wantonly throwing away the certainity of Muslim leadership in a United Punjab for uncertain advantages of a partition which the Sikhs will gradually now demand. But nobody has the brains to understand this.`

On 2 March Khizr Hayat Khan decided to resign. ``Jenkins saw the Nawab of Mamdot late on the morning of 3 March. He gave him an absolutely free hand to form a Ministry in the expectation that the Muslim League President would be able to report positive progress by Saturday 8 March at the latest. The installation of a Muslim League led Coalition Ministry proved impossible. The Punjab entered its final months of British rule under a Section 93 administration, with the morale of its officials severely undermined.

Mamdot failed to provide the reassurances which the Sikhs and the Congress demanded, mainly because his hands were tied by the Muslim League High Command. Jinnah discountenanced a local arrangement in the Punjab which would in any way weaken his All-India demand for Pakistan. Moreover, Sikh resentment had almost boiled during the Punjab Muslim League agitation. The mild-mannered Swaran Singh had warned Jenkins, that the Sikhs `must have a clear account of the Muslim League`s plan for the future of the Punjab and of the position of Sikhs within this.. The Sikhs had no intention, ` he addeded, `of being serfs under Muslim masters and felt they were strong enough to defend themselves.`. Tara Singh used far more intemperate language which he unsheafed his sword on the steps of the Punjab Assembly building, after hearing of Khizr`s resignation. This action is conventionally taken as the catalyst for the violent demonstrations and riots which engulfed the Punjab in the following days.

The Punjab had been a poweder keg for many months. It is nevertheless significant, that within less than a week of Khizr`s resignation, communal violence had reached alarming proportions and the Congress had demanded the partition of the province. For the first time, violence spread from the cities othe countryside and took on the sinister undertones of `ethnic cleansing`. Whole villages in the Jhelum, Attock and Rawalpindi districts were put to the sword. About 40,000 people, mainly Sikhs had taken refuge in hurriedly established camps. The outrage which many Sikh leaders felt at these assaults which were orchestrated by Muslim National Guards and ex-servicemen[Jenkins to Wavell, 17 March 1947] and condoned by Muslim League politicians[Jenkins to Mountbatten, 30 April 1947] fed a desire for revenge which bread a civil war mentality..

The March violence destroyed any lingering hopes that the Punjab might escape partition... The violence also destroyed the British system of control in the countryside centred around such loyalist political families as the Tiwanas. The collapse of Unionist influence created political and administrative chaos..``.


Transfer of Power Vol IX

Jenkins to Wavell on 17 March 1947
``... It is very difficult to account for this extraordinarily violent rural movement. General Messervy thinks that there are some signs of organisation and conspiracy- in parts of Rawalpindi outbreaks seem to have occured almost simultaneously, and the raid at Murree,.., appears to have been carefully planned and carried out. .. The Commander 7th Division told me when I saw him yesterday that attacks on non-Muslims had been led in some cases by retired Army officers-some of them pensioners with honorary Commissioned rank. The Muslim section of the local notables.. were extremely sulky, and though some of them are beginning to be frightened, there is little doubt that they believe that the movement was inevitable and are not prepared to oppose it. The most probable theory is that the growth of the Pakistan idea from 1943 onwards, the extreme communalism of the election campaign of 1945-46, the frustration which followed it, the propaganda against the Coalition Ministry, the Muslim League agitation, H.M.G`s statement of 20th February, and Khizar`s resignation combined to touch off an explosive mixture which had been forming for some time. The Muslims say that they were influenced by rumors of a large Sikh Army marching on the north; also that the movement is a spontaneous outburst against black-marketing by non-Muslims. It is more likely that they believe that by exterminating non-Muslims now they will make their districts a safe base for operations against the other communities in due course. No educated man could reasonably believe the story about the Sikh army, and though opportunity had been take to wipe out economic scores, resentment at the controls and the way in which non-Muslims make money out of them was not in my judgement the immediate cause of the trouble.


Note by Jenkins, 20 March 1947

Raja Ghazanfar Ali came to see me at 4 p.m. today. He opened in rather a complacent way about the riots in the Rawalpindi and Attock districts and in the Chakwal Sub-Division. He took great credit for having kept Gujrat and the greater part of Jhelum quiet. He scouted the idea that the outbreak was organised or that the League had anything to do with it.

He worked up gradualy to the suggestion that I might now put a Muslim League Ministry into power. He suggested a general election and said that this would give the electorate an opportunity of deciding whether the Punjab should be partitioned or not. [ In other words, the Muslim League was prepared to accept partition of the province -sadna]

...
I was exasperated by Ghazanfar Ali`s complacency and dealt with him rather roughly. I said he did not appear to realise that what had occured in Rawalpindi, Attock and the Chakwal Sub-Division was a general massacre of a most beastly kind. He could suggest, as he had suggested, in dealing with the conspiracy theory that the non-Muslims had been provocative, but the provocation was certainly not such as to justify the slaughter and savagery that had occured.

As regards a Muslim League Government, I said I would resign sooner than see one in office at this juncture, and I thought practically every British officer would do the same. The massacre had been conducted in the name of the Muslim League, and senior Military Officers thought that it had been carefully planned and organised. Non-Muslims with some justice now regarded the Muslims has little better than animals, and for my own party I thought that British officers would find it difficult to work with or under such people.

I could see no object whatever in a a general election. It would not alter the basic position that no single community could rule the Punjab except by actual conquest. If a Muslim League Government took office, there would be immediate fighting, and the Government would find it impossible to hold even a single session of the Assembly. I considered Raja Ghaznafar Ali`s political views so irresponsible as to be hardly worth discussing.

...
I said that the troubles of the Muslim League were due to folly and bad leadership. The League had given the impression that the Muslims were a kind of ruling race in the Punjab and would be good enough to treat with generosity their fellow Punjabis, such as the Sikhs, when their rule was established. They could not explain what they meant by ``Pakistan``, and unless they were prepared to deal with other Punjabis as equals, they would make no progress at all. It was a ludicrous position in which the so-called League leaders had to take orders from Bombay from a person entirely ignorant of Punjab conditions. If Raja Ghazanfar Ali argued, as he did, that the Central picture must be complete before any picture of the Punjab could even be sketched, my reply was that his whole conception of the future of India was topsy turvy. A Punjab divided into two or three States or in a condition of chaos and civil war could not possibly fit into any conceivable all-India picture. Surely the right course was to determine the future of the units in a way accept to their inhabitants and then to sketch the all-India picture. (Raja Ghazanfar Ali said that he thought there was something to this.).

At the end of the interview Raja Ghazanfar Ali said that I had distored and misrepresented the League`s views and that he would send me a number of statements by Mr. Jinnah showing that he had never intended to treat the minorities and particularly the Sikhs, in the way I suggested. I said that the first task now was to restore order.

I could not prevent the League from making further blunders. They had already fooled away a kingdom, and it would in my judgement be futile now to attempt any final solution of the Punjab problem until feelings had settled down. The League did not seem to realise that the non-Muslims regarded the Muslims of Rawalpindi and Attock as little better than beasts and hated the League profoundly. It was futile to suggest, as he had suggested, that the League agitation was non-communal. It was manifestly communal from the first, and could not have been anything else.

..

TOP Vol X

14 April 1947 Meeting, Mountbatten papers
..
Sir Evan Jenkins said... The Muslim aim, vehemently pursuded, was to dominate the whole Punjab within its present boundaries. The Sikh aim, even more vehemently pursued, was to frustrate the Muslim. The Jats wished to separate and join with the U.P, bu their claim was not being very strongly voiced. He doubted whether there was any possibility of an announcement of parition without it being followed up by an immediate blow-up..

Sir Eric Mieville asked what were the alternatives to plan of partition. Sir Evan Jenkins replied that there were three alternatives, namely : (a) reversion to unionism (b) partition (c) civil war. If we were unable to get (a) or (b) then there was little option but to withdraw and leave both sides to fight it out. He had no doubt that the Sikhs would fight at some stage, but would rather wait until we were out of the way..

...
There followed some discussion on means of bringing about any form of agreement between Muslims and Sikhs, in which Sir Evan said that the Muslim policy was one of `daring us to leave` by threatening us with the bogy of the conditions which would be the result of our departure: and that the Sikhs were almost certain to ask for partition on their own terms and would be content to have the Hindus in with them.

Note by Sir E. Jenkins, 16 April 1947

[about the rioting in March 1947]
``.. Casualties were heavy in the other cities also, and except in Amritsar the non-Muslims suffered much more heavilty than the Muslims.
By 6th-7th March the trouble was spreading to the rural areas of the Rawalpindi Division and the Multan district. In the Rawalpindi and Attock districts and later in part of the Jhelum district there was an absolute butchery of non-Muslims. In many villages they were herded into houses and burnt alive. Many Sikhs had their hair and beards cur, and there were cases of forcible circumcision. Many Sikh women who escaped slaugher were abducted.

The Muslim League made no efforts to maintain peace and Mamdot made no serious attempt at forming a Ministry. At the time he had no majority and he gave me the impression that he was not anxious to take responsibility for quelling a veyr serious outbreak of violence.
(2) The total number of dead is not yet known. The latest figure is just under 3,000 and I believe that the final figure may be 3,500. The communal proportions have not been accurately recorded, but I shouls ay that among the dead there are 6 non-Muslims for every Muslim. Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan can hardly realise the terrible nature of the rural massacre. One of my troubles has been the extreme complacency of the League leaders in the Punjab, who say in effect that ``boys will be boys``. I have no doubt that the non-Muslims were provocative in the cities, but the Msulims had been equally provocative during their agitation and had in particular murdered a Sikh constable in Amritsar.
..
(9) For what object the British officials in the Punjab, including myself, are ``fostering chaos`` I do not know. Every British official in the I.C.S and I.P in the Punjab, including myself, would be very glad to leave it tomorrow. With two or three possible exceptions no British offical intends to remain in the Punjab after the transfer of power. Six months ago the position was quite different; but we feel now that we are dealing with people who are out to destroy themselves, and that in the absence of some reasonable agreement between them the average official will have to spend his life in a communal civil war.

(10) The Punjab is not now in a constitutional, but in a revolutionary situation. If a Muslim League Government were formed tomorrow, it would be attacked by the non-Muslims, and particularly the Sikhs, with a violence which might be uncontrollable and would certainly involve frightful slaughter by Police and troops. If Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan means to start an agitation against authority in the Punjab, he will produce very much the same result. He might be reminded that it was the Muslim League, and not the non-Muslims, who first attempted to dislodge a Ministry by force.

Nehru’s Legacy: Time to pay tribute #754
Except for personal abuse of Nehru, there is nothing in that write up which contradicts anything I said.

Nehru’s Legacy: Time to pay tribute PS #752: And you can provide a reply to my questions in #739 when Wolpert writes a book on those issues; I am in no hurry.

Nehru’s Legacy: Time to pay tribute #749
Well, the attempt by Jinnah and the Muslim League to suspend the rights of a majority of Indians until a Group constitution and a Union constitution of Muslim League`s choice was enforced on them did not work. Live with it, it happens - the same thing happened in 1971 to West Pakistan.

Nehru’s Legacy: Time to pay tribute #720
You`ve yet to explain why Jinnah demanded that Congress surrender its legislative majority in the executive and that non League Indian Muslims give up their right of representation in 1945 and 1946.
After that you have to explain why Punjabi Sikhs and Hindus were supposed to subject themselves to a Muslim League constitution when not only had Jinnah had always denied their right to have any say in creation of Pakistan but also when his party had just toppled a Unionist-Sikh-Congress coalition with so much violence that 30000 nonMuslims were in refugee camps by March 1947.
After that you have to explain why Congress is termed stupid because it did not to hand over to Muslim League an entire nonMuslim-majority state Assam and large areas of nonMuslim majority population in Punjab and Bengal (the total nonMuslim populations of these provinces were 6.7 million, 12 million and 27 million approx).
Then you have to explain why Congress is termed stupid not hand over a bulk of the Indian Army to Pakistani control while still paying for it and not only that yield control of defence and foreign affairs of their India to Pakistan until the time Pakistan decided to seccede.

Since you can`t explain these points, there is nothing more to be said.

Nehru’s Legacy: Time to pay tribute #692
``..even if we accept that Pakistanis were an untrustworthy lot the Hindus and Sikhs would have guaranteed representation under the constitutional plan and would have the protection of the Congress Party at the Union centre.``

Yeah Jinnah termed having Congress in the provincial ministries of any Muslim majority province as a inimical threat to Muslims when there were the British governors in the provinces and the British Indian government at center. So of course he would happily welcome Congress in the ministries of any Muslim majority province after the British left, a sovereign Pakistan came into being and a Hindu majority government sat at the center.

Oh waitaminute that wouldn`t be a Hindu majority goverment at the center there was to be parity. Nowaitaminute it would be a Hindu majority government at the center Mantolives said there was to be no parity. No waitaminute maybe not Jinnah and Muslim League had spent many long years refusing to accept a Hindu majority center. Oh well, since we`ll never know, and no one else reads history anyway, you can safely continue to fudge it.

Nehru’s Legacy: Time to pay tribute ranjit #654
If Pakistan makes religion an issue in their dealings with India, it is for the Indian state to understand that it does so and factor into its calculations the fact that they do so(ie., not ignore it).

But other than that, I fail to see why the Pakistani state`s world view should dictate the Indian state`s world view. These are two totally independent entities.

btw, Islam in public affairs is just one ideology which can go into empire mode. There are a number of others also which can infringe on our rights such as communism/Marxism? and big capital (and American imperialism may suddenly loom into our rear view mirror one day).

Nehru’s Legacy: Time to pay tribute ranjit #647
Any India-Pakistan issue is not a Hindu-Muslim issue, it is a state to state issue and should be decided solely based on the Indian state`s and Indian population`s best interests, not as a inter-religious issue.

When I said Islam, I meant Islam in public affairs. One person`s rights end where the other person`s rights begin.

For a Muslim to demand that a nonMuslim concede his own rights as a safeguard for the Muslim is an example of what I call the empire mode of Islam and is a travesty of justice. I think the 1946 demand for parity in the executive by Jinnah (and his refusal to allow any nonLeague Muslim to be appointed) was just such a travesty of justice.

However if what a Muslim demands are merely his just rights, to deny him that is a travesty of justice too. A stereotyping of all Muslim activism and demands as Islam with empire ON or HOLD is a travesty of justice too - equivalent to saying that Muslims lose their claim to humanity merely by being Muslims.

I think the refusal of Somali taxidrivers at a Minnesota airport to carry passengers based on the taxidrivers` religious beliefs (while operating a public service) is an example of Muslims invoking Islam in an empire mode. In contrast, Muslims demanding justice for Gujarat riots are just human beings demanding justice for riots, and I greatly resent it whenever there are Hindutva attempts to project them as anything else.

Nehru’s Legacy: Time to pay tribute ranjit#642
The way I look at it is that Islam comes in two varieties - Islam with empire mode switched ON and Islam with empire mode switched OFF. In a lot of situations, Muslims invoke Islam with empire mode switched ON, in a lot of situations they don`t. The key is in understanding which mode you are dealing with.

Nehru’s Legacy: Time to pay tribute
ranjit #593
Um not the Nawaz Sharifs(who are artificial creations of the Pak military-bureaucratic-religious establishment) but the Muslim equivalents of Indian grassroots politicians. I feel quite confident that Hindus would not have suffered but anyway all this is hypothetical.

IMO, there were more factors behind the Pakistan movement than just Jinnah`s initiative- it was the way the game was evolving at that time. The Pakistan idea had first been articulated in the late 20s-1930. The issue of central government and provincial autonomy was always going to be problematic wrt the Muslim majority provinces. The idea of mutual hostages was also not new, Maulana Azad had himself been a advocate of it at one time.

British efforts to keep a toe-hold on the subcontinent despite the nationalist determination to oust them were also not new. For instance, they always did their best to cultivate the princely states rulers as their loyalists and keep the nationalist parties out. And also for instance, there was a plan floated by Reginald Coupland in 1942 to conjure up a sovereign `Christian` India alongside a sovereign`Muslim` India and sovereign `Hindu` India. Have you looked at the Middle East lately? A number of those boundaries were the British`s doing aka carving up territories to suit their interests best. Not everyone had a national movement based on unity which tried actively to thwart their carving up.

Lastly but not the least - the seemingly imperialist attitudes among a number of later Muslim politicians at the time(including Jinnah) would have been a big obstacle to united India - I mean if Hindus were declared unfit for democracy by you and the Congress were your declared enemies in all your rhetoric to the public, why the heck would you want to rule with Congress or over Hindus, except as an imperialist?

Nehru’s Legacy: Time to pay tribute
anil#595
The 6th July 1946 letter to Churchill was also sent by Jinnah to PM Attlee so is included in the Transfer of Power papers. He writes in it
``Dear Mr. Attlee,
It is not without deep regret that I have to say that the Cabinet Delegation and the Viceroy have, by handling the negotiations in the manner in which they did, impaired the honour of the British Government and have shaken the confidence of Muslim India and shattered their hopes for an honourable and peaceful settlement. They allowed themselves to play in the hands of the Congress, who all along held out the threat of non-cooperation and civil disobedience, if they were not satisfied; and virtually, from the very beginning, adopted an aggressive and dictatorial attitude, pistol in their hand. They are determined to seize power and try to establish Caste-Hindu domination over Muslim India and the other communities inhabiting this vast sub-Continent. I hope when you go through all the relevant correspondence and hear the Mission, you will come to the same conclusion as I have indicated above. I think you will agree with me that it is not only an obsession but has become a disease with the Congress, and it is an impossibility. Even now, having wrecked the formation of the Interim Government as proposed by the Cabinet Delegation and the Viceroy in their final Statement of 16th June, they have accepted the long-term plan, not in the spirit of cooperation and to construct but to wreck it. This will be clear to you from the reservations and interpretations that they have put upon the long-term plan and which are contrary to those embodied in the Statement of the Cabinet Delegation and the Viceroy dated 16th May and their further Statement of May 25th (particularly grouping of provinces).

I therefore trust that the British Government will still avoid compelling the Muslims to shed their blood, for, your surrender to the Congress at the sacrifice of the Muslims can only result in that direction. If power politics are going to be the deciding factor, in total disregard for fair play and justice, we shall have no other course open to us except to forge our sanctions to meet the situation which, in that case, is bound to arise. Its consequences, I need not say, I need not say, will be most disastrous and a peaceful settlement will then become impossible.

I am writing this letter to you in confidence and to one whom I have known for a long time. Today you happen to be at the helm of the British nation as the Prime Minister and, I hope, you will give your most earnest and careful consideration to what I have urged not without painfulness, which is apparent from my letter and that you will maintain the honour of the British nation for fairplay.

I am enclosing herewith for your information and consideration my two Statements that I have issued, in case you may not have come across them; and also two editorials from the only British paper now left in India.

I am sending a similar letter to Mr. Churchill, the Leader of the Opposition. ``
``

Nehru’s Legacy: Time to pay tribute
Mantolives #597
You may think the quotes are irrelevant, I don`t. And you still haven`t explained why Jinnah`s hatred of the Congress was reason enough to deny the majority of Indian voters their due representation in the Interim Government during the writing of a constitution which would be enforced on those voters.