India and Pakistan are now 60 years old, as is the bloody partition that created them. My father’s family was caught up in what became arguably the largest mass migration in history: 14.5 million people were moved, roughly the same number in each direction, and somewhere between 500,000 and one million of them died in the process. 
Because independence was declared prior to the actual Partition, it was up to the new governments of India and Pakistan to keep public order. No large population movements were contemplated; the plan called for safeguards for minorities on both sides of the new state line. It was an impossible task, at which both states failed. There was a complete breakdown of law and order [Link]
The management of partition was badly botched; if you think Brownie did a heck of a job, Mounty makes him look like a paragon of engagement and sensitivity. Mountbatten insisted that the partition line be drawn in only six weeks! Think of how slowly the US government moves today, and that will give you a sense of how ridiculous and uncaring that deadline was. The line was drawn by Sir Cyril Radcliffe; this is what his private secretary, Christopher Beaumont, had to say about the process:
“The viceroy, Mountbatten, must take the blame – though not the sole blame – for the massacres in the Punjab in which between 500,000 to a million men, women and children perished,” he writes. “The handover of power was done too quickly…”… it was “irresponsible” of Lord Mountbatten to insist that Beaumont complete the boundary within a six-week deadline – despite his protests. [Link]
<
p>Mountbatten was a pretty boy from a royal family whose track record during WWII led him to be “known in the British Admiralty as the Master of Disaster.” [Link] His track record in India seems similar – he was charming and glib, but unconcerned about the feasibility of plans or the lives which would be lost.
<
p>As Viceroy of India, he advanced the date of independence by nine months (no reason was ever given), making the problems associated with partition worse. Critics argue that he foresaw bloodshed and didn’t want it to happen on British watch; he was willing to make things worse as a form of CYA rather than take responsibility for the situation.
<
p>
<
p>So how did the Last Viceroy spend the evening of August 14th, having put calamity into motion? Was he apprehensive? Concerned about the lives he had condemned? Not at all:
… on the evening of August 14, 1947, a few hours before Britain’s Indian Empire was formally divided into the nation-states of India and Pakistan, Lord Louis Mountbatten and his wife, Edwina, sat down in the viceregal mansion in New Delhi to watch the latest Bob Hope movie, “My Favorite Brunette…” [Link]
<
p>In the end he was killed by the IRA rather than O’Dwyered by one of his victims from India. Mountbatten had a very difficult job to perform, but from what little I have read, he did not do it well.
Related links: Exit Wounds, the New Yorker book review of Indian Summer by Pankaj Mishra
It’s not just video footage. It’s the analysis, the soul-searching, the educational outreaches, the dissemination of knowledge, the political repurcussions, the legal trials…Jews were very tenacious about it never being forgotten. And hats off to them…it never should be.
Partition on the other hand has not had 1% of that attention or analysis…and that is Indians’ fault, no one elses. Personally, I think what makes Partition hard to analyse objectively is that (in my view) it was mostly the fault of Muslim leaders, and the street/village level violence (at least in the beginning) was the work of Muslim peasantry. Yes, as a reaction, there was equally horrifying violence committed by Hindus and Sikhs…but they didn’t start it. These facts are unpalatable to a lot of people, who would like to think that everything was 50-50 all the way, and blame everyone equally. When it just wasn’t like that. Partition is too hot a topic to ever come to terms with, because of the ways in which it bears upon Indo-Pak and Muslim-non Muslim relations to this day. Diplomatically, it’s vital to be polite and make nice about it…which will never get us to the truth.
I think the Partition was and has been such a non-topic for my aunts, uncles, and grandparents was because of the utter horror of it and my understanding has been that everyone’s focus has been to move away from it. My dad was 16 and my mom 7 when their families moved from the Lahore and Rawalpindi areas to the Punjab. Incidently, my parents’ families moved in comparative safety and 5-star style…both my grandfathers were Indian army officiers and not only did they get prior notice but each of them due to their ranks got entire carriages to transport families (immediate and extended) families across the border. However, the land reparations were never equal to the amount they lost plus they lost all the baggage, money, and valuables in the baggage trains during the movement.
The horror of the butchery, rapes, kidnapping of young girls and women, and the deep sense of abiding shame of these events pretty much shut everyone up. I reccomend the movie “Pinjar” one of the absolute best movies on the partition and what happens to women, in particular, in these scenarios.
I must also note something critical to this: other than my parents and their younger siblings, every single relative over the age of 20 has always dated and continued to date events by “when Pakistan was created” or “10 years after the partition” or “15 years before the partition”. I had the same experience with a Pakistani grandma I met from Kapurthala prior to the Partition. She dated things by “when India was created.” However, I have never ever heard a negative word about muslims from anyone in our families.
sp
Come on, Amrita, it is a historical picture, reflecting a real event, capturing people in a candid, unposed composition that was rare at the time, especially for near-royalty like the Mountbattens. Besides which, it also brilliantly captures Mountbatten’s indifference – in his faraway, I-don’t-give-a-damn look, which applies both to the Edwina-Jawaharlal relationship as well as to the process of Partition; as well as showing that Nehru was in fact quite a bit shorter than both the Viceregal beings; in addition it correctly captures the insinuatory nature of Nehru’s relationship – he came ‘in between’ Edwina and the Earl ! π
I recommend Manto’s Toba Tek Singh.
23 circus in jungle
Jinnah had so much blood on his hands.
I think that even if partition hadn’t happened the relative similar amount of bloodshed would have occurred in the next 60 years through religious violence. Only it might not have been concentrated in border regions.
–> While religious stupidity causes lots of deaths, that doesnt mean people like Jinnah are off the hook for causing it in the first place.
10 Quizman
I can even ignore that he faithfully reproduces the post-imperial narrative which robs Indians – any of them – of all their agency (Independence happened because Britain was weakened and US put pressure. Killings happened because British fueled separatism). But I just cannot let go of his conclusion which as usual ignores history and reduces analysis to simply spotting every recursion of the word Γ’β¬ΕIslamΓ’β¬Β and then connecting the dots
–> But Britain was weak at that time and ready to let India have its way. I can say it is wrong if some writers see it as the only reason but that doesnt mean it wasnt one of the legitimate reasons why India got independence when it did. The same with the ‘..british fueled separatism…’ part.
Correct. The Bengali Muslims in West Bengal were left in relative peace, despite the violence being wreaked upon Hindus in East Bengal. So, with no one forcing them to go, they stayed right where they were and life went on. Whereas in Punjab, when the displaced Sikhs and Hindus from West Punjab got to East Punjab, despite being ‘refugees’, they made sure there were no Muslim left in East Punjab by the time they got done (except in Maler Kotla, where for a very specific historic reason related to Sikh history, the local Muslims were spared, and Maler Kotla has a large Muslim Punjabi population to this day, unique in all of Indian Punjab).
The difference is with Partition, unlike the Holocaust, civilians from all three communities were both victims and murderers. And unlike the anti-Semitism of the Holocaust, which has been roundly rejected by most everyone, “South Asian progressives” still believe the two nation theory to be morally defensible (as long as it is not Hindu nationalists who are advocating it). Go to any Western university and you will find that most professors believe that Pakistan has a legitimate claim to Kashmir based on its Muslim majority. We can record & remember, but political correctness does not allow for any lesson to be learned
Amit:
I liked “Pinjar” too-the book by Amrita Pritam is even better.
Quizman:
I know that the Sahnis have a communist connection, but the book Tamas, in its protrayal of common people, who bore the brunt of partition, was really very accurate. There’s another short story by Bhisham Sahni “Sardarni” on partition.
Oh! and how i can forget the chilling afsanas/stories written by Saadat hasan Manto…..they are blunt but really true.
Has anyone been to the countryside of Punjab in India and seen all those old Muslim cemetaries and dilapidated mosques? Chilling. By the same token, the countryside in Pakistan is full of old Hindu temples and Sikh shrines in various states of ruin.
I was actually surprised to see it in the graphic of ennis’ post. The Henry Holt (American) edition of the book, which I got recently from Amazon has a different image on the cover.
Amitabh,
In a Umer Sharf play, a chap goes around claiming that he is a nawab and that his forefathers have been staying in XYZ area for centuries. Umer Sharif asks him (rough translation), “Pray, then why does the nameplate on your gate say R.C. Sharma?”
54 chachaji
Come on, Amrita, it is a historical picture, reflecting a real event, capturing people in a candid, unposed composition that was rare at the time, especially for near-royalty like the Mountbattens. Besides which, it also brilliantly captures Mountbatten’s indifference – in his faraway, I-don’t-give-a-damn look, which applies both to the Edwina-Jawaharlal relationship as well as to the process of Partition; as well as showing that Nehru was in fact quite a bit shorter than both the Viceregal beings; in addition it correctly captures the insinuatory nature of Nehru’s relationship – he came ‘in between’ Edwina and the Earl ! π
–> If you saw another picture with Jinnah in the middle(between Edwina and the ‘Earl’ as you put it), would you insinuate pretty much the same thing ? It is one thing to read a thousand intrepretations into a picture. It is quite another to claim what you did about the picture above and then supply your intrepretation. Plus what does Nehru being short have to do with anything ?
We can record & remember, but political correctness does not allow for any lesson to be learned
jinnah wanted and undivided punjab & bengal. guess why? π the kolkatta bhadrolok’s who didn’t want bengal partition in 1905 sure as hell wanted it in ’47. guess why? π
It is rude to Nehru, but I will not concede that Nehru == India.
I used it because it seemed to capture Mountbatten’s disengagement very nicely, and since I see no need to venerate Nehru (even on this day), that did not disqualify the picture.
Ritwik Ghatak is a good starting point. Final interview (translated). Partition trilogy — Subarnarekha, Meghe Dhaka Tara, Komol Gandhar. (Links to first parts — no subtitles)
I think what happened is no one realised that people would have to leave their ancestral homes…when violence started, and Muslims started driving Sikhs/Hindus out (sorry Al Mujahid, I know you won’t like that comment),
I think what makes Partition hard to analyse objectively is that (in my view) it was mostly the fault of Muslim leaders, and the street/village level violence (at least in the beginning) was the work of Muslim peasantry. Yes, as a reaction, there was equally horrifying violence committed by Hindus and Sikhs…but they didn’t start it. These facts are unpalatable to a lot of people, who would like to think that everything was 50-50 all the way, and blame everyone equally.
I think it is uncontestable that the partition movement was started and led by Muslims leaders so the partition can fairly be attributed to them for the most part though some historians have now claimed that the Muslim League leaders were calling for Pakistan as a ploy to get a bigger share of power from the Congress Party.
I would of course like to see some evidence of the partition related violence being started by Muslims. I am not talking about the ‘Direct Action Day’ etc. but the violence which came out of the mass movement of people. The claim that Muslims started it might very well be true but I would like to see the evidence.
louiecypher, I think you are correct regarding this.
musical, thanks for the recommendation re: Pinjar book. Glad to know others too enjoyed stories by Saadat Hasan Manto. There’s also Train to Pakistan by Khushwant Singh, but I read it a loooong time ago and don’t remember all the details.
I too would like to see evidence that the Muslims started it first.
Not that it would change my opinion of the partition.
sp
Josh, if you are referring to my comment, then I think you misread it. I am not talking about the Nazis documentation of their death camps; I am referring to the commitment of many Jewish organizations (and the founding of said organizations), particularly in the U.S., in collecting the personal histories and narratives of survivors. I think such an act of remembrance is incredibly important.
Amitabh, I can’t agree with you on this one (re: it is “mostly the fault of Muslim leaders”). Many of these decisions were made above the heads of “common folk” in India, and I don’t fault Muslim leadership for wanting its own “safe haven” or state. I don’t think this was necessarily the best solution, but for folks on the street, Partition was horrific regardless of what your background was. I don’t think we can absolve Indian leadership, either. The violence, from what I can tell, was pretty evenly spread on the western border. That said, when my grandparents do talk about Partition (rarely), they also talk about those people who helped them make it across the border. They lost a lot of family, but there was also a lot of cross-religious acts of humanity, as well.
Sonya, I’ve noticed this in my family, also. Things are not dated by Independence but rather as “British” vs. “Partition” vs. “post-Partition.” For my grandfather, home will always be Lahore. He made it across safely, but how do you make “reparations” for someone’s childhood? for their friends? He returned to Lahore two years ago (for the first time since Partition) for his 50th college reunion. I’ve only seen him cry twice in my lifetime, and his “homecoming” was one of those times.
And lastly, I think “Pinjar” is a great depiction of Partition, although I find it hard to watch.
Amitabh:
i’ve lived my life in Punjab countryside. I agree with you about the mosques-but the various Sufi and Peer shrines still have lots of following-there usually is an urs/mela every Jumme-raat/Thursday and people usually bring diyaas with mustard oil for prayers. One those many shrines that i have seen , is within a temple, and its believed that everytime you visit the temple, you have to visit the shrine for your prayers to come true :). and again, there’s an urs on Thursday at this shrine.
NPR was interviewing a British man who had served during parition. He claims they were woefully understaffed. 15k troops trying to manage millions. One thing he said was that the partition had been planned for 1948 but Jinnah probably had a hand in advancing the date by a year. Jinnah’s idea of Pakistan was very progressive, it seems. Jinnah died a few months after Aug 1947. Does anyone have any other inputs on the date change?
Amitabh,
As a Southie married to a Punjabi, I realized the tremendous impact that Partition had on the lives of the older generation in my husband’s family after I married him. His dadi passed away last year but I spent many hours with her hearing tales of their flight from Rawalpindi to India. Whenever we visited, I made it a point to hear her reminiscences because I knew that this precious history would soon be lost.One of my most poignant memories is of the time that I was searching for a piece of “Phulkari” emboridered cloth to complete a project. I searched high and low and when Dadi heard this she literally wept and told me that she had with her own hands embroidered enough cloth to keep 2 generations going .She cried and told me “we lost everything and had to leave everything.I had planned to embroider enough blankets to keep my grandsons sons warm “. What is most tragic is besides the loss of property and lives, the heritage of an entire generation is gone : the memorabilia, the Tchotchkes, the trinkets, the photos that chart family history is gone. There is nothing left to let my son know where his ancestors came from – nothing except the stories that we pass down
Amitabh said:
I say:
Although the intent was to award Muslim-majority areas to Pakistan and Hindu-majority areas to India, this principle couldn’t always be followed to the letter and spirit. Let me toss some Partition-related arcana into the discussion, specifically relating to Cooch Behar district in West Bengal and what was then East Pakistan: http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2007/05/08/110-cooch-behar-the-mother-of-all-enclave-complexes/
An enclave complex like this may be intellectually tickling, but it brings up a number of real problems in the day to day lives of an already disenfranchised lot. Initiatives like the Teen Bigha agreement try to cure some of the pain, but all the bad blood from 60 years ago (and quite frankly, some misplaced pride) still stands in the way of a normalization of boundaries.
BTW – I love the comments I’m seeing here. I’m learning a ton, and the conversation is both civil and constructive. I’m very pleased that this hasn’t degenerated, especially given the time I put into the post.
Here is an input: History might have worn a different face had certain photographs been let loose. In India in 1946 Mohammed Ali Jinnah’s doctor developed a set of X rays that spelled a death sentence for his patient. Tuberculosis had already severely damaged the lungs; he was not likely to live more than two or three years longer. Jinnah, the iron-willed leader of the Moslem League, was determined to create the Moslem state of Pakistan, no matter what the cost. He swore his doctor to secrecy; if his opponents were to find out he was under a death sentence, they would probably try to outlast him, and Pakistan itself would die before it ever existed. The doctor sealed the film in an unmarked envelope and locked it in his office safe. At midnight on August 14, 1947, in the wake of bloody riots and untold deaths throughout India, Pakistan became a nation with Jinnah at its head. Thirteen months later, the Father of Pakistan died. The photographs of his lungs were still sealed in an envelope in an office safe.
Camille
I NEVER EVER cry watching Hindi movies EVER. Pinjar was the first one and it didn’t leave my heart and mind for months afterwards. That girl could have been one of my aunts.
Re the phulkari comment. All my older bhuas (father’s sisters of which he had 5) had embroidered a dozen phulkaris each by the time of the partition. They also had ones from their grandmothers too. (Traditionally, phulkaris were used as shawls, blankets, bedspreads, and girls embroidered them for their trousseaus.) All of them were looted in the baggage train.
After the partition, none of my aunts ever made a phulkari again and they wouldn’t teach us either.
Sonya
I sometimes think of the situation between Greece & Turkey where there was once large Turkish and Greek minorities in each other’s territories. I know the dislocations there had a high death toll as well, but at least today a Greece and Turkey living together under the EU banner is conceivable within the next twenty years. This is only possible because both states are are least somewhat secular. It’s next to impossible for me to envision a similar “Union of South Asian States” even in the next 100 years
I think the fundamental difficulty with the issue of partition is what it really represents to many. At its core, partition is about the idea that people of different religions can not coexist as neighbors within a singular community. It is the root of the conflict in Kashmir, and for the most part forms the raison d’etre of Pakistan itself (Pakistan was designed as a Muslim homeland fearful of being swallowed by a Hindu Majority). This position was firmly rejected by Gandhi and Co. and forms the basis of the pluralistic democracy that is India–Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists can live together as Indians.
Partition is difficult to talk about because at it personifies this difference in the two countries. Yes partition means Independence as well, but it also means division along religious/ethnic lines.
69 Camille
Many of these decisions were made above the heads of “common folk” in India, and I don’t fault Muslim leadership for wanting its own “safe haven” or state.
–> Defining a nation state based on religion is bad enough. Basing the definition on perceived injustice suffered(or the potential for it in the future) at the hands of the majority religion is irresponsible leadership.
Why wasnt it a fault of muslim leadership for wanting its own “safe haven” or state ? Would Hindu Mahasabha be looked upon the same way if they decided on a hindu rashtra ? How about Sikhs ? In 1947 of course.
Krishnan, you have asked the forbidden question. At the university I went to in the 90s you could be branded as a Hindu fascist just for asking such a question, even if you made it clear that you did not support the idea of “Hindu nationalism”
Runa, Sonya:
I am with you both on that…..i am speechless…..
Krishnan, maybe I am too reductionist, but I really don’t think that individuals who are in the “majority religion” can ever understand the gross fear of violence that minority religious communities face. At the time of Independence, Sikhs contemplated asking for their own homeland, as well — let’s not pretend that other communities did not engage in this same dialogue. Ultimately they chose not to, for many reasons, and nearly 40 years later we had 1984, which for many was a glaring moment of “un-Indianness.” Every time a minority religious or ethnic group is targeted, it’s another tally on the scorecard for why a separate Pakistan was justifable.
I’m not saying that it’s right or correct — personally I don’t think that the concept of nation-states really makes sense (although this was one of the core ideas behind independence movements worldwide at the time). But to blame the gross violence that happened during Partition on Muslim leadership? I think it’s a stretch.
50 to 100 years ago, EU would have seemed impossible. the European countries were at each others throats. in WWII, naziism was a force to be reconed with. a lot of things can happen in 100 years. india could be one of the richest most powerful countries in the world by then. never say never…
How about we learn to stand in a single file line waiting for a flight, then worry about richest most powerful.
i’m with chachaji on the pic: nehru moving in on lady mountbatten while “pretty boy” louis looks on…personifying the changes in the relationship between the two nations.
We have different ideas of causality. The Partitions of ’47,’71, and the Khalistani separatist movements contributed nothing to the fears of the majority community ? And there is nothing exceptional about the majority community that made it possible for Zoroastrian & Jewish communities to survive/thrive for thousands of years ?
Nobody has said it yet but I will. You know the guy some of us like to blame for “socialism” in India or the license raj (a vastly overstated criticism in my opinion especially since India could not have hoped to have the convenience of the U.S. market, like the east asian tigers did since the latter neatly fit the larger geo-strategic aims of the U.S. post wwii), he was one of the few leaders who was still thinking rationally and, insofar as human agency can be credited, he, along with other much maligned congress leaders, were responsible for India’s initial survival as an unified entity.
dude….100 years is a long time. the difference between 1907 and 2007. the world looks really different today than it did 100 years ago.
louiecypher
The Zorastrians and the Jews were never large enough communities to be perceived as a thorn in your side, let alone a threat of any kind.
i would imagine 100 years ago, no one would predict the british empire would be virtually non existant in 100 years…
” individuals who are in the “majority religion” can ever understand the gross fear of violence “
Sikhism is the 5th largest religion in the world. I hardly call it a minory religion.
Clever use of the word “perceive”. No, people who come to trade, instead of with sword in hand, are generally not perceived as a threat. Unless it is an American with a KFC drumstick in one hand and a Coke in the other and you are Arundhati Roy
well…yes. it is a minority relion in india. the majority of indians aint sikhs. not even close to a plurality either. you can have a large number of people and still be a small minority in a country if 1b people.
rich traders are often followed by powerfull armies…
“Krishnan, maybe I am too reductionist, but I really don’t think that individuals who are in the “majority religion” can ever understand the gross fear of violence that minority religious communities face.”
i think the hindu pandits of kashmir/some of the hindus of the northeast can understand, but then again, i guess they are considered a minority there but are often not perceived to be because of the numerical strength of hindus in india as a whole.
Sikhs comprise 2% of India’s population, which in any book constitutes a minority.
Also, it was very clear during the Bhinderawale phase of Punjab, Operation Blue Star, and the killing of Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards, how state-sponsored oppression and discrimmination can be unleashed and positively encouraged in the general population on a minority community. (In my opinion, a large part of it was brought upon the Sikhs by themselves…fighting words I know but I will stand by them to the bitter end.)
I need to point out here I personally was and am against a separatist Sikh movement and was not a follower/believer whatever of THAT man responsible for derailing the progress of Punjab by 50 years.
Until Blue Star, the Indian Armed Forces consisted of 30% Sikhs; after BlueStar, an edict was issued to bring it down to represent the population %. Additionally, the careers of many high-ranking officers at the general and brigidiar-level were derailed due to Blue Star and fear of the army turning against the govt.
Yet, I consider myself Indian first and then Punjabi Sikh.
sp
I look forward, not to a Union, but a future confederation, as a more realistic, and indeed also a more idealistic objective – the Confederate Sovereign States of South Asia (COSSSA). This can’t happen unless India, the largest state, first loosens itself up considerably – with devolution, decentralization, electoral reforms – and the economy continues to do well, so it can offer trade concessions to its neighbors, on the way to a true free trade area – and then, when we get to the stage that India begins having Muslim, Sikh, and Christian PMs routinely – then it will be clear that the fear that Muslims and other minorities had, of being dominated by a ‘Hindu’ majority, will be proved to be unfounded. Till then progress toward COSSSA will be slow.
The United States of South Asia (USSA) was actually talked about in the early 1940s, as one possible future after the British exit, but fell by the way side, at least partly due to Congress’s majoritarian politics. One way Partition could have been averted, for example, was if Nehru had agreed to let Jinnah be interim PM in 1946, because till then it was just a bargaining chip, and Jinnah might well have settled for a system of nationwide separate electorates with some kind of ‘reserved seats’ for Muslims. But this conflicted with the ‘secular’ vision of Nehru, who did not want to formally recognize the political dimension of religious identities, whatever the reality on the ground.
The idea of COSSSA animates my own vision for the future of South Asia – sovereign states with their own flags and symbols etc; which come together, trade freely, have a rotating Presidency, share jurisdiction on many matters; have single jurisdiction on others, etc. The right to leave the confederation should exist, the hope being that, with that guarantee people would be more likely to come together in the first place, and use it only as a last resort. This would be like the EU in some ways, such as the recognition of multiple official languages; and like Canada in the way minority rights are guaranteed. Can’t happen unless the dream exists first, and gets fleshed out clearly, and discourses that encourage the South Asian common identity are promoted, and the idea finds acceptance in the general population.
82 Camille
Krishnan, maybe I am too reductionist, but I really don’t think that individuals who are in the “majority religion” can ever understand the gross fear of violence that minority religious communities face.
–> How easy(or fair) is it to assume anyone raising that question is from the “majority religion” ?
My intent behind asking that question was to point out the terrible nature of religion(majority or minority) and the horrific effects that can happen if it is used for defining a nation state(as in 1947).
If , as you say, individuals who are in the “majority religion” can have real difficulty understanding the gross fear of violence that minority religious communities face, how would that make a state based on religious identification any more safe for its people ?
If after a state has been carved out for people of a particular religion, a majority subgroup becomes the terror of all other subgroups, what then ?
Or is it your assumption that everyone who identify themselves as part of a religion are a monolith within that nation state ?
If that assumption is true, how different is it from Hindu Mahasabha claiming hindus are a monolithic entity, albeit at a subgroup level ?
Wouldnt it be more reasonable to not define a state based on (stupid) religion(s) in the first place ?
Every time a minority religious or ethnic group is targeted, it’s another tally on the scorecard for why a separate Pakistan was justifable.
–> That is a breathtaking claim. On what basis is it justified ? Wouldnt it be more reasonable to work towards minimising the pernicious influence of religion and maximising participation of all the people in public sphere than creating a new nation state for each subgroup(Left handers have been targeted for persecution in India, I demand a new state, peechchaangarai) ?
I’m not saying that it’s right or correct — personally I don’t think that the concept of nation-states really makes sense (although this was one of the core ideas behind independence movements worldwide at the time). But to blame the gross violence that happened during Partition on Muslim leadership? I think it’s a stretch.
–> To me, nation state is a concept, however flawed, is better than the alternative solution(language state, religion state, youngest sibling state etc.,) out there. Kind of like Churchill’s comment on democracy.
I dont think it is a stretch at all to blame(not the entire portion) the muslim leadership for causing partition. As for the ongoing butchery during partition, the usual culprit, religions(the whole lot of them) come to the rescue, taking all the blame on itself.
Guys,
A lot of Jinnah papers, correspondence with British leaders has been declassified.
It goes into two things:
1) MA Jinnah was never scared for muslim minority in India. He never was. He biggest thing was that muslim will never have (or realise) their full potential (or live to the fullest, control their desitny) in the Hindu majority land. There is some merit to that observation. In fact, recently Pakistan school textbooks have been revised, correcting this (the orgin and reasons for Pakistan). I thank Pakistan for that.
2) The series of religious rioting in India goes back to a focal point – Direct Action Day. It became a pattern that the people in power in Indian subcontinent (in Direct Action Day, it was Muslim League, later it would be BJP and Congress four decades later) would use their influence to run amock on the other. Before, direct action day, religious rioting was never as systematic, maybe, due to iron grip of the British. ALM, I do not know whether Muslims really started it all in the Partition. In some places, they did, Suhawardy (the future foreign minister of Pakistan) was quite hawkish in Calcutta, but to his credit, he did turn around eventually, and help quell the riots.
Now to the question is: Did Pakistan help in safe gaurding muslim? The answer is: No, 1971 and before in East Pakistan. Only the fair skinned ones, not shorter ones with darker skin. 1971 makes everything else, teenagers fighting each other by orders of magnitude.
Guys, can we avoid getting too far down the BlueStar path? It usually gets very ugly. I understand it’s relevant here, but … tread lightly please?