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
“100 years is a long time. the difference between 1907 and 2007. the world looks really different today than it did 100 years ago.”
I’m talking about a flight I took 2 years ago.
I don’t think comparing the Holocaust and Partition is the same thing, or you can compare how to document and remember it as the Jews have done with the Holocaust. It is almost universally acknowledged that the Holocaust was a bad thing (except by deniers and a few germans). The majority of Germans, who maybe tacitly went along with it during it, now feel shame and remorse and there is little dispute as to the immorality of the Holocaust in the German psyche. Partition, however, despite the violence and widespread deaths, is still viewed by some as wrong, some as right and necessary (by both some Indians and Pakistanis) and some as in-between. You only have to read the responses to the bbc have your say on what is the legacy of partition to see the deep-seated distrust and even outred hatred that still exists between indians/pakistanis and between subcontintenals/british. Asking that question in that forum hasn’t brought out any great insight into partition, but only negativity and bitterness for the most part. It hasn’t contributed to any peace. The legacy of the Partition is important, but I don’t think it will ever be easy to document it as clear-sightedly as the Holocaust and as impartially. It will remain as divided as India/Pakistan are today.
ROFL.. while the other states move towards the glorious rule of “Sharia”. I guess they are already there..
Right on, in state building and in “interfaith dialogue”, the burden is placed squarely on Hindu shoulders.
I think partition is the best thing to have happened to India. (with sincere apologies to all those who got directly affected).
But on the whole it worked out well. You only need to read the Cabinet Mission Plan to see the alternative.. It’s a miraculous escape for Indians.. I’ll elaborate later.
Circa 1947, the percentage of muslims in India (or British India – whatever you want to call it), was about 25 %. That is not a tiny minority.
I Quad-E-Azam, MA Jinnah was sheepish enough to talk about safe heavens. He dreamed big – He wanted a land of the pure – Pakistan – which means the land of the pure in Persian/ Urdu. He himself was quite secular, and fair, I think. The muslim intellectuals that meet Jinnah in England in 1920s were more concerned re: shaping their destiny.
After the plebisite in NW Frontier, Badshah Khan, Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan told Gandhi, “What has happened? You have thrown me to the wolves”. He would spend almost all his life in house arrest, next 40 years.
I meant: I do not think Quad-E-Azam, MA Jinnah was sheepish enough to talk about safe heavens
if these 2 countries dont get along very well, why would these people get along as part of 1 country. if a bunch of people dont believe living in a secular pluralistic country is possible without tyranny, why would it be a good thing to have them around anyways? I would imagine a lot of the destablizing elements in pakistan would have ended up destablizing elements in india. why would india desire that?
louciecypher, how is this comparable? Did the average Hindu, in the middle of the country, somehow feel that his/her existence was threatened by violence thousands of miles away? I can see the fear over Partition or Bangladeshi Independence, but the Khalistani movement? Really? Please. I reiterate, I’m not arguing that this is justified at all. I’m just saying, if you fight in the Independence movement and live through Partition, and then live through 1984, and you are not reflected in the religious majority of the state as a whole, your understanding of your nationality, your history, and your sense of security may never be the same as what someone elsewhere may feel.
It’s a minority religion in India, which, last I checked, was what we were talking about. Sikhs are only a “large” group in Indo-Punjab (in the context of India). There’s a reason why we have such a large, “first-moving” diaspora, and it’s not because we’re the 5th largest religion in the world. Comparatively Islam and Hinduism are the 2nd and 3rd largest religions worldwide, and it can be argued that had the Holocaust not happened, Sikhs wouldn’t rank as “high” as 5th.
Also, Krishnan, I did not mean to imply that I am assuming you’re Hindu, nor am I trying to argue that Hindus are monolithic or that they cannot be empathetic or that they don’t understand the terror of being forcibly removed from their own homelands. For better or for worse, you know there is a Hindu majority in India, just as you know there’s a Muslim majority in Pakistan. Whether it’s true or not, there’s an underlying implication that if things get crazy, there is a place of refuge. Often the most vicious criticism of Muslim leadership is framed as a dichotomy — on one hand people point to “crazy Muslim separatists” vs. “understanding, open, secular Hindu leadership.” Independence could not have happened without India uniting to resist the British collectively. Similarly, I think it is unfair to then try to “pin the blame” re: Partition on one group. In my opinion, leadership, across the board, is collectively responsible for the violence and suffering.
I did not bring up 1984 so that we could go down an offensive path, nor to make Sikhs the focus of this. My biggest limitation is that my family are Sikh, and we are Punjabi. I can only speak from my own experiences and understandings, and these are necessarily reframed or limited by my family’s life experiences. My whole point was that minority religious communities throughout India have seen moments of secular violence. I am sure that Muslim leadership, at the time of Independence, had just this kind of violence in mind when they made the case for a separate Pakistan. I have already stated that I am ambivalent to whether this is “right,” but that I can understand the rationale. And lastly, I argued that you CANNOT blame the violence of Partition on Muslim leadership. That was my point, and I’m reiterating just to get this back on topic — i.e., Partition.
And lastly, Sonya, I found your claim about “Sikhs being responsible” breathtakingly offensive, probably because you followed it up with “I will stand by it to the bitter end.” I don’t want to debate it — I don’t think this is the time or place, but I just wanted to let you know
mountbatten was known for extramarital affairs with both men AND women – no wonder edwina explored other options!
if you read geoffrey moorhouse’s india britannica, he makes the case that many pivotal british colonial figures – robert clive and mountbatten included – were schizophrenic/sociopathic.
You mean, because the governments in two countries don’t get along, the people must hate each other as well? If you’re in America, do you necessarily as an individual represent American foreign policy?
well…no. but…at the end of the day pakistan was formed because a bunch of muslims didnt think it was possible to live in a majority hindu india without being repressed. If you were to take a bunch of these people, and throw them into india, that sounds like a recipe for disaster.
im not talking about foreign policy. im talking about people in pakistan that simply dont believe in living in a plurlaistic society. lets say that a small % of the pakistani population are radicals. these guys are not causing boat loads of trouble in pakistan. if there was no partition, these people would be causing boat loads of trouble in india. im claiming that would have been bad for indias development in the long run…
the cover is disgusting. That said, why was Nehru so fawning infront of the mountbattens?
Stereotypes reinforced :
Gora male : regal, dignified, powerful, macho.
Gora female: attractive, and looking at the gora male only.
Desi male : charmed out of his wits by the gora female, awed by and almost afraid of the Gora male, attempting to please the Gora female, bowed body, puppydog mannerisms.
Only thing missing is the Desi female, we would have seen her looking at the desi male with disgust and draped over the gora male.
“louciecypher, how is this comparable? Did the average Hindu, in the middle of the country, somehow feel that his/her existence was threatened by violence thousands of miles away? I can see the fear over Partition or Bangladeshi Independence, but the Khalistani movement? Really? Please.”
camille, one of my childhood friends lost his father in the bombing of the Kanishka. he had nothing to do with punjab and lived far away but was still caught up in it. so, yes, the fear sometimes spread beyond the immediate locus of the tensions. and i’m still not equating this to the post-indira gandhi orchestrated violence and the fear that engendered.
Puliogre, I don’t think it was that people thought it was impossible to live in a pluralistic society. I think the common man was afraid of what might happen, and that leadership at the top exploited this moment to pursue what they believed was best, be it for their vision of an Islamic society, or for themselves. I think Muslims, at large, are given a lot more slack and are much more villainized than they deserve to be.
oh…im not trying to villanize anyone. but….i always thought one of the reasons for the creation of pakistan was so that muslims could live without being oppressed by a tyranny of the majority…
Sonya – I also cannot understand how a state sponsored and organized pogrom (as in Delhi 1984) can be the fault of the victims. I’m also not going to debate it, but I couldn’t let the statement stand without disagreeing with it.
Whose God, I’m sorry for your friend’s loss. I know that violence can spread, and I do think this was a particularly deplorable incident. I guess what I meant to imply is that I am skeptical that the majority of Indians believed that the conflict in Punjab prior to ’84 would seriously undermine or jeopardize the security of India as a whole, whereas conflict with Pakistan (e.g. over Kashmir) or in the Bangladesh war also implied much larger state-level warfare. I don’t say that to undermine your anecdote, but just to clarify what I meant to say.
Camille, I think Krishnan’s point might pertain to the constitutional structure of the nation state sought. A secular constitution with an appropriate establishment clause could have been adopted. Models of secular Muslim states (Turkey) were already available.
To me, what really doesn’t make sense is a nation state based on religion. This idea of a nation based on a religion has always had some problems. It depends to some extent on collaboration with non-political power centers. It is no wonder that Pakistan still faces a problem of lawelessness on its northwest frontier. Witness also that the marriage between Pakistan and Bangaldesh didn’t last long either. The two nations were too culturally different, a common religion notwithstanding.
Camille: Please what ? No one questions when Muslims in British India were getting riled up about Brit involvement in the far away Ottoman empire. I really hate the idea promoted by some people that when Hindus empathize with the plight of Hindus in Punjab or Bangladesh that it’s with some cynical political objectives in mind. Incredibly offensive…
Is Turkey the most stable secular democracy with a muslim majority? why was Turkey able to pull this off and not Pakistan?
louciecypher, I didn’t say anything to that effect (i.e. that empathy is somehow part of a political scheme), but I’m sorry if that’s how I came across. My sarcastic “Please.” was directed towards the idea that somehow the gross violence and suffering of Partition and the Bangladesh War are somehow on any level comparable to the geopolitical fallout, instability, and violence that occurred in the backlash against the Khalistani movement.
This may not be alternative history, but Irfan Hussain wonders how the world might have been had partition not taken place.
http://dawn.com/weekly/mazdak/20070408.htm
Shankar, while the point re: an establishment clause is valid, the fact of the matter was that no such thing was adopted when the Constitution was first established, nor was any amendment regarding the “protection of minority rights” adopted. You’re right, a secular constitution could adopt both ideas, but at that moment in history, it didn’t.
Also, just for the record, I think the idea of a nation-state is inherently flawed, whether it is based on religion, which is clumsier than most “national” identities, or whether it’s based on some notion of ethno/cultural/linguistic-identity. And, most unfortunately, I think the idea of the nation-state is often used to divide people along imagined identities and to steer attention away from the real issues at the table, whether it is resource access, democratic voice, human rights, etc. I may be a bit extreme — and I apologize for semi-invoking Godwin’s Law — but, from my understanding, ultimately all underlying theories of nationalism move towards the same ideologies that drove the concept of Nazism (which we could term a form of hyper-nationalism paired with the gross efficiency of the industrial revolution).
do you have a better idea to organize people that could actually happen without huge leaps of faith concerning human nature?
camille, you’re right in that conflict with pakistan/bangladesh will probably result in a more country-wide level of fear/war/sense of danger etc., because that’s the nation vs. nation emotions being aroused. however, although we weren’t near the troubles in punjab and, you’re right, i probably had no sense of danger to myself(except when i was flying), it did dominate the newspapers and classroom discussions and i think (as far as i can remember as a child the general impressions we had) it did dominate the national psyche at the time. in addition to kashmir, it was another secessionist struggle and although it may not have been as “big” as that one, i think it probably did play into people’s fears, since the country had already been partitioned before with violent consequences. if it had gone on for longer than it did, i think a more country-wide level of danger may have been felt and may have materialized, much as the kashmir fallout has seemingly spread to more distant parts of india.
And I wasn’t talking about the scale. I was saying that there were actions by Khalistanis that made Hindus in other parts of India mistrust Sikhs. What I am suggesting is that the anti-Sikh pogroms lead by the Congress party exploited anger that Hindus oustide of the Punjab felt. I am in no way supporting the violence. I do feel that there is more nuance in describing shark behaviour than there is in the examination of Hindu violence against minorities.
why do people say “the Punjab”. thats like saying “The New York” isnt it? sounds like something a british guy from the 1800’s that says “hindoo” would say.
ACM, I have read quite a bit about partition from different sources.
I must add: That Pakistan Government at that time (circa August, 1947) was not involved in massacres but at the lower level, there was this zeal, to cleanse the place – you know, make it “pak” (pure). This said, there was lot of decency shown by Pakistanis too. Jinnah himself was quite distressed, and seemed helpless. As a leader of the nation, he was different from his leadership days at Muslim League, where he once brandished a pistol in public, and told that the question of Pakistan has to be settled.
A lot of people think it hastened his death due to tuberculosis, the riots, and his vision of Pakistan not what he wanted.
The only example of a reputed leader going demagogue I know of is Suhawardy, but then with Gandhi (he lived with Gandhi in Calcutta, and found his idiocyncracies irritating), did work on getting things to normal in Calcutta.
There are lot of books on this from different angles.
Oh no, I’ve been figured out ! I will now skulk off, pith helmet in hand, humming “Rule Britannia”
No, it’s not. Punjab means “five rivers” [Punj=5, just like panch=5 in Hindi, and aab=river], with the connotation being that it is the “land of the 5 rivers.” So, if you call it “the Punjab” you just saying “the land of the 5 rivers” or “the 5 rivers” instead of saying “5 rivers.” It is not the same as saying “Hindoo.” In Punjabi there is no article “the,” which is why the English translation can omit or retain the use of “the.”
that makes sense. thx.
Understood, and agreed. I think these feelings go a lot of ways, and unfortunately, moments like this are ripe for communalistic/nationalistic exploitation. Thanks for being so cool about hashing it out with me, though 🙂
Camille, somehow the gross violence and suffering of Partition and the Bangladesh War are somehow on any level comparable to the geopolitical fallout, instability, and violence that occurred in the backlash against the Khalistani movement. That is a great point of contrast. The Khalistan movement was never really comparable to the event of the Partition. I think had the Khalistan movement succeeded, they would have had the same type of problems because of extra-politcal power centers that Pakistan now faces. It must be noted that the movement came to end thanks to the efforts of the Sikhs themselves, including K.P.S. Gill and Longowal. The latter , alas, paid a price for his efforts.
the fact of the matter was that no such thing was adopted when the Constitution was first established, nor was any amendment regarding the “protection of minority rights” adopted. It is true that it was not adopted in the American Constitution when it was established, but it was adopted immediately after in the 18th century itself. The idea of a separation of politics and religion itself is far older than that, but — I am sorry to say to those who might be inclined to a politico-religious setup — I think it requires a certain level of maturity to see that. At any rate, these ideas were around for a long, long time, and were available for adoption to both the Indian and Pakistani leaders.
think the idea of a nation-state is inherently flawed, whether it is based on religion, which is clumsier than most “national” identities, or whether it’s based on some notion of ethno/cultural/linguistic-identity. That’s certainly a problem, but a system of organized violence is probably always going to exist in some fashion, whether it is a single nation-state such as the US or India, or a confederation of nation-states such as the European Union.
loucie, you’re cool 🙂 “the Punjab” is totally appropriate.
Sorry, I meant in the Indian Constitution 🙂
Kush, A lot of people think it hastened his death due to tuberculosis, the riots, and his vision of Pakistan not what he wanted. May I ask what you personally think? 🙂 I think the man was pretty much batting the bottom of the ninth inning at the time.
there were actions by Khalistanis that made Hindus in other parts of India mistrust the Congress. Directly after Operation Blue Star, Tughlaq‘s front cover was a cartoon in three parts: Part 1: Indira Gandhi sets a field on fire. Part 2: Indira Gandhi drives a fire engine to put out the fire. Part 3: Indira Gandhi turns to an audience and seeks applause.
I’ve always wondered about how history might have been different had India had a Lincoln instead of a Gandhi. All right, we may have had a violent civil war, but the end result would’ve been fewer deaths in the long term, more peace, less defense spending, more opportunities for economic growth, crazy coalition governments, and terrific Ranji matches. But the unified Indian cricket would still have its butt kicked by the Aussies.
Camille, Sorry, I meant in the Indian Constitution 🙂
Perhaps you are talking about the adoption of the term secular in the preamble to the Indian constitution? The Indian constitution was established as a secular constitution. Check out Articles 15, and Articles 25 through 28.
Quizman, , and terrific Ranji matches And great food. And music.
May I ask what you personally think? 🙂 I think the man was pretty much batting the bottom of the ninth inning at the time.
Yes, he was.
What I have read, that his TB ailment was a super secret. Only he and his doctor knew. The X-ray was in a bank vault.
In 1940s, he became quite close to Churchill – in part – about 25% of the British Indian Army were Muslims (and Churchill felt some gratitude), and I think he lobbied hard with British establishment for earlier independence, and he knew that if he died (he was running out of time), the Pakistan movement would fizzle out.
His daughter visited him once in Pakistan from Bombay*** before he died – she openly cried – I think she sensed he was nearing his death, and was a broken man.
*** His plan was to settle in Bombay later. As of now, his daughter is claiming the Jinnah House in Mumbai as hers, and Pakistan Government wants it to be Pakistani consulate. Jinnah’s daughter belongs to one of the wealthiest Indian family, the Wadias.
109 Camille
Similarly, I think it is unfair to then try to “pin the blame” re: Partition on one group. In my opinion, leadership, across the board, is collectively responsible for the violence and suffering.
–> We will agree to disagree.
I dont think it is unfair if the underlying facts of who started it warrant apportioning blame to specific parties. When you collectively blame all of the leadership, it unfairly burdens people who tried to prevent this thing from happening in the first place.
Cammille i will strongly disagree with you, as always you make the same mistake by taking only sikh punjabi’s in your perspective. You completely forget there is a huge Hindu punjabi population ( people like me) we completely supported operation Bluestar, these operations are needed when people start using religion to justify violence. i think sikh majority of indo-punjab committed grave crime against hindu punjabi minority in the 80’s.
0
“But the unified Indian cricket would still have its butt kicked by the Aussies.”
We can always hope against hope:)
Why did Jinnah want to settle in bombay later? wouldn’t he be then living under the rule of those he didn’t want to live under? [for those who have bbc world, they’re doing a special program/interview with ness wadia]
I dont think it is unfair if the underlying facts of who started it warrant apportioning blame to specific parties. When you collectively blame all of the leadership, it unfairly burdens people who tried to prevent this thing from happening in the first place. Nehru, Ambedkar, Vallabbhai Patel and Gandhi, of course, deserve a lot of the credit. Nehru in particular.
Camille, nice explanation! But just for shucks: ‘Punjab’ is also the name of a state in India, and a province in Pakistan. So now, it’s like saying ‘The Haryana’ or ‘The Sind’. I’m sympathetic to your explanation, but it’s now a name, and so I say, there’s no need for a definite article! And, if you look at the historical origin of the usage, the usage of ‘the’ was meant to belittle regions that were ‘almost countries’ in the British imagination – so it was ‘the Ukraine’, or ‘the Caucasus’ or etc, but never ‘the Russia’ or ‘the Germany’ or ‘the France’, even though it’s always ‘La France’ in French. And just BTW, it’s now just ‘Ukraine’, not ‘the Ukraine’ which it was until a decade or so ago.
97 chachaji
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.
–> Rest of south asia has done so much why couldnt India do more ?
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.
–> Jinnah was so flexible before 1947, why couldnt congress do more ?
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.
–> Dreams as delusions, priceless.
Camille, nice explanation! But just for shucks: ‘Punjab’ is also the name of a state in India, and a province in Pakistan. So now, it’s like saying ‘The Haryana’ or ‘The Sind’. I’m sympathetic to your explanation, but it’s now a name, and so I say, there’s no need for a definite article! I love the terms The United (?) Kingdom and The United (?) Nations. United how? I propose the abbreviations U?K and U?N for these two.
Why did Jinnah want to settle in bombay later?
You got to remember, that he started as freedom fighter for unified India, and in 1941 onwards, he turned around, and was not afraid to be a demagogue.
He had dichotomy: One part was this visionary leader for homeland for muslims, and another was this aristocratic, mumbai lawyer who liked his scotch. Once he had Pakistan, he did show secular leanings, and also being naive.
One example: He wanted first constituent assembly for Pakistan in Delhi. I think he did envision a friendly India-Pakistan at a later stage.
He loved his house (in his words, that every single brick was an act of love and sweat), and wanted to die in Mumbai after his dream was realized.
People like Alyeesha Jalal from Columbia U. thinks he never wanted Pakistan – it was bluff called in by Nehru and all, and then he felt committed to his millions of his followers, and there was no backing off. I disagree because during 1941-1947, he became quite a divisive man, and was not afraid of violence.