Pak Tea House » Uncategorized » Responding to Ishtiaq Ahmed’s latest myths about partition
Responding to Ishtiaq Ahmed’s latest myths about partition
By Yasser Latif Hamdani
My Original Article in Daily Times
Ishtiaq Ahmed’s Part I in response to my original article published today.
First of all, I cannot be bothered to dedicate my weekly space in Daily Times to engage in an endless back and forth with Dr Ishtiaq Ahmed who – as he knows very well- I have a particular opinion of not just because he wages pseudo-history as revenge (in a country where everything from democracy to judiciary is waged as revenge) but because when confronted with a counter-point of view he resorts to the usual: “I am the foremost political science professor trained in democracy and the authors you quote– like Ayesha Jalal and H M Seervai – have no training in democratic thinking or constitutional theory”. Indeed I would not wasted this space had Ishtiaq Ahmed not resorted to ad hominem. So this is essentially a response to his personal attack in an “article” published in today’s Daily Times.
Whether Congress demanded partition of Punjab and Sikhs seconded it or whether Sikhs demanded partition of Punjab and Congress seconded it is a point entirely irrelevant to the point I made in my article i.e. partition of Punjab and Bengal was imposed on the Muslim League – a point that Ishtiaq Ahmed has been unable to controvert. For Ishtiaq Ahmed’s information: V P Menon, later Nehru’s closest confidant, had prepared a scheme as early as 23 January 1946 which sought to partition Punjab and Bengal and the partition that finally happened was to the dot based on that scheme. This much is clear from Menon’s letter to George Abell of the above dated. It is serialized at No. R. 205/46 and contains an enclosure titled “Demarcation of Pakistan areas” with “Most Secret”. For a careful researcher like Ishtiaq Ahmed isn’t it a bit odd to have left out this very important piece of evidence that connects Congress to the partition plan long before Ishtiaq Ahmed deems it so? This predates the Cabinet Mission Plan.
In respect of what Congress and League could have done to keep India united, his entire point when stripped off his personal insults against me was that a consociational government was not possible because of trust deficit. Again his research is problematic. The Cabinet Mission Plan did for implementation did not require Congress and the Muslim League to give up their differences and trust each other but for a brief period till the constitution was in place. Maulana Azad, Sarat Chanderbose and several Congressmen were on board with the idea. It was Gandhi and Nehru who took the wind out of the idea. They also insisted on partition of Punjab and Bengal even when Bengal was ready to go its own independent secular way. The “coalition” government formed in September 1946 comes after the burial of the Cabinet Mission Plan and was not a coalition government; it was an “interim government”. In fact it was called an interim government. Surely Ishtiaq Ahmed – as the great political scientist and expert on constitutional theory- knows the difference between a coalition government and an interim government. An interim government encompasses varying interests – often working at cross purposes- to preside over the formation of permanent political system either through constitution making or elections. This is why interim governments are not called coalition governments. They are not meant to function as coalitions.
The dangers that Ishtiaq Ahmed claims the Cabinet Mission Plan was fraught with are not really there. The 10 year out clause does not figure in the Cabinet Mission Plan. That was a demand that was not finally placed in those terms. There was absolutely no mention of 10 year secession in the Cabinet Mission Plan! This view is confirmed by Ayesha Jalal (who according to Ishtiaq Ahmed is not a well trained scholar) on page 196 of the Sole Spokesman Sange Meel Reprint 1992: “But there was no mention of the right of secession from the union. All in all the 16th May statement contained evidence of greater deference to Congress standpoint, hinting to Jinnah that perhaps he had missed the bus”.
The second point: Consider how Pakistan and India dealt with Princely India. Princely India was to be part of the federation and would be giving three subjects including foreign affairs and defence to the Union. Therefore no question of what Ishtiaq Ahmed says arises in the least. To think that the fourth group could carry out a policy in contradiction to the rest of India is stretching. However the most important thing – it is must be emphasized – is that Congress did not raise any of the points raised by Ishtiaq Ahmed, so his post hoc excuses for why the Congress could not agree to Cabinet Mission Plan were not stated by the Congress itself. Unless Ishtiaq Ahmed thinks he can guess what Gandhi and Nehru were thinking, historical record suggests that Congress accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan but tried to undo its clauses by making a fuss about what the grouping clause actually meant. Even after Cabinet Mission clarified what it meant, they continued to insist on it. Wavell’s famous meeting with Gandhi and Nehru in this regard is an eye opener. At the end you had the two great infallible saints of Ishtiaq Ahmed’s Pantheon of Gods pleading “but we are lawyers”. Such was the sophistry of the Congress position.
Unable to counter my points logically – he lashed out against me calling me a hagiographer and a defender and Knight Templar of the two nation theory. I will quote a paragraph from my article and let the reader decide if this is the defence of the two nation theory:
“Ironically, Jinnah, the ultimate villain in Doctor Ahmed’s reckoning, had pleaded for exactly that. He told Mountbatten that a Hindu or a Muslim was a Punjabi or a Bengali before he was Hindu or a Muslim. This indicates a complex understanding of nationalisms and sub-nationalisms on the part of the Quaid-e-Azam.”
This is no defence of the two nation theory.
In comparison Ishtiaq Ahmed’s insistence that Congress seconded and not initiated the demand for partition of Punjab after Sikh is itself evidence enough of his soft corner for Gandhi and Nehru. Pakistan’s tragedy is that we are caught between hagiographers and ideologues. On the one hand you have Safdar Mahmood who speaks of an Islamic Quaid-e-Azam who might even have been a Deobandi partitioning India in the name of Islam and on the other hand you have people like Ishtiaq Ahmed – willing to give Mahatma Gandhi and Pandit Nehru a clean chit while denigrating Jinnah.
Neither of these narratives are historically accurate and must be countered for the progress of Pakistan and indeed a stable relationship between India and Pakistan. I hope Ishtiaq Ahmed- for the sake of his reputation – comes up with something more concrete than deliberate obfuscation in the second part of his response to my solitary article.
The views expressed here are those of the author’s and do not represent the position of all editors, authors at PTH.
Filed under: Uncategorized · Tags: Congress, government, Ishtiaq Ahmed, myths
162 Responses to "Responding to Ishtiaq Ahmed’s latest myths about partition"
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
- G. Ali
said “Kya naam hai? G Ali. G => MohMadu”... - Paki Jinna Chikna
said Bappa Rawal established RawalPindi - Paki Jinna Chikna said Kya naam hai? G Ali. G => MohMadu
- Paki Jinna Chikna said Now India needs human sacrifice of darbari Shukher...
- G. Ali said The idiot (with apology to the idiots of the world...
- G. Ali said All the ills in Pakistan can be traced back to our...
- paki chikna said deceased were identified as ASI Abdul Baqi, Consta...
- paki chikna said Look at what is happening today. 12 Baluch &...
- paki chikna said Phorren Turk-Arab G marauders created proxies of t...
- paki chikna said Casticism did not strong enough even in 1834 when...
Quoting from British official reports of the period February-March 1947[The Transfer of Power, Mansergh and Moon,Volumes 8 and 9]:
On 7 February 1947, Muslim League leader Ghazanfar Ali Khan made a speech in Lahore in context of ongoing Muslim League agitation to bring down the Unionist-Sikh coalition ministry by force “Mohammed Bin Kassim and Mahommed of Ghazni invaded India with armies composed of only a few thousands and yet were able to overpower lakhs of Hindus; God willing, a few lakhs of Muslims will yet overwhelm crores of Hindus.”
On 8 February 1947 Punjab Governor Jenkins wrote to Secretary of State for India “Agitation has convinced Hindus and Sikhs that [Muslim] League want undiluted Muslim Raj…Effect of agitation is to force [partition] on non-Muslims and to impair seriously long-term prospects of Muslim League and Muslims generally. Muslim League are in fact wantonly throwing away certainty of Muslim leadership in a United Punjab for uncertain advantages of a partition which Sikhs will gradually now demand. But nobody has brains to understand this.”
In early March 1947, riots in West Punjab killed by official estimate, 3500 Sikhs and Hindus, while scores of Sikh women were abducted and many Sikh men were subjected to forcible cutting of hair and complete razing of their houses. About 40,000 Sikh and Hindu refugees had to flee their homes.
At the time, a Muslim League agitation was also ongoing in NWFP. The Viceroy’s records show a letter from Nehru on March 13 1947 : “In the Frontier Province the agitation led by the Muslim League has now definitely taken a communal turn. The demands of the Muslim League there have been, and are, refund of the fines levied on and realised from the Nandihar tribes in the Hazara area and the return of a Sikh woman who was forcibly converted and I believe raped. ”
Parshottam Mehra writes about the same incident in The North-West Frontier Drama, 1945–1947 “A case that was to gain considerable notoriety was the forcible conversion to Islam of a pregnant Sikh girl who was also coerced into marrying one of the gang members reponsible for the murder of her husband. As a result, the Sikh evacuees threatened not to return to their homes, a move that was bound to slow down any reversion to normal conditions…. To silence the critics, she was produced before the district magistrate where she swore she wanted to rejoin her faith. To squash wild rumors that this was false and that she was being coerced, the premier had invited Abdul Qaiyum and other League leaders to hear her testimony.
Even though persuaded of the truth, they refused to yield the political high ground they now occupied. Khan Sahib, they charged, was not behaving as a true Muslim. Having allowed his own daughter to marry a non-Muslim (her husband, Jaswant Singh, who was a pilot in the Royal Indian Air Force, was actually an Indian Christian, not a Hindu, as the League charged) he was now privy to a Muslim girl reverting to her Sikh faith!”
end quotes
Given Muslim League’s agitation to topple Punjab’s Unionist Muslim-Sikh coalition ministry by force, and Muslim League’s direct involvement in riots killings of thousands of Sikhs, abductions of Sikh women and forcible conversions of Sikh men in February-March 1947 resulting in 40,000 refugees fleeing their homes, it is impossible to honestly argue that Muslim League’s actual intention was to make Sikhs welcome in the future Pakistan.
It is like arguing Narendra Modi and BJP actually meant to make Muslims feel welcome in Gujarat by perpetrating the 2002 Gujarat riots.
to PTH
Muslims have been brought up in so much lies in order to glorify or defend islam and muslim leaders that it is no more possible to communicate with them.
Dialog assumes that a certain amount of honesty is respected and practised and encouraged. From the muslim side this is impossible.
The muslim grows up being taught that islam is the final god-given unquestionable glorious truth and whoever is not a muslim cannot be a good or trustworthy or honest human being. Islam teaches that only islam has brought forth all the good and wonderful in the world.
PTH shows us how difficult – even impossible – it is to communicate with those who are mentally imprisoned in islam and its self-glorifying, violence-threatening propaganda.
A muslim child grows mentally and psychologically molested by the falsified history-narrative that is taught to it.
What is way out of this mentally slavery for the muslims?
K K Aziz has written well in his book “Nationalism in Pakistan”. With due respect to people of different viewpoints., i would like to sum up the argument as follows :
1) The blame for partition – the need for it – was due to the uncaring attitude of the Congress Party. 75-80% of the blame is at the door of Sardar Vallabhai Patel (who was the Boss of Gandhi and Nehru) in real terms ! It was Patel who brought in the money to fight elections and in reality he was the one who wielded “real” power in the Congress. The root argument was summed up by Patel : “There is a gujarati proverb that says., that Jinnah will grumble about the food., but ultimately eat it”.
2) Unfortunately Jinnah did grumble about the food., but did not eat it. He just walked away.
3) After the killing of Swami Shraddhanand, the elite group of the Congress (Patel-Gandhi-Nehru) had realised that it will not be easy for them to build a United India of THEIR dreams/vision with so many muslims around. So it was imperative to get rid of them. Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru spoke eloquently on the need to keep India as one… but advocated the Partition of Bengal and Punjab !! Nehru was against safe-guards for Muslims in India., but advocated safe-guards for Tamils/Indians in Colombo/Sri Lanka. Nehru messed up the whole thing. He joined hands with minor players like the Momin Conference, Shia Conference, Ahrars, etc. etc. to short-circuit the Muslim League. Nehru’s role was provocative and reactionary vis-a-vis Indian Muslims, not to use stronger language. Pre-1947 Nehru was reactionary as regards Muslim interests were concerned. Nehru did NOT understand the Muslim sentiment. He was riding the high horse of popularity then.
4) “But this is worst than Pakistan” – Gandhi 1946, on the Cabinet Mission Plan. The Mission Plan kept India united. Muslims were grouped in zones (west and east). In reality Zone “A” was present India., Zone “B” was Pakistan and Zone “C” was Bangladesh. All united by a loose Federal Govt. in the centre. It was United States of India ! But Gandhiji did NOT approve of this. He was after CONSOLIDATION of Hindu Power. So Muslims had to be gotten rid of. C. Rajagopalachari was the first person to say this., and Madras State legislature approved the formation of Pakistan (GOOD RIDDANCE). Gandhiji was interested in freedom for Hindus… (and enslavement of Muslims). Mohammed Ali Jauhar said it clearly before his death : “Gandhiji wants freedom for Hindus and enslavement of Muslims”.
Summary : So 75-80% of the man-made disaster of Partition of India rests at the door of the Congress Party, which was essentially a Hindu Party (a BJP of its time, with a few muslims thrown in, like Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi, Najma Heptullah thrown in for effect – “item numbers”). Sincerity was lacking. It was THIS UNCARING ATTITUDE which served as a “Cement” in consolidating Muslim Nationalism and separatism in India. “Us” versus “Them” became very pronounced. The Hindu Congress did not show the VISION and large-heartedness to keep India “United”. That narrow minded-ness led to Partition. And the Congress was ready to pay the price.
Getting rid of Muslims was vital to the Congress plan and vision. Nehru could never have remained PM of India for 17 years in a United India. Nehru-Indira-Sanjay-Rajiv-Sonia-Rahul… this Dynasty was impossible in a United India. Nehru broke India to perpetuate his DYNASTY… Sorry to say.
In the end who benefited ? Jinnah and Nehru were both “western minds”, but Jinnah’s Zone fell into the trap of the Mullah., and Nehru’s India fell into the lap of RSS like a ripe mango. Jinnah was far more secular in real life than Gandhi and Nehru. Nehru was a sophisticated version of Narendra Modi ! Thats all. The message is the same. Only the hand-writing differed.
I have great respect and love for Nehru, but Nehru was just a talk-shop. Real power was in the hands of Patel. Gandhi and Nehru were subordinate to Patel. And Patel hated Muslims and Islam and wanted to wipe off Islam from Indian soil. All else flowed from that “hatred”.
“Every concept by its very nature passes into the opposite” – Hegel. Nehru’s India is now ruled by RSS !! and Jinnah’s Pakistan is now in the grasp of the Mullah-Military Combine.
The real blame for partition and genocide of hindus is on islam. The leaders were just dolls and puppets. Jinnah, Azad, Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, Mountbatten, Shaukat Ali – name whom you will. Islam contains in it the ambition/goal/intention of enslaving/exterminating non-muslims (whenever it can). Every muslim grows up in this spirit – Jinnah rejected this idea in his earlier years, but succumbed to this muslim-ness in later years as he thought more and more of reserving for himself a place in the imaginary arab god’s imaginary paradise.
Anyone who has studied the indoctrination, slogans, arrogance, fear and hate which are pumped into gullible muslim children and youth will agree. Those who convert to islam at a later age are often more fanatic-hatefilled than the born-muslims.
Whoever says islam is a religion of peace, brotherhood or justice is a liar or a naive fool.
Nothing refutes this analysis. The critic is the genuine friend, the flatterer is the enemy. Those who flatter/praise islam and muslims are the enemies of the human beings enslaved/trapped under islam.
Dronacharya
As I wrote earlier, if you are an Indian, you are a certifiable nutcase, and I will be glad to hand your hat to you. If you are a Pakistani, then surely, you are a fine scholar and an intelligent man.
Look, the first thing about Pakistani history one has to understand is that Pakistanis do have a full right to have whatever history they would like, and Indians shouldn’t poke their noses into Pakistani affairs except outside of Pakistani space.
Ishtiaq Ahmed is a fine man, but he is making a mistake by trying to bring in an outsider’s perspective into Pakistani history. It won’t work.
Dronacharya:
Before you pass of blame for the ‘tragedy’ read the following statement and try to guess who it said it and when and where. If you don’t know the answer, read on. The answer will be at the bottom of the post.
.
“In order to liberate 7 crores of Muslims where they were in a majority, he was willing to perform the last ceremony of martyrdom if necessary and let two crores of Muslims be smashed”
.
You called the partition a tragedy but many would contest even that statement ; perhaps a majority of Pakistanis and a large number of Hindu nationalists. The ones who call this partition a tragedy are:
a) A few Punjabis like Ahmed or others in India
b) Secular Indians who by and large appreciate Nehus (Nehruvians)
c) A small number of secular Pakistanis (an extinction risk)
d) Indian Muslims (who were the largest losers, perhaps even the Punjabis)
Ot of all these, the Punjabis understand the contribution of the both the AIML and the congress to this. The secular Indians understand the mistakes of the congress but blame the AIML mainly. The Indian Muslims still don’t want to analyse how they were persuaded to score a self goal
The (secular/liberal?) Pakistanis (including and mainly Ayesha Jajal supporters) like to pretend the following narative:
India in 1946 had only the following leaders; Nehru, Gandhi, Patel, Ambedkar and Jinnah. Among these, the first three ganged up on poor Jinnah and forced him against his wishes into a Pakistan. Period.
They don’t want to (are afraid of) looking beyond this but the facts are there for all to see.
1. For example, in 1937 elections (before communal rhetoric polarized the politics) Neither the congress represented the Hindus (had won slightly less than 50% seats) nor the AIML represented the Muslims (won less than 25%). Yet the first myth created and preputated by AIML was that their leader was the ‘SOLE REPRESENTATIVE’ of the Muslims as Gandhi was for the Hindus. It was patently false. Neither of the two parties repesented Punjab and Bengal.
2. The Muslim elite in the UP\Bihar was not afraid of the Hindus as much as the socialistic wave coming at them post independence. The congress threatened land reforms etc. The AIML assured them that no such thing would happen. The Muslims in UP|Bihar never questioned how a Pakistan in Punjab and NWFP would save them till it was too late. Howdumb can you get?
.
Now coming back to your assertion that Nehru\Patel etc. wanted the partition. OK let us assume that.
1. What stopped Jinnah to refuse it? What stopped Jinnah to reach out to other non congress parties and leaders like the , Unionists, communists, Ambedkar etc. to oppose the partition?
2. Who was the one asking for a partition even if it meant rivers of blood?
.
If you guessed it, good for you. Thank you.
The answer to my above statement\question is yes indeed; it was your favorite Qaid. And he made the statement in Kanpur; in 1941!!
Long before the Cabinet mission was even concieved (Ahmad, Volume 1, page 246)…..
Drona:
Also read the following statement that clearly outlines the ‘hostage theory’ It was because of statements like these that Nehru had called Jinnah ‘muddleheaded’.
.
“You will protect and safeguard our minorities in your zones and we will protect and safeguard your minorities in our zones” (Jamiluddin Ahmad, Speeches and Writings of Mr Jinnah, Shaikh Muhammad Ashraf, Lahore, Volume 1, page 441, November 2, 1942).
(Thus the minorities belonged to another state in his scheme. Thus, the minorities: (a) did not live in their own ancient “homelands” but lived elsewhere and (b) they were citizens yes, but they remained part of the “nation” that was dominant in the other state….) The status of Indian Muslims was thus defined by their leader…!
.
You tell me who you would guess makes such a statement today?
.
Answer: An Ahem on PTH or an RSS supporter!!
to mythbuster
Don’t create myths about me. I critcize islam and absolve muslims as the misled-misused fools.
BJ Kumar, Mythbuster,
just one point! Any minority can keep on clamoring that it has insecurities, and no matter how much reassurance you give it, it would still keep on repeating the same message! Why? Because it is getting something – reassurances, more leeway to do bullshitt, more appeasement!
.
So all this ganging up on Jinnah is really bakwas! Victimization and paranoia can be a strategy also, and we see that every day in Pakistan, where the blame is always given to somebody else, though on PTH it has become lesser!
.
Those trying to build consensus would always be at the mercy of rebels and splittists.
.
The only way to determine this by looking at the evidence. There was hardly any anti-Muslim discrimination or violence before they started it!
Ahem:
I am sorry. I wrote in a hurry and I meant to say Miles to Go. I understand your theme is different.
.
Raj Too:
Re-read my post.
.
I merely stated the position taken by the few liberal-secular Pakistanis who insist that Jinnah was forced to accept Pakistan by the congress leadership against his desire.
.
My own position is close to that of the thinking Punjabis (like Ishtiaq Ahmed) who understand the injustice and the subsequent bloodshed inflicted on our people by the congress-AIML rivarly initiated in the central provinces of India….
Drona:
.
Here is some more nuggets for you to chew on.
Jinnah was very clear in is mind and statements regarding the status of the Muslims in India. Why they still supported him is a mystery to me (other than that they had completely lost any common sense or a sense of their own good due to the AIML propaganda).
I wonder if you know the answer.
.
“The BBC was told as late as on April 3, 1946, that “these areas, like Madras, for instance, will have a Hindu government and the Muslim minorities there will have three courses open to them. They may accept citizenship in the state in which they are. They can remain there as foreigners, or they can come to Pakistan. I will welcome them. There is plenty of room” (Ahmad, Volume 2, page 282)….
.
Two years later, Indian Muslims who had taken him at his word found the doors shut in their face!!
Go figure…
Mythbuster
The shutting down the Pakistani door to Musalmans still stranded in india was/is the biggest tragedy of 47. At least half of present day Pakistani land area belongs to these stranded Musalmans. They have the right to migrate there or be monetary compensated by the Pakistan for this accumulative loss of around 800 Billion Dollars. These guys should file law suit, stake the claim and ask Indian Army to enforce the judgement.Pakistan was asked and made for so called Indian Musalmans and then denied to them. This is great injustice and kuffar against the core teachings of so called Islam.Till they repent and pay the compensation,no Pakistni will be allowed to even take a peek into the Paradise .
Sachbol,
Your sarcasm is duly noted.
That India still has 140 million Muslims living as full citizens is thanks to men like Nehru and Gandhi.
.
That Pakistan neatly ‘ethnically cleansed it’s side is consistent with the visions of its founders. Here below is the evidence of Jinnah’s utterances on the topic, along with the relevant rferences.
The inference is obvious.:
.
1. There were times when Jinnah virtually espoused the hostages theory, citing the presence of minorities in both states (Mehrunnisa Ali (ed.), Jinnah on World Affairs: (Select Documents, 1908-1948), Pakistan Study Centre, University of Karachi, 2007, pages 296 and 519).
2. On August 25, 1947, he said to a correspondent of Collier’s weekly, now defunct, that the minorities were in effect hostages to the requirement of “mutual cooperation and good neighbourliness between the governments of Pakistan and the Indian Union”.
3. On exchange of population, too, the expositions varied with the immediate event. December 10, 1945: “It is possible that there will have to be an exchange of population; it can be done on a purely voluntary basis” (Ahmad, Volume 2, page 263).
AND
November 15, 1946: “The exchange of populations will have to be considered seriously as far as possible, especially after this Bihar tragedy” (ibid., page 364).
AND
November 26, 1946: “The authorities, both central and provincial, should take up immediately the question of exchange of population.…” (ibid. page 371).
4. April 30, 1947: “Sooner or later exchange of population will have to take place.” Both states will have to carry it out “whenever it may be necessary and feasible” (Mehrunnisa Ali, page 372)…..
.
again very well said Mythbuster sahib .just a few more points.
1- the 3rd June 1947 Partition commute had only ONE Sikh [ Baldev Singh ] and no Bengali in it .
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pimu/5627078108/
2- British retreat was a strategic retreat [WWII which nearly depleted them and the ERA of De-colonization , here they read the historical tide correctly ] ..post 84 , Karachi Scenario , where an alien population has nearly full control on one of the world most strategically located Port , and are willing as per wikileaks to help the former colonial masters and the Americans .
3-Pakistan thus in my opinion is a controlled sociological experiment .. Period.
to PTH
Muslims (90%) wanted Pakistan so they must leave India and go to Pakistan (the promised and wanted islamic paradise or experimental paradise).
Hindus (90%) did not want Pakistan and so they have the right to remain in their ancestral homes and lands in the Sindhu river basin (the name hindu comes from the name Sindhu) with FULL human rights. The hindus lived in the Sindhu river basin since before islam was created in an alien, far-off, arabic place called Makkah. So islam has no right to displace them or to rule over them.
If muslims have a sense of justice and fairness then they will agree.
—
The british were forced (in 1947) to leave hastily by the power-hungry-greedy Congress and the ML. That was one major (or deciding) reason why the bloodshed and the triple injustice on hindus became so severe. The hate and anger against british was not justified in 1946 and 47. Even as far back as 1930′s the british had made plans to slowly leave India. They wanted to leave – step by step. Where was the need to rush things? The transfer of power should have taken place over 10 years. The hindu and muslim leaders should have shown this wisdom. It was a catastrophal mismanagement by the power-hungry hindu and muslim leaders.
Gandhi was old, Jinnah was dying, Patel was having stomach pains, Nehru wanted to show off his english education as Prime Minister. So they were hasty about independence. They wanted to see it happen in their life-times. Idiots.
Mythbuster,
.
I don’t think Sachbol was being sarcastic.
.
Hypothetically speaking, if an Indian Muslim desires to migrate to Pakistan, he should have a right to do so!
.
Indians accepted partition of India, with the understanding that Pakistanis were demanding it as a Home for all Subcontinental Muslims.
.
Now it is true that Indians also accepted India to be a Secular country, and that means that if some Subcontinental Muslim wished to stay back in India, he could!
.
But the question arises, what if the Indian Muslim wishes to live in Pakistan! As per the understanding that Pakistan was home for the Subcontinental Muslims and thus would accept them all, Pakistan is duty-bound to accept any Indian Muslim wishing to emigrate to Pakistan.
.
Otherwise it goes against the understanding that Pakistan gave to Indians before Partition on the basis of which Partition was agreed.
.
So if India feels that Pakistanis are violating that understanding, Indians can coerce Pakistan to accept any Indian Muslim wishing to migrate there!
No one reads you ahem. Why don’t you gradually fade away?
“As per the understanding that Pakistan was home for the Subcontinental Muslims and thus would accept them all, Pakistan is duty-bound to accept any Indian Muslim wishing to emigrate to Pakistan……”
.
RajTOO,
.
In punjabi there is a saying:
‘Moye te mukre da koi elaaj nahin…’
(there is no solution for someone who is dead or someone who broke a promise…)
I guess in this case of Jinnah and AIML it is both; the former died and the later reneged; what can we do?
to heavy_petting
If I leave the forum then you will be one who will be most sad. I surely do not wish to do that to you, poor soul.
What makes you think I write on the PTH in order to be read? I don’t have such a weak mind that I need solace from others.
As regards “no one reads you” – how do you know that?
Mythbuster : I read your post with calm. Scholarship requires clinical detachment ! Emotions have no room in it. You have mentioned the Kanpur Report ! Yes… i have read the speech. There is a line therein… whose substance you have quoted (but the words are not exact). It does not matter. I got the sense of the thrust of your argument.
Now, do you want me to quote (as evidence) statements by : Lala Lajpat Rai, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal, (Lal-Bal-Pal) ? starting 1920s.. Should i quote Savarkar. Should i quote Golwalkar. (RSS was formed in 1928). Should I quote Madan Mohan Malaviya. Lala Hardayal (Arya Samaj)… and so on.
You may say : These were regional leaders or fringe elements. These were not the “Creme-de`la creme” of Indian Politics. I am willing to listen to your argument… but you must appreciate that it is THESE people who provided the intellectual fodder to the Prima Donnas of Politics [PATEL (No. 1); Gandhi (No. 2); Nehru (No. 3) in the Congress Heirarchy] !
Should i quote Sri. Aurobindo; Should i quote Bankim Chandra Chatterjee… and the literature they produced. Have you read Aurobindo and Bankim ? But these were Litterateurs – they wrote what they did – and how come it impacted “politics” ? Politics is an aspiration. Intellectual/Litterateurs provide the food for the mind. The realm of Ideas is constructed by them.
The Hindus constructed this “eddifice” of Hindutva for a century. It raised its head in Bengal – renaissance – then literature – then politics – and when Gandhi came from South Africa in the mid 1920s – the ground had been created. The moment he stepped foot on Indian soil – the first statement he made – was on the Hindu-Muslim Divide. When Gandhi met Jinnah he queried : “How can a Muslim be leader of the Congress ?”. All of this in the 1920s.
So while i have the character to reflect on the Kanpur Speech by Jinnah, i want you to read what i have mentioned above and reflect on it.
PATEL (Marwari Interests) wanted partition – getting rid of substantial (if not all) Indian muslims was imperative to establish a Raj suited to Hindu world-view. And muslims were obstructionists towards THAT Hindu aspiration. SO “good riddance” was put into effect.
NEHRU’s socialist utterences were clearly aimed at Muslim Zamindars. I want Mythbuster to reflect on this : Nehru’s socialistic Abolition of Zamindari Act 1952 was enforced with THE FULL FORCE OF LAW only against Muslim Zamindars thru-out India ! The Hindu Zamindars remained untouched due to the “Hindu Undivided Family Act”. Land-holdings of Muslims in India is 0.2% today ! Whereas you will see many hindus who are holding 400 acres / 500 acres ! If you had 5000 acres., you divide it among your 10 relatives.. so each has 500 ! Hindu Zamindars were left un-touched.
Only muslim zamindar’s lands were confiscated and distributed among the land-less Hindus. Reflect on this, Mythbuster… and get back. Nehru’s socialism meant : “Take the property of Muslims – and distribute it among needy HINDUS”. Leave Rich Hindus untouched !!! That is the reason the Nizam of Hyderabad today is a pauper.,whereas the Rajas of Jaipur / Jodhpur / Gwalior / Baroda are billionares to this day and THRIVING. The property of the Hindu Rajas was left un-touched; whereas the property(ies) of the Nizam VII of Hyderabad were confiscated – sealed – grabbed – and distributed/sold/burnt whatever.
Where is the Law in India / Judges approve Bail Application of Criminals for Rs. 5 Crores (Ref: A Hyd. civil judge – Galli Janardhana Reddy – illegal miner of Bellary’s case).
So there was no civility – there was no rule of law – it was purely a land-grab. Nehru’s socialism meant : “Grab lands of Muslims and distribute same to Hindus. Leave Rich Hindus and their estates untouched”.
THIS indeed WAS one reason why Zamindars got attracted to IUML. I grasp that point. These Zamindars + Muslim Bureaucrats played a great role in the Pakistan Movement. The bureaucrats did it out of a desire for Quick Promotions ! It was all done in a very hap hazard way.
Independence was scheduled for Aug 1948. I would like Mythbuster to tell me.. why was it preponed to Aug 1947 ? Who was behind the pre-ponement ???
Harijan Leader and a cabinet minister under Nehru-Govt., Babu Jagjivan Ram had rightly advised the British to postpone the Independence by 10 yrs., so that tempers are cooled.
Why did Gandhi go to Naokhali… and not the Punjab Border… to stop violence. I want Mythbuster to reflect on THAT point too… and reply.. (if he has any), i.e.
Mythbusters,
Well we all know how good Pakistanis are in poetry! There is a reason for that! One uses literary aesthetics as prosthetics to prop up wisdom failing to cure helplessness!
.
I think the point was made! One should resist getting used to Pakis breaking their promises! There need to be consequences to any broken promise! Luckily for them, we don’t have a history of teaching them lessons, just defeating them!
to Raj Too
Are our pseudosecular politicians (bootlickers and cowards in front of muslims) intelligent and self-respecting enough to defeat Pakistan? It is Pakistan which has been defeating India in the past 65 years. Muslims in India (most of them) are the helpers of all these Pakistan’s victories. We can’t teach them any lesson. Their islamic imprisonment makes it impossible for them to learn. The muslims have been teaching us a “lesson” that non-muslims are cowards, idiots and deserving death. That “lesson” non-muslims have learnt. The shamelessness with which muslims, even their children, talk to or about non-muslims shows that.
During the last fifteen to twenty years of closely following some of these things I never felt inspired to seriously pursue any one subject. But now, one topic seems to stand out in its impact on people and its importance for the history/nature of conflict in societies – what I called tajendering here once, and some years ago on Chowk, described as Niyogification of Reality.
Sheikh Dron’s post offers a good example. But he is not alone – people have built entire civilizations and systems of ‘thought’ around it. No matter what we actually think of it, we should take it seriously because quite a few others do take this tajendered reality very seriously. Luckily for us, the methods of tajendering/niyogification are as interesting and patterned as they are important to understand.
to b j kumar
That PTH airs tajender’s vitriol is ok. No one believes what he writes. In fact it is good for muslims to read what he writes. It shows how islam deprives a human being of his honesty and thinking ability. It shows how islam can survive only through lies, hate, fascism and self-deceit. When muslims notice how helpless they are against a tajender or AKB or abdali amongst them, they MAY begin their long difficult-but-necessary journey out of the mental prison and fear which islam has enforced on them for its own glory and survival.
Reading pakistani newspapers and muslim websites confirms that islam can survive/exist only through lies, briberies, intimidations and fascist methods. The muslim mind is too deprived and decayed to be able to escape this prison.
ahem,
sorry, but Muslims have only taught me lessons on what they are and not on who Indics are!
.
You show yourself as too afraid, basically begging the Muslims to stop their ‘fascism’! That is not how it is going to play out. The only reason, why they are having a field day is because our civility and consideration for Oil.
.
When Oil is gone, so too would our inhibitions to teach the Muslims the lessons they deserve to learn!
.
With your rhetoric, you only feed the Muslims the confidence that they are winning!
Dronacharya:
.
“Now, do you want me to quote (as evidence) statements by : Lala Lajpat Rai, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal, (Lal-Bal-Pal) ? starting 1920s.. Should i quote Savarkar. Should i quote Golwalkar. (RSS was formed in 1928). Should I quote Madan Mohan Malaviya. Lala Hardayal (Arya Samaj)… and so on.
You may say : These were regional leaders or fringe elements…..”
.
I may not.
If you count Jinnah also among these group of narrow minded gentlemen then I have no problem. Do You?
Sigh.
I may however, repeat once again; my original questions
1. Who was the one asking for a partition even if it meant rivers of blood?
2. What stopped Jinnah to reach out to other non congress parties and leaders like the , Unionists, communists, Akalis, Ambedkar etc. to oppose the partition?
3. Last but not least; you still haven’t given a single non secular quote or statement from Nehru as you claimed. I am still waiting.
.
Listen; you may go into a litany of real and imagined acts of highhandedness of the Indian Union against the Muslim League supporters after 1947. That to me is changing the subject, and indirectly supporting Sachbol’s contention; that the AIML supporters want to have their cake and eat it too. Once the League and its supporters got their demand of Pakistan what right do they have to make any demands from the GOI?
Do you see any congresswala of a MahaSabhaite lamenting the loss of land in Gujranwala?
.
One last nugget for you.
The Indian Supreme Court ordered the GOI to return several thousands crores worth of property to the descendants of the Raja of Mahmudabad, one of the staunchest supporters of the League though he and his family had migrated away to Pakistan. Notice that such examples of one sided magnanimity for the leaguers; comes as an insult to one million Punjabi who lost their lives and ten million Punjabais uprooted due to the actions of such leaguers!!
.
.
NEWS REPORT
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Raja Mehmoodabad gets back Butler Palace
English daily The Hindu has published a photograph of Raja Mehmoodabad (aka Amir Mohammad Khan) receiving the keys of Butler Palace in Lucknow.
It took a harsh Supreme court verdict for the administration to hand over the property back to the rightful owner. The ancestor of Amir Mohammad Khan, Nawab Ali Khan (who had been adopted from Bilehra) had fought alongside Begum Hazrat Mahal against British and the riyasat had been annexed.
In 1937 the then Raja Amir Ahmad Khan had formed All India Muslim Students Federation. He had placed all his wealth at the disposal of Muslim League.
But the Raja got disillusioned with Pakistan and soon left the newly created nation to head for Iraq. He was a devout Shia. He then shifted to England. Ultimately he was buried at Mashhad in Iran.
But his wife and son, Amir Mohd Khan, stayed back in India. The present Raja Mahmoodabad is a connoissuer of art and culture. He is quite popular among the masses also. After a long struggle the family has got its due.
Those muslims who stayed behind in India did it not out of any love for India but so as to serve the cause of islamic expansionism and fascism. That is now coming out in great amount. They are suffering because of their own idiotic ideology and lies, but put blame on hindus and take that as an instigation for demographic aggression, slander and violence against hindus. Islam’s plans are fascist plans. No muslim can escape that. The evil dangerous nature of islam has been ignored by the pseudosecular politicians in India. Muslims in India will soon be more dangerous than the ones in Pakistan. Their sufferings caused by islam and blamed on hindus, their population growth, their money, street gangs and islamic schools, the encouragement/help that they get from islamic countries, their hate for India – all that will make them a serious source of trouble in the coming years. The opportunist-cowardly hindu leaders will do the typical foolishness of trying to appease the mohammadans, but that will only embolden them more to destroy hindus. And we have all these liberals trying to do a honey-coating on islam’s fascism.
RAj Too,
To Echo Jinnah, by God , you have understood me right. I am concerned about the rights of minority in the partition. Musalmans living in India actually own half of Pakistan as part of their Islamic demand/heritage taken from Indians in 47.Either These Muslamans be monetary compensated by Pakistan ,expenses for their upkeeping to be paid to GOI or they exercise their right to occupy their portion of Pakistan. There is nothing, religious or communal in this argument. I am secular person, an admirer of Quaid and following his footsteps, trying to make MAJ’s vision a global phenomenon to be applied universally. Secular and islamic peace will be established only when there is a balance between global Islamic Pakistan and its antithesis global multicultural, colorful, vibrant, life affirming Kuffar Global India celebrating the variety , freedom in thought and human conscience.
KC:
I think I understand what you mean. People become so comfortable in their own delusions that these become self perpetuating myths. Take for example the sad self pity of Dronacharya on the account of imagined slights to the Indian Muslims. He laments the conditiond of the progeny of the Nijam of Hydrabad. This sad tale will be repeated endlessly till it takes a life of its own.
I usually hate the ‘cut and paste pieces’ but the Nijam story reported below is a great human interest story and I reproduce below a book review by Arvind Adiga, published in the Time magazine.
One can understand how the Nijam became a ‘pauper’ due to his own rakishness. For the ‘Dronas’ of this world it will remain a ‘hindu conspiracy’ nevertheless.
Enjoy:
.
The Last Nizam: An Indian Prince in the Australian Outback, by John Zubrzycki. (Book review)
.
Of all the tall tales you might hear while holidaying in Australia—a land whose residents famously love to regale visitors with made-up stories—perhaps the tallest of all will be the one you hear in Murchison Station House, a 200,000-hectare sheep farm in the Western Australian outback. There you will be told that everything you see once belonged to Mukarram Jah, the eighth Nizam of Hyderabad, and that it was all seized when he failed to pay his debts. You may be inclined to laugh when you hear this. How could Jah, the grandest of Indian kings, inheritor of possibly the world’s greatest private fortune, end up on a sheep farm in Australia—and then lose it? This particular tale, however, is true—and it’s the subject of a fascinating new book, The Last Nizam: An Indian Prince in the Australian Outback, by John Zubrzycki.
Jah’s seven predecessors as Nizam were the rulers of Hyderabad, a kingdom in southern India. His grandfather, the seventh Nizam, was believed to be the world’s richest man—in 1949 the New York Times estimated his fortune at more than $2 billion. Over seven generations, the jewelry-mad Nizams had built up an unparalleled collection of gems: their pearls alone, the Times reported, would “pave Broadway from Times Square to Columbus Circle.” But the Nizams’ obsession with stuffing their dank chambers with priceless diamonds and then forgetting all about them seems, in retrospect, like a symptom of a deep-rooted anxiety about the dynasty’s security. They were Muslim princes ruling, often brutally, over a mostly Hindu part of India, and their reign was always tenuous. It ended in 1948, when independent India seized Hyderabad.
In 1967, when a 33-year-old, British-educated Mukarram Jah became the eighth Nizam after his grandfather’s death, he was no longer a real king, but he was still dizzyingly rich—the master of numerous palaces, a fleet of Rolls-Royces and five trust funds. Muslims in Hyderabad revered Jah, whose maternal grandfather was the last Caliph of Islam in Turkey; the Indian government hoped he would become a diplomat. But the impetuous young man, still sulking over the end of his kingdom, was more interested in tinkering with cars. Then, in 1972, he discovered Australia. After his first glance of the outback, he is said to have exclaimed: “I love this place, miles and miles of open country, and not a bloody Indian in sight.” He bought Murchison House Station, noting that it was “the size of a country”—large enough to compensate for his lost kingdom. His pedigree would matter little there, but that seems to have been the attraction. “I want a nice quiet life and a chance to work with my hands and get them dirty,” he told his friends.
Over the next 20 years, Jah got his hands—or at least the hands of his Indian servants and hired Australian workers—very dirty. The rewards were not financial. He invested millions in heavy machinery of dubious utility, including an amphibious tank; but his sheep farm never turned a profit. He invested millions more buying a gold mine; but it produced little gold. With all the financial savvy of an eighth-generation royal, Jah once chartered a plane just to bring a can of hydraulic fluid to his farm. Although his business ventures flopped, Jah was enjoying himself immensely. He bought a mansion in Perth, and converted a minesweeper into a giant luxury yacht. When his Turkish wife left him, unwilling to live on a farm, Jah married an Australian—who would also leave him—and began to dress like his Aussie neighbors, who called him “the Shah.”
Back home, his neglected palaces were turning into ruins. He had left his business affairs in the hands of friends and advisors, but Zubrzycki suggests he was a poor judge of men. Large parts of his treasure vanished amid allegations that some associates were stealing from him. His legal troubles grew fantastically complicated. Each time he tried to sell his jewels, someone obstructed him—either the Indian government or one of the numerous relatives who apparently wanted a share of the booty. With many of his assets frozen in India’s courts, Jah could no longer bail himself out of trouble as his Australian ventures failed. To pay off his debts, he sold his Perth mansion, but his troubles kept mounting. The crowning ignominy came in 1996 when, fearful that his creditors might get a warrant issued against him, Jah hurriedly caught a plane out of Australia. “The Shah” was exiled again, this time from his outback kingdom.
Zubrzycki writes that Jah, who is still alive, blames fate for his woes; and it isn’t hard to feel sorry for this childlike, inquisitive man, lost in a whirlpool of historical change and legal tangles. Yet if Jah had used even a fraction of his money and status, he could have transformed the lives of millions of poor people in Hyderabad. At the least, he should have been able to make a farm in the outback turn a profit. Instead, after losing one of the greatest fortunes in history, the last Nizam retired to Turkey, where, we are told, he lives a modest and anonymous life, and spends his time—quite appropriately—studying Roman ruins.
Dronacharya:
.
Read the quote below.
Can you guess who wrote this (Hint: it is NOT ahem):
.
When we speak of democracy in Islam it is not democracy in the government but in the cultural and social aspects of life. Islam is totalitarian—there is no denying about it. It is the Koran that we should turn to. It is the dictatorship of the Koranic laws that we want—and that we will have—but not through non-violence and Gandhian truth. (quoted in Hasan, 1997: 57-8)
.
The answer is:
It is Raja of Mahmudabad; the same gentleman who was the leading light of the AIML and the Pakistan movement and yet his properties (worth estimated 2500 crores) were restored recently to his heirs in UP by the Indian Supreme Court….
Dear Mr. Hamdani:
You wrote: “Ironically, Jinnah, the ultimate villain in Doctor Ahmed’s reckoning, had pleaded for exactly that. He told Mountbatten that a Hindu or a Muslim was a Punjabi or a Bengali before he was Hindu or a Muslim. This indicates a complex understanding of nationalisms and sub-nationalisms on the part of the Quaid-e-Azam. …… This is no defence of the two nation theory.”
[End of Quote]
You seem to be saying that when Jinnah made the comment to Mountbatten about the Punjabi or Bengali identity being more important than their religious identity, that was proof that Jinnah was not espousing the Two-Nation Theory.
What you are forgetting that Jinnah, at the time he made the above-mentioned comment, had already won Pakistan based on the Two-Nation Theory. (If he had abandoned the TNT, then he would have had to give up Pakistan and remain in an un-partitioned India).
His aim between March and June 1947 was to get the whole of of Punjab and the whole of Bengal for his Pakistan and to do that he had to pretend that religion was not important. But Pandit Nehru and Maulana Azad and Sardar Patel and Mountbatten all made him realize that if religion is not important than Pakistan is not important since for 12 years he had espoused his idea of Pakistan and fought for it on the basis that Islam was more important than provincial (Punjabi or Bengali) identity.
On June 3rd 1947 he had to stop pretending and accept that if he still wanted Pakistan then the only kind of Pakistan he would get was a partitioned Punjab and partitioned Bengal.
He decided to go back to his Two-Nation Theory and again took the position that the opinions of Hindus and Sikhs did not matter.
you may find this helpful – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH6WlNBiibs&feature=g-vrec
Regards, R. Bhawani Prasad
Sachbol,
You sir, are fighting for the rrright thing! You see like you, I too am not communal or Hindutvavadi or anything like that.
.
The problem is Jinnah promised Pakistan to the Subcontinental Muslims. Based on this promise, Indians acceded to this demand of Partition.
.
Jinnah and Pakistan have not delivered. There are 180 million Muslims in India, who did not get their share of Pakistan. They need to be compensated. As more or less the Muslim population of India and Pakistan are equal, half of Pakistan should be given to Indian Muslims.
.
Either the Pakistanis give half of Pakistan to Indian Muslims on their own, or Indian Government should occupy the lands of all those Paki Zamindars and fairly distribute it among Indian Muslims. Pakistani land is the birthright of Indian Muslims, and they cannot be denied that.
Jinnah the chameleon is worshipped by pakistani muslims.
So, muslims worship chameleons. Sounds a bit like worshipping camels.
So long he did not take islam seriously he was honest. Later he was saying all kinds of things to all kinds of people in order to fulfill his megalomania:
—
“I am the saviour of islam, indian muslims and world ummah”.
—
“Allah will therefore forgive me all my earlier unislamic thoughts and acts and guarantee me a place in his paradise”.
—
“The name Mohammad Ali Jinnah will be written in golden letters in all history books in islamic lands”.
—
“My mausoleum will be showered daily with rose petals thrown from helicopters from all the muslim lands”.
—
“Anyone who dares to question my greatness will be pounced upon by zealous momins and cut down”.
—
These are all typical mohammadan dreams since almost 1400 years, since 622 AD.
RaJToo,
Like Sa`d b. Mu`adh ‘s judgement on Bannu Qurayza, you have judged the case right and granted half of Pakistani land to the Musalmans living in India. We cannot penalize the Balochis and The land of Frontier Gandhi for they did try to defy the Quaid. It leaves Pakjab and Sindh to pay the compensation.Half of both is fair deal to honor the Quaid ‘s memory. IMHO, Indian Army have to do another BD style expedition to enforce the justice for the Muslamans in India and bring peace to them. Islam is the brotherhood of Ummah, Peace at the core and calls for prompt Justice. Pakistani should accept and help the case these Musalmans instead of opposing, lest the Paradise be denied to them on this count of injustice. Justice needs to be administered to both parties and who can be more neutral, secular than Kufaar?
MYTHBUSTER : It couldnt have been better. You accepted my argument and the truth that lay underneath. And you replied to it., but your reply was partial in both the leading cases I enunciated and you replied thereto.
1. Raja of Mahmudabad. Now, let me tell this. Mythbuster KNOWS what i am going to write, but he deliberately wrote his reply and halted. He knew what followed the Judgement of the Supreme Court of India in favour of the heirs of the Raja of Mahmudabad. BUT the GOI and the Home Ministry put obstacles on the way – and the properties were NOT restored to the Raja of Mahmudabad. WHY ? Because the tenants are mostly Hindu, and the Congress Govt. could not digest., giving away property worth Rs. 25 K crores to a Muslim ! Their intent is to produce a society of Neo-SCs and STs. (Pt. Nehru’s famous statement : “As we uplift the SCs and STs.. who will do the odd jobs they did… we will create a group of NEW SCs and STs… Indian Muslims i.e.). So to bust your MYTH, myth-buster the Judgement of the Supreme Court of India was NOT Implemented.
The Raja of Mahmudabad – was the Treasurer of Muslim League. YES. After 1947, he migrated to London where he lived and died ! BUT… and here reality will bust on your face… his wife… had refused to leave India. So she remained in India with her son. THIS is the PRESENT RAJA of Mahmudabad… who never set foot on Pakistan (nor his mother). The father had left.. he lived for a while in Pakistan.. and like Nirad C. Chaudhry, finally settled and died in London. What do you know of the Raja of Mahmudabad… he led a far more simpler life than GANDHI ! (Whose Bakri or Goat ate Badam and Pistas). To quote Sarojini Naidu : “Only a crore-pati can keep / maintain Gandhiji IN poverty”. Gandhi’s life was a film-set., where a super-star comes in his Merc/BMW VAN., and dons tattered clothes and plays the role of a Bhikari. The Raja of Mahmudabad – lived in one room – cooked his own food – led the simplest of lives – and died in his one room tenament in London. HIS SON – was given the property by the Supreme Court of India.. true.. but did the Govt. of India., and the Govt. of UP., finally acted on THAT JUDGEMENT ?
I want Mythbuster to reply to that.. Not by myths but by truths that bust on their own merit.
2. NIZAM OF HYDERABAD : You have quoted the story written by the Australian writer. I agree to the running undercurrent of your argument. Yes. 50% it was the failing of MUKARRAM JAH Nizam VIII. He left India. That was his cardinal mistake. BUT WHY DID HE LEAVE INDIA ?
I want Mythbuster to answer that question. If he has no answer., i want him atleast to show some grace., and listen to someone who knows the answer (atleast partly).
In the 1970s – Sanjay Gandhi wanted to set up the Maruti Factory. Nehru had a liking for Mukarram Jah (Nehru was RSS, but sophisticated and extremely WELL-MANNERED). Mukarram Jah always met him b4 flying from Delhi. Nehru invited him for breakfast often. So in the 1970s (Sanjay Gandhi was Prime Minister of India 1975-77)., Sanjay wished to start the Maruti Factory. Mukarram Jah had a love for engines and cars., and there was a broad agreement between both. Of course with the direct approval of Mrs. Indira Gandhi (the de jure prime minister of india). What happened was, during an argument, Sanjay abused Mukarram Jah ! (Sanjay was cheap in tongue infact a street-like goonda). Mukarram Jah slapped Sanjay hard. Mukarram Jah left in his personal airplane to Hyd (from Delhi). Sanjay ran to his mother, crying. Indira Gandhi was furious. She was then at the peak of her power ! She called Dr. M. Chenna Reddy, Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, and ordered him to arrest Mukarram Jah right away ! On what charge ? Of annoying and insulting Sanjay. That was HIGH Treason. Dr. M. Chenna Reddy was a smart politician. He called Mukarram Jah – and told him the truth. He said, he could provide him a passage provided he gave him SOMETHING. Mukarram Jah gave Chenna Reddy some gems/jewels., and took of in his plane. After 2-3 years, when Mukarram Jah’s airplane was out of India’s boundary., Chenna Reddy called Indira Gandhi to say that Mukarram Jah was not in India., and that he had left India before he could reach him / arrest him. Mrs Gandhi knew Chenna Reddy. She was furious. Subsequently to placate Indira Gandhi, Chenna Reddy hosted false cases against Mukarram Jah (Murder Case… wherein the charge was that he murdered a farmer… and a host of other cases). In all, 247 Cases were filed against Mukarram Jah.
Mukarram Jah entered India., ONLY after the Dictator Indira Gandhi (Narendra Modi in a Saree) was assasinated. Post Indira, he did visit Hyderabad – but absence of a quarter century took its toll. It was Mukarram Jah’s personal failing, very true., but only 50%. The other 50% is thanks to Sanjay and Indira Gandhi… and of course the “INNATE” Hindu desire to USURP Muslim Property… BASED ON “Police tumhare saath hai” syndrome. The false history of Muslims having raped Hindu Girls by the millions.. killed Hindus.. demolished temples. These false arguments provide FUEL and the AMMUNITION and give the licence to the Hindu Youth to indulge in mob vilence (rape muslim girls / kill their menfolk / steal their property).
Hinduism today is nothing but Hindutva., which means rape/steal/usurp Muslim property.
This trait is visible, in both instances enunciated above. In the case of the Raja of Mahmudabad, the verdict of SCI was not effected upon by the GOI which infact spoked the wheel of justice. The Raja wasted 35 years ! He knew now that the Constitution of India was a piece of paper – and that RSS’ edict was the Real Constitution of India (on the ground). The Raja of Mahudabad will not get even Rs. 25/- from the Rs. 25 K crores which belong to him. WHY ? Because the present tenants are Hindus… and the Hindu / RSS Govt. of India (Congress is a wing of the RSS… infact… Hegdewar was a member of the Congress BEFORE he founded the RSS in 1928… with Gandhiji’s blessings). The Hindu would never want a Malechcha MUSLIM to own property worth Rs. 25K crore.
They never want the Muslim net-worth to rise above Rs. 100/-.
I HAVE BUSTED BOTH THE HALF-SIDED ARGUMENTS YOU PUT FORWARD. IT WAS DISHONESTY – BECAUSE HE KNEW – BUT DELIBERATELY PUT ONLY HALF OF THE ARGUMENT. THAT IS EXTREME DISHONESTY.
to drona
A muslim’s loyalty is to Makkah and the imperialism emanating from Makkah. A muslim has no right to any property in the indian subcontinent. Can a hindu own fixed property in Makkah – even 100 Rs worth? Islam is an arabic, anti-indian, totalitarian, imperialist ideology from Makkah. You don’t want to hear that – but that is the basic truth. Muslim arguments have no validity in the indian subcontinent.
Dronacharya:
Let me address the three major issues you raised.
.
1. Raja of Mahmudabad and his properties.
The issue is still not settled but before blaming the Hindus reflect on the fact that the Raja was non an innocent bystander. He was the leading proponent of the Lahore resolution, the main financier of the AIML and the implementor of the TNT.
The Raja who owned the properties left voluntarily for Pakistan, then Iraq and then London. His personal piety is meaningless. Sorry to say, he was a Muslim bigot, and as a supporter of the TNT, openly called for ethnic cleaning. His actions cost one million Punjabi lives and ten million became homeless and lost everything.
You understand; Everything!!
His son, the current ‘raja’ moved with his father and family to Karbala. He learnt to speak Arabic and Persian before he spoke Urdu or English. Now I am surprised that he has the nerve to Ask for anything. If the court order is implemented, I will accept it but with deep regret; because it will add salt to the wounds of all the millions of Punjabis who had suffered, died and lost.
.
2. Nijam of Hydrabad too was not an innocent bystander but an active TNT believer. In 1948 he secretly sent a million pounds to Pakistani high commission during the Kashmir crisis. Nevertheless, his properties remain in his custody.
The whole Sanjay Gandhi cock a bull story even if true, is irrelevant. In 75-77, it eas not an anti-muslim thing; half of India was locked up; even nationalists like JP Narayan were in prison.
Since 1947 the Nijam has shown no interest or sympathy for India, mostly lived away from it.
Both these individual cases are prime examples of what the BJP accuses a section of Muslims to be; only reluctantly Indian, for whom India comes as a last option, after having tried all others.
I regret to say that I am not sorry for either of these two idle rich guys, from a class that supported divisive, anti India policies. In fact one must thank Nehru’s magnanimity that they are not homeless or dead and still have rights to their ancestral land. That is more than I can say for the millions of uprooted Punjabis, who were the actual innocent victims of that period.
.
3. You wrote:
”(Pt. Nehru’s famous statement : “As we uplift the SCs and STs.. who will do the odd jobs they did… we will create a group of NEW SCs and STs… Indian Muslims i.e.). …”
.
Do you have any way to substantiate that or did you just make it up?
Nehru has been called many things but even his worst detractors would not dream of accuse him of such a juvenile insult. Till his dying day, Nehru was the staunchest supporters that the Muslims had in India or elsewhere. If anything Hindu nationalist conspiracy theorists like you but from the other side claim he was actually a Muslim, complete with a fabricated family history and all.
.
India is not perfect but it’s current democratic setup provides the best possible chance for it’s minorities provided they too make an effort.
Take another community; the Sikhs. After 1984 pogroms; rather than wallow in self pity or indulge in anti national agenda, the community cleaned it’s politics, and moved on. Today a Sikh leads the Indian Govt. Even as another Sikh leads it’s armed forces. The murderers of the Sikhs were never punished but the community goes on.
Educated Indian Muslims come in several varieties.
There are those like MJ Akbar and Fareed Zakaria who see a democratic India and look for ways of leading their community out of it’s isolation and backwardness.
Then their are others like you; caught in a time wrap, having learnt nothing, forgotten nothing, indulging in paranoid fantasies, unwilling or unable to give India a chance.
I think they are a dead weight even more so now than in 1947.
Fortunately for such people, there are other alternatives.
They can move to the lands they won by the TNT. I would caution them to think twice though; especially if they are from the minority sects like the Ahmedya or the Shias etc. because in that case the people on the other side may not be be as forgiving as the Indians……
ALL Indians, of whatever background, must make time to read up on the religious politics/history of Hyderabad. To know, to have knowledge, is never to be ‘undesirably communal’ but to be able to build and maintain whatever kind of society one wishes to on some solid foundations.
One learns many fascinating factlets. Phrases like “ambassador of unity” become less intriguing – the patriotic poetess coining the phrase also had a ‘son’ by the name of kasim Rizvi, a gentleman who played some important role in India and in dealing with Sardar Patel. Despite the war the Nizam fought against India, one learns, the Indian government made him the Rajpramukh (Governor) of the new state.
As regards the wealth that could not be transferred out of India before Sardar Patel walked in, some interesting insights from a man to whom India means nizams and moghuls -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2007/dec/08/weekend.williamdalrymple
”(Pt. Nehru’s famous statement : “As we uplift the SCs and STs.. who will do the odd jobs they did… we will create a group of NEW SCs and STs… Indian Muslims i.e.). …”
.
Do you have any way to substantiate that or did you just make it up?
———————-
People might want to read the following just for the fun of it, but also, hopefully, to notice clear patterns -
http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090825041220AAqJwf2
When did Sarojini Naidu say about Jinnah in 1947 on being asked about India’s partition on 14 th August, 1947?
(By Humanity – top Yahoo contributor – who desribes himself as
“God fearing, peace loving, like truth, honesty, justice, decency, humanity, neutrality, logic, reasoning, have no prejudice, no mindset, no bias, no hatred, open mindedness, no use of dirty & abusive word, love all good people, make this world much better by all possible means.” – Is that our own Humanity?)
“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”
(Adolph Hitler)
.
KC:
I checked out the link you pointed out. Such oft repeated lies turned have been around for ever. Now the power of the internet allows people to quote each other as references. To be fair, conspiracy theorist are distributed in all communities and remain absolutely convinced of their claims. For example I have heard from several educated Sikh sources that Nehru and Patel ganged up to destroy the Sikhs quoting a former IAS officer Kapur Singh (dismissed for embezzlement). A version of that allegation taken from a Khalistani site, is reproduced below (it can be easily google umpteen sites under Kapur Singh, Sikh criminal circular, Patel etc.). No one has ever seen a copy of this reported circular yet the myth lives on.
.
“In Oct.1947, Mr. Gopi Chand Bhargav Chief-Minister of Punjab, issued a circular presenting Sikhs (who were declared refuge in their own homeland), as criminal castes and they be dealt strictly, with the consent of the trio, than Governor Punjab, Chandu Lal Chaturvedi, PM Nehru and Home Minister Patel. S. Kapur Singh who was DC Kangra refused to imply this order and sent a letter to Governor Punjab in protest. At this Govt. terminated him from I C S when he was on leave on midnight of 13-14 April 1949, whereas Govt. had no powers to sack an ICS. It was a punishment to S. Kapur Singh of his being a Sikh in a new secular nation…..”
MB
Interesing link. My feeling is that the cost of not challenging such fabrications – for whatever reasons – very high.
Agree with you that fabricators can be found in all societies. IMO, these things are a bit like violence. To be human is to be, partly, violent, untruthful etc. But with not too much effort, wee can create ideologies, institutions, incentive structures that can turn socities into factories of terrorism, tajendering etc.
An easy to way identify the difference is to notice the response when such instances are pointed out/challenged in a neutral manner. A ‘normal human’ society would respond, mostly, in one way; a tajendered society in another.
The latter feels threatened by such exposure in a fundamental manner and responds as if its roots were being pulled out.
Kal Chakra,
Your references make fascinating reading, especially Dalrymple’s article.
Also, I did not know of Kasim Rizhvi-Sarojini Naidu link. Thanks for pointing it out.
.
” My feeling is that the cost of not challenging such fabrications – for whatever reasons – very high.”
.
The above is very true; the highest price though is paid by the minorities themselves once they fall victims to such falsehoods. The case of Indian Muslims is too obvious.
The Sikhs as a community, at one point appeared to go the AIML way flirting with separatism, thanks to similar hateful canards/half truths but fortunately avoided a full disaster though they still paid a heavy price.
I think it is too late for the Tajenders and the Dronacharyas but I agree, for the sake of the next generation, such fabrications need to be challenged. It is for that reason I like reading (and sometimes quoting) the Muslims intellectuals themselves.
Mythbuster
It is hard to separate the followers of Sikh and other Snatan Dharm followers.All being the sons of soil have similar civilizational interests. Indians are proud of leading role played by Sikh PM and Army Cheif. Its as normal for Indic as it gets. Expecting similar thinking from Muslamans is irrational. The beauty and greatnes of TNT and the geinus of Quaid is that there is not single past, present and future problem of Musalmans which cannot be explained , solve withing the gambit of TNT. Honoring Muslamans with TNT will go long way in establishing peace and happiness. Pakistani as the first children of TNT have major role to play starting with walking the walk of pure islam and inviting the stranded Musalmans in India to enjoy the fair share of the loot of Indian land . Lets see if they love Islam more than the cursed piece of land they occupy presently.
mythbuster and kaalchakra,
while the dalrymple extract is interesting, please keep large amounts of salt ready when you read these brits like dalrymple or alice albinia. They all practise the silent lie in concealing the role of the brits in all this. The brits were strategically zeroes in 1946 and knew it. Unfortunately, we did’nt call their bluff at that time. Nevertheles, they had to seyttle our independence without wholly succeeding in their intrigues.Thewy could not give undivided punjab or bengal to pakistan even though churchill had promised jinnah as much.In one sense, both jinnah and nizam were victims of british intrigues as the Brits never told them that the game was up, gandhi’s mass movement was too powerful, and the duo continued to believe that brits would prevail
Nizam, yesterday, Saudi king today.Western govts rush to spread democracy to Syria thru Saudi Arabia, a xcountry where women cant drive, where a teenage girl was raped and the judge sentenced the girl , (yes, the victim!) to 100 lashes for being outside her house.And 20 years from now, western writers will pour into saudi arabia and write about “riches, luxuries…” and what not.All the while, the west destroys secular republics like iraq and syria. They are also hostile to the present govt in bangladesh
kaalbharti
The British were always less cunning-backstabbing and far more honest than muslims. Jinnah had abandoned reason and humanism and taken to megalomania and islamofascist heroism. Unfortunately muslim population in India has grown fast and we have to concentrate on the danger posed by these quislings and fascists of islam in today’s India. The muslims in today’s India will soon prove to be far worse, far more evil than the muslims in british times.
“the west destroys secular republics like iraq and syria. They are also hostile to the present govt in bangladesh”
Who is this “west” kaalabhaartibhai and why is it “hostile” to bangladesh? You need to see a doctor for your paranoia, and fast!
heavy petting…
just read the “Economist” on sheikh hasina’s govt. They attack the trial of jamaate islami’s leaders in B’desh and give space to islamist bangladeshis in exile in london. Awami League has explained that if you dont put them on trial for their crimes, it inevitably encourages extremism. And, saudi arabia , the western puppet, has sharply reduced visas for B’deshis since hasina govt came. (They dont mind so much even outright kufrs from india, as we continue to get visas in large no). B’desh parliament has passed a resolution thanking the people of india for their past assistance.Those rascals in Britain and France and Belgium have never passed such resolutions even though thousands of indians sacrificed their lives in WW1 and WW2 for the sake of these gora chamdas
Bhartibhai
On what basis should the West not give space to Islamists?