Part 2 in an ongoing series. Last week we talked about Chapter 2 of Ramachandra Guha’s India After Gandhi.
This week’s topic is Chapter 3, which deals with the accession of the Princely States. Next week is Chapter 4, on the turmoil surrounding Kashmir in 1947-8
When they think about 1947, most people naturally think about the tragedy of Partition, which left millions of people dead and displaced. Partition resulted in the creation of two states, but what is left out of this story is an alternative history where instead of two new nations, independence might have seen the formation of three, or five, or five hundred independent nations.
For there were more than five hundred Princely States in existence in 1947. Each of these had its own ruler and court, and many had the trappings of fully independent states (such as railroads, currency, and stamps). All the same, they had to pay significant taxes to the British crown, and none were allowed to maintain their own armies. The Princely States were also, one might add, the most backward in India when it came to the situation of ordinary people. While British India had begun to build schools and universities, and develop the foundations of democratic governance (i.e., property owners could vote), the various Maharajahs were perfectly comfortable keeping their subjects in total, feudal subjection.
Very quickly, between the fall of 1946 and the summer of 1947, the vast majority of Princely States signed “Instruments of Accession,” whereby they agreed to hand over their sovereignty to India. The chief architects of this development were Vallabhbhai Patel and his agent, V.P. Menon. While Patel and Mountbatten did much of the formal negotiation from Delhi, it was Menon who went to hundreds of different Maharajahs all over India, and worked out agreements. According to Guha, because of his indefatigability and his remarkable competence, Menon is one of the unsung heroes of this story.
After Kashmir (which we’ll talk about next week), the state that gave the most difficulty in agreeing to Accession was Hyderabad, which was governed by a Muslim Nizam, but with a Hindu majority. At 80,000 square miles, Hyderabad was a huge state, bigger geographically than Great Britain. The Nizam of Hyderabad was one of the wealthiest men in the world, and it’s not hard to see why he resisted turning over his position of power and eminence to what would surely be a diminished role in a united India. Faced with the request that he integrate Hyderabad with India, he preferred independence, but at various points he suggested he might throw in his lot with Pakistan.
There were pro-Congress/Democracy groups in the state under the Nizam, as well as a significant Communist movement. But the most important group was the Nizam’s own Ittihad-ul-Muslimeen, a kind of proto-Islamist movement, led by a radical (fanatic?) named Kasim Razvi (sometimes spelled Qasim Razvi). With the Nizam’s support Kasim Razvi organized thousands of armed “Razakars” to protect the Nizam’s interests and harrass his opponents.
This Kasim Razvi turns out to be quite an interesting character. Guha describes him as follows:
In April 1948, a correspondent of The Times of London visited Hyderabad. He interviewd Kasim Razvi and found him to be a ‘fanatical demagogue with great gifts of organization. As a ‘rabble-rouser’ he is formidable, and even in a tete-a-tete he is compelling.’ Razvi saw himself as a prospective leader of a Muslim state, a sort of Jinnah for the Hyderabadis, albeit a more militant one. He had a portrait of the Pakistani leader prominently displayed in his room. Razvi told an Indian journalist that he greatly admired Jinnah, adding that ‘whenever I am in doubt I go to him for counsel which he never grudges giving me.’
Pictures of Razvi show him with a luxuriant beard. He looked ‘rather like an oriental Mephistopheles.’ His most striking feature was his flashing eyes, ‘from which the fire of fanaticism exudes.’ He had contempt for the Congress, saying, ‘we do not want Brahmin or Bania rule here.’ Asked which side the Razakars would take if Pakistan and India clashed, Razvi answered that Pakistan could take care of itself, but added: ‘Wherever Muslim interests are affected, our interest and sympathy will go out. This applies of course to Palestine as well. Even if Muslim interests are affected in hell, our heart will go out in sympathy.’ (68-69)
I quote this passage about Kasim Razvi because I think it hints at how much worse things could have gone in Hyderabad. By 1948, Razvi’s Razakars were known to be harrassing Hindus in some of Hyderabad’s larger cities (Aurangabad, Bidar, and the city of Hyderabad); some Hindus were beginning to flee to surrounding regions, causing refugee problems in neighboring Madras. There were also rumors that arms were being smuggled into Hyderabad from Pakistan as well as eastern Europe, which was just recovering from the mother of all wars. While the Nizam resisted acceding to India out of self-interest, Kasim Razvi and his Razakars were resisting out of ideology, and they had the numbers — and would eventually have the arms — to pose a threat to a new Indian government with lots of other problems to deal with.
After Mountbatten’s departure in June 1948, the Indian union’s patience with Hyderabad ran out, and in September 1948, a military force moved in. Within a few days the Razakars were out of business, and the Nizam publicly agreed to accede to India.
Today, I think, few people could seriously imagine a different outcome. But if the Indian government had been less focused on its objective, or if it had decided that military force wasn’t necessary, or even if it had delayed further in using force, I think it’s a distinct possibility that Hyderabad might have remained free for at least a few years longer, and the story of accession could have been much bloodier. As to whether Hyderabad could have remained independent forever, it seems like a rather remote possibility — though it is interesting to contemplate.
That’s right.. give the money to the Pakistanis when they were fighting against the Indian forces in Kashmir. makes no sense.. That too in the backdrop of the partition riots and millions of refugees migrating across borders. And top of that, that would have convinced Hyderabad Nizam..
Actually I’m not that much worried that Nizam could not be convinced. “Police action” convinced him (and Mr.Razvi who boasted of planting the islamic flag in Delhi) in a couple of days.
read this from TIME archives.. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,799076,00.html
Sardar Patel is an unsung hero. “princely states” constituted about 45% of what is India today. They were integrated in a seamless fashion, borders redrawn on linguistic basis, princes were pensioned off to limit their nuisance (which BTW is exorbitant compared to the living standards of that time.
Nizam was receiving an equivalent of 1 million $ per year.. Indra Gandhi moved a constitutional amendment in 1971 to remove those finally…). Princess Gayatri devi (third wife of the prince of jaipur) has written in her memoir that she got upset when Independence came her husband came and told her she can no longer use her private aeroplane.. yeah, that sounds too bad..
I think it is probably an urban legend that Nehru and Patel are bitter enemies of each other. They played their roles of good cop / bad cop to perfection.. Hats off to Patel-Nehru combo.
Dude, Are you a 60 year old schooled in the colonialist tradition? Perhaps you dint realize Mohammedan is not a term people have used in the last 40 years or so.
Dude, your family members actions are silly–what a way to “heal” the wounds of bigotry, boycott the butcher for a day!–your being an atheist doesn’t mean jack. Mohammedan is not completely out of use in India, there’s a Bengali football club with just that name, or did you learn everything from “progressive” western textbooks?
I believe that when the time came in 1946 to chose the leader of Congress, there were 2 main candidates ( may be 3 I dont remember) They were Nehru and Patel. When votes from the rank-and-file congress workers were tallied, Patel had overwhelmingly high votes from the rank and file. Nehru had almost none. But still on the advice of Gandhi, Patel dropped out of the race, clearing way for Nehru to become Leader of Congress.
Inspite of knowing that he has overwhleming support from Party workers, Patel never tried to form his own party (even after passing of Gandhi) or show any other personal ambition. Even today his grandkids or anyone from his family is nowhere in a position of power. The same can not be said for Nehru.
I am amazed at the sense of these leader’s, “this is much bigger than me”, attitude. In a way it was like George Washington.
Excuse me.. who is the bigot here.. we should assume that ordinary people are not all card carrying “liberals”..
When did I say heal? Perhaps you can learn to read first?
Sure it does.
Oh ya? Maybe you can cite some recent usage of this term? It proves your ignorance that you would use a term that Muslims themselves find offensive. Do you even know the history of that word? Its not “progressive”, just accurate.
Mohammedan Sporting Club was formed in the late 1800’s in a time when it was common to have separate teams based on religion for Hindus, Muslims, Parsis, Anglo Indians etc. India did not have an unified cricket team until its first official test match in 1932.
it just amuses me to note the sheer number of desintellectuals who either give Nehru no credit for the relative stability of India or worse, feel that if he had not been there progress would have been quicker and more effective. The same fraction perhaps also feels that Gandhi was impeding the process.
MKG himself compared Nehru, Patel and Rajaji as his heart, hand and mind respectively, and they all had their own invaluable place. Nehru could never be the Hammer that Patel was and Patel could never be the statesman that Nehru was.
If there is one person that went unsung in the whole freedom struggle it was Rajaji (C. Rajgopalachari).
risible and al chutiya would be on the other side of the fence defending the actions of muslims if they were say gujarati muslims boycotting hindu shops because they “perceive” those people to be hindus even if those shopowners had nothing to do with the riots 5 years ago.
Chachaji – Why should Nehru and Patel have been magnanimous to Pakistan? Sound strategy dictated that, India try every dirty trick under the sun to ensure the failure of the nascent Pakistani state.
ps – the Hindu majority and Muslim Nizam point situation in Hyderabad, naturally begs the comparison with Hari Singh.
I don’t think you can accuse them of something which they have not done. They could even treat that case (a riot affected Muslim boycotting other Hindus) similar to the one above.
Folks, let’s not get into a shouting match here. Beige Siege is talking about his grandparents’ attitudes and behaviors, not his own. I think we all have elderly relatives whose attitudes we don’t share; there’s no need to call them “silly” and so on.
Also, I think there is value in Beige Siege’s original comment (#32) — these are the kinds of stories people tell about those times. My own folks have lots of stories about partition that aren’t so different (my great grandmother, for instance, was stabbed while en route to India). The situation in Hyderabad was clearly a very messed up one, and we’re lucky it didn’t get even worse.
I’m not sure about that. Generally, info about the princely states are kept under wraps. Razakars have done enough damage in the areas of Hyderabad and when the army took over Hyderabad, revenge was taken. Some Muslims complained to Nehru and he sent a fact finding mission. I believe nothing came out of it..
If the CURRENT generation of Gujarati muslims affected by the riots cannot get themselves to patronize Hindu shops, I DO NOT BLAME THEM one bit because many of them were betrayed by their Hindu neighbors which led to slaughter in some or many cases. We would just hope that the same religion based lines wont bleed into future generations.
I give the same slack to the poster’s grandparents. You do not know if they were betrayed by a msulim neighbor or not. Maybe they just want to be left be. It really depends upon the trauma they suffered. Like I said before, it is not the healthiest solution, but it is understandable.
Surely you’re joking, or at least, being sarcastic. I just read through Wolpert’s book on Jinnah, where there are extensive excerpts from Mountbatten’s diaries during the Partition negotiations, April-June 1947. Nehru actually accepted Partition earlier, and somewhat more readily, than Jinnah. Having done so, and willingly, it was his, and Patel’s duty, to adhere to the terms, which were that there were to be two new sovereign Dominions.
I agree that statecraft and pursuit of national interest can sometimes require one to put personal tiffs and moral qualms aside, and maybe, try dirty tricks, though not as a routine. However, what I’m arguing is that Nehru actually continued his personal tiff with Jinnah through the Indo-Pakistan conflict.
Sound strategy would have dictated that Jinnah should have been co-opted by Nehru Patel Gandhi and co, and that could have occured much earlier – certainly by the 1930s, after the first elections under the GoI Act of 1935. Even the Desai-Liaqat negotiations could have yielded something, even if only the separation of Liaqat from Jinnah, a strategic victory of the first order. But Nehru was not strategic, he was not even tactical. He was just muddleheaded, vindictive, and sometimes I think, perhaps even clinically paranoid.
If ‘strategic’ thinking leads to a situation where, in about 40 years, two parts of what could have been a single federated nation are pointing nuclear weapons at each other, while many smaller armed insurrections and other conflicts rage at subnational levels in both countries, (among many other avoidable issues, including the China conflict) – then thank you very much, I want no part of it.
Paranoid android, I think Nehru’s declarations of friendship with China and the downright abysmal economic growth rate during his tenure are the reasons why he is so criticized. His personal tussle with Jinnah also in the eyes of many was him putting his pride before country. The same cannot be said for Sardar Patel who gave all to India, even when he had the support to challenge Nehru politically. Many also do not care for the Nehru lineage that is and has been active politically.
I think one thing is certain for sure, India’s founding fathers allowed for political stability in the country where democracy was able to harden. As corrupt as it may be, India’s democratic institutions have kept the country going and the political turmoil seen in Pakistan, Bangladesh and other post-colonial nations has not enveloped India. So far at least.
Chachaji,
It is true that Nehru-Patel delayed the payment of treasury of Pakistan half. It was not statesman like. However….
You want to ask why:
The shit was flying in all direction.
Around start of 1947, 100 people were dying in undivided India on an average on the basis of religion intolerance. Jinnah was raising the specter of civil war.
Around August 13-14th, 1947, the electricity and water was shut off in Hindu-Sikh neighboorhood in Lahore. Women were raped – of all religion, by all religion.
Tara Singh had the most advanced commandos operating out of Harminder Sahib, in alliance with RSSS (back then it was RSSS) brown shorts.
Trains would arrive in Delhi and Lahore with all dead bodies.
The whole referendrum in NWFP was rigged.
Jinnah had written a blank paper (put any conditions) to Jodhpur ruler. Junagadh wanted to be in Pakistan.
Liaquat Ali Khan had made a deal with Pasthuns for Operation Gibraltar. You know what was the hook – rape and pillage all the way to Srinagar. They (Pashtun Men of War) raped the whole monastery of European nuns (amongst others) in their way to Srinagar, and that gave enough time for Sikh regiment paratroopers to land in Srinagar. If they had straight headed for Srinagar, J & K would have been part of Pakistan.
Bengal was on the verge of flames, only to be stopped by hunger strike by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.
Sardar Patel had called Pakistan a cancer (he was one of the first Congress leader to say yes to partition), and predicted the Muslim League would come back begging to be taken back in the Union of India in 5 years. It did not happen.
Mountbatten had predicted East and West Pakistan would not exist together in 25 years. It did happen.
Howsoever vain Nehru was, Muslim women in hundreds were living in his compound (lawns, etc.), guarded by Gurkhas regiment. He went to Chandini Chowk (Old Delhi), and started beating cops for their inaction. In Punjab, he told some of Tara Singh commandos – RSSS men, if they touched another train, he would get them shot by the Gurkha regiment.
Things were not that simple. Also, India sent a trainload of used shoes as part of arms sharing of British Indian army. That pissed Pakistan a lot.
It was just a bad time, and only one who had a feel (and pain) for it was – Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
Pashtuns were so busy in rape and pillage, that it gave enough time to Hari Singh to escape to Jammu, VP Menon and Col. Manekshaw (later Field Marshall) visit J & K, get Hari Singh to Delhi, sign the ascension to Union of India, and get Indian Sikh paratroopers land in Srinagar, and secure the route for Indian army to enter through roads***.
No one had clean hands at that time.
*** some might say, it was Radcliffe’s trick, and he had an inkling of what would happen in future.
Beige Siege – Thanks for sharing your Grand Parents experience. One anecdote [“…….used to be beaten up and bullied by Muslim students on the way to school everyday………”] in particular reminded me of growing up in Kashmir during the 70s and 80s. Indeed, it might as well have been happening to me and my cousins and friends, who happened to be of the minority religion [Hindus] in Srinagar.
We [Kashmiri Hindus] could not put up a poster of any player from the Indian cricket team in my school [catholic, btw], except if Azharuddin or another Muslim player. If we did, we got our asses kicked by the Muslim kids. Whenever India played Pakistan, Kashmiri Hindus kids would root for Pakistan to win, so we wouldn’t get a beat down.
amardeep, did you mean pakistan or palestine? i ask because i am genuinely amazed if he had such a strong pan-islamic sense that he identified with the struggle in palestine!
Remember khilafat?
chachaji, we don’t know how things would have turned out if India(or whatever they’d have called it) had remained a single nation. The spectre of Pakistan would have been raised over every episode of hindu-muslim tension. It’d have been a constant existential battle, and it would not be surprising if it spilled into civil war in a few decades. Can you imagine what the great nation of Indo-Pak would have gone through over something like the Ram Janmabhoomi issue?
Indians have a funny attitude towards Pakistan. The liberals have some kind of mother-india complex, where Pakistan is always some misunderstood child. For the BJP-types Pakistan is like some sort of evil doppleganger, everything that India is not. I think we need to learn to respect the fact that Pakistan is a separate country that has been around for 60 years. Let us treat it like we would any other country: for starters, by being less obsessed by it.
Dravidian lurker, in Guha’s book the quote says “Palestine.” It surprised me too at first, but it might be more understandable given that what was happening in Israel/Palestine in 1948. (Also, as Sakshi says, remember Khilafat)
Sakshi, you raise a good point. My view is that the creation of Pakistan gave a fillip to the Hindu-Muslim communal issue like nothing else could have. All the communal riots in India – although mostly brought about by local goondas of all hues – have had the subtext of Pakistan never very far below the surface.
So at least an arguable counterpoint is that many of these riots, including those over the RJB issue – may never have happened. The RSS(S) may never have gotten as strong as it did without post-Partition refugees, Jana Sangh may never have come into existence, and Advani and Jethmalani, among others, would still be in Karachi, not in Ayodhya. And all the terrorism, whether over Kashmir, or Gujarat, or Bombay ’93 or RJB-Babri ’92 – may also never have happened, in part because Pakistan and the ISI wouldn’t have existed, but mostly because the underlying issues wouldn’t have come up in as sharp a form.
And for people who say there might have been Civil War(s) – I suggest that all the hard and soft wars – the seemingly never-ending hostility, has in fact been a 60-year long civil war, between nominally separate ‘sovereign’ nations that were once whole, and who are geographically, culturally, linguistically, ethnically, and in other ways, still whole. So Partition, especially the way it was implemented, and the attitudes of Nehru and co after it became inevitable – actually solved nothing, certainly not the real problems of Muslims in India, which it actually worsened.
I would also suggest that, even though Pakistan had been articulated clearly by 1940, Partition could have been avoided, especially in the form that it took, at least till 1946, and perhaps even until June 1947. If Jinnah had been made Interim Premier (for example), and followed eventually by Nehru-Liaquat, Patel-Azad-Suhrawardy-Baldev Singh etc, perhaps the idea of Pakistan would have soon enough gotten a burial by the 1950s, to be remembered today, if at all, as a vague and unworkable concept some crazy romantic named Rahmat Ali had once thought up in the 1930s in Cambridge 🙂
One of the things about alternative histories is that you can never completely pull yourself out of all the assumptions that you make because you know the way things turned out. If a federal India, together with sub-nations came into being ca. 1947-48, there would have been qualitatively new features that simply can’t be predicted. It certainly wouldn’t have been an assured bed of roses, because India would still have all the problems it then did, minus, of course, Partition’s after-effects and the seemingly perpetual enmity between itself and Pakistan.
secure the route for Indian army to enter through roads***.
*** some might say, it was Radcliffe’s trick, and he had an inkling of what would happen in future.
I meant Gurdaspur.
Correction: Liaquat Ali Khan had made a deal with Pasthuns for Operation Gulmarg
Gibraltar was in 1965
I agree about the subtext of Pakistan, but there are many reasons for riots: some are local, others historical, going earlier than Partition. So I won’t say riots may never have happened, but I’d agree that they might have been fewer.
Even if you count Kargil, India and Pakistan haven’t probably fought for more than 2-3 months over the last 60 years. An expensive 2-3 months yes, but a civil war would certainly have been a lot worse, and the result would have been the same.
I certainly disagree that if Partition could have been avoided in 1947, it would never have come up again. Perhaps, as you said earlier, if Jinnah had been co-opted in the 1930s, the idea could have been buried. But by the 1940s it was v much in the air, and I doubt it could be bottled back again like some jinn ;). In fact a federation with a weak center would exactly be the kind of thing to encourage secession. Also I think you impute too much power to the leaders at the time, and not enough to the janta. The leaders were not playing chess: ultimately they had to answer to their followers. Once you show people a dream like Pakistan, you can’t just take it back.
I am not dismissing your ideas, and I also appreciate the emotions behind them. I am from north India, and I hear such emotions every now and then, specially from my elders. However, for better or for worse, the India I have always known ends at Wagah, and that is how it has been. I don’t have that sense of fraternity with the Pakistani people. That is not to say I dislike them: I just feel we need to move on. India has a thousand problems it needs to fix, and this obsession with Pakistan doesn’t help. Pakistan has its own serious identity issues. To work them out, I think they need to stop obsessing about each other for sometime.
I said north India, because most of my South Indian friends do not seem to have a sense of the pain the north went through during Partition. That’s okay 😉 .
going earlier than Partition
There was almost no rioting and violence between Hindus and Muslims prior to 1940s……..in 20th century, or even post 1857.
Sure, there were some problems, like Boopla riots, and historical distrust but nothing like 1946.
thanks for the very pertinent memory jog, sakshi, and for the clarification, amardeep.
like Boopla riot
It is Moplah rebellion
Sakshi, thanks for the thoughtful response.
I know this thread is mostly about history, while my federation idea, expressed in several threads now, is about the future. Anybody suggesting a federated future for South Asia, unfortunately, has to wrestle with the ghosts of the past, especially the Cabinet Mission plan, because any South Asian federation idea begins to soon enough resemble some version of that plan. So an understanding of what went wrong back then helps greatly.
My sense has been that much of what went wrong had to do with the personalities at leadership roles at that time, and their previous misunderstandings, frictions and petty jealousies, magnified by their physical and psychological ailments, paranoias, personal tiffs etc. This is an arguable point.
But for the future, the impetus toward a federated entity in South Asia comes from the new cultural and economic globalization that is under way, the changed geopolitical environment, the great gains that will accrue from free trade, the new communications and media technologies, and even the political re-alignments under way both in Pakistan and in India at this time, among other things.
I am quite clear that the way to get there is not by revisiting or undoing Partition, but starting from two separate sovereign states as a given who begin to lower hostility levels, then begin to allow free trade and movement, and finally, try something like joint sovereignty over Kashmir. For quite a while, the symbols of sovereignty will remain, and I suggest, should remain, even after a de facto federation comes into being, if it ever does. A de jure confederation is not suggested!
That’s all. Thanks Amardeep for the thread, and I apologize if it seems like I’m fixated on this idea. I’m going to be busy over the next few days, so might not write again on this thread. Thanks everyone.
This is not true. There were many riots. I’m surprised to learn about the many Hindu Muslim riots (of all places) in Madras state prior to 1940s.. It is much worse in North India..
Basically what chachaji wants is that non-Muslims in India during 1946/47 should have voluntarily accepted the dhimmi status offered to them through the Cabinet Mission Plan. It is a baloney that there would not be any civil war or Pakistan would not have happened in 1956/57 after the completion of the 10 years of CMP. I have quoted this before. Read this from Jinnah (from TIME archives)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,793064,00.html
And now we (Indians) have been told all the problems were because of the adamant attitude of Nehru/Patel/Congress.. 🙂
We also have an example of what happens when colonisers leave without any kind of a settlement between rival religious groups.. look at Nigeria.. They have been through a couple of civil wars, a handful of military coups, Sharia in the Muslim dominated regions.. When someone comments about the prophet in Bangladesh, 10 Christians get killed in retaliation, numerous inter-communal riots. they can’t even take census asking for the religion now.
chachaji, I have no objections to your idea of a federation, so long as India and Pakistan move towards it voluntarily. However, it doesn’t help your case when you tie it up with what happened during Partition, and also when you blame it on the leaders from the Indian side. If someone demanded Pakistan and got it, why should anyone second guess them now and say it is not what they really wanted. Even now, Pakistanis are not little children: let them decide where it wants to stand vis-a-vis South Asia. Personally I am fine with any decision they make.
In addition to my earlier comment,
you can goto http://www.gandhiserve.org that tracks the chronology of events around Gandhi and search for “Hindu Muslim riots”, you’d find plenty of references for the years before 1940..
Pashtuns were so busy in rape and pillage, that it gave enough time to Hari Singh to escape to Jammu, VP Menon and Col. Manekshaw (later Field Marshall) visit J & K, get Hari Singh to Delhi, sign the ascension to Union of India, and get Indian Sikh paratroopers land in Srinagar, and secure the route for Indian army to enter through roads***.
I believe it was a wee bit more complicated than that 🙂
Sakshi — who are we kidding here? The last time I heard, fighting in Siachen were still going on, (although there are talks of resolving this soon and it has been some time since a major battle took place). The terrorist (or millitant to be more politically correct) camps were still supported in pakistan, and soldiers/civilians are still dying every day — The war through proxy has never ended.
Through most of independance, there has been constant low level fighting at the borders. (Ask any friends you have in the millitary, they can elaborate on this).
The Pak India Situation is not exactly the US Canda situation with the exception of 2 months of war.
that’s right.. But Indians (as far as I know) all across the villages and districts are voluntarily lining up to join the army. and the cost of Kashmir / other insurgencies are not that prohibitive. Indians keep changing governments at the state and central level, and progressing gradually though not at the desired rate. “Status quo” is good for India and it can continue in the same state for 60 more years.
I believe it was a wee bit more complicated than that 🙂
Sure.
Even the Pakistani army pointmen who were guiding the Pathan irregulars threw their arms in the air, since they could not do to deter them, and focus toward moving to Srinagar. For Pathan irregulars, they had to be incentives.
Here is some excerpts. You can get same story from multiple sources – multiple historians. Here from The Sunday Tribune:
Akbar Khan, now a Major-General, had been busy with his plan for conquering Kashmir. Officers and men from Pakistan’s army had been sent on ‘leave’ so that they could recruit 5,000 tribal pathans from the Frontier Province. They had been cantoned in convenient bases where they were equipped with rifles and machine guns, and put under the command of Pakistani officers dressed up as tribesmen. On October 22, they were ferried to Kashmir’s border in 300 commandeered trucks. Here they were debussed, on the main road to Srinagar which was virtually undefended. Operation Gulmarg began to roll.
True, as with most Indian states, Kashmir, too, had its army; maybe ragged and armed with antiquated weapons, but still, adequate for guarding the mountain frontiers against a raiding force. But almost as though acting in concert, all the Muslim personnel in this force had deserted en masse and taken away their weapons. Now they, too, became a part of the invading force.
What this force did to the people of the wayside villages and towns was a foretaste of what lay in store for the people of the Kashmir valley. It was kill, burn, loot, rape, all the way, and it was these excesses that delayed ‘Operation Gulmarg’, which was planned for Jinnah’s triumphal entry into Srinagar on October 26, which was Id day. A day earlier, Jinnah’s secretary, Khurshed Ahmad, had been sent to Srinagar, and Jinnah himself had arrived in Lahore from Karachi to be on hand.
One wonders why, this subterfuge? Why call in tribals to do a job which Pakistan’s own army could have accomplished with ease? The obvious reason is that, at this time, both the Indian and Pakistani armies had British officers as their chiefs, and both were subordinate to an overall commander, Field Marshal Claude Auchinleck. They would not have condoned a clandestine operation.
In the event, on October 26, the tribals were still on the rampage in Baramula, killing, burning, looting. Of Baramula’s 14000 inhabitants, only 3,000 were alive the next day. That was also the day when Hari Singh decided to merge Kashmir with India and two days later Sikh troops were already in action on the Baramula road. The process of hurling back the invaders had begun.
To know of VP Menon’s significance, one has to be a serious student of Indian history, as it is not touched in cursory narrative
So true………till today I had never heard of such an entity. Heard and knew about the other Menon…V K Krishna….
@59, the Hindu majority and Muslim Nizam point situation in Hyderabad, naturally begs the comparison with Hari Singh.
This is precisely the kind of mixup that arises when one hand we talk about Hindu-Muslims continuing their joint struggle against British and live amicably under one roof (subsuming their religious identity ) and the other hand we talk about satisfying respective religious aspirations. India’s concept was based on nation state not religion ( in spite of the partition ) whereas the concept of state of Pakistan, or Hyderbad and Kashmir was more religion based. Now India had to make a very difficult choice and tread on thin dicey line. Either it fights for a concept of nation state or religion. This dichotomy is what is Kashmir and Hyderbad. If India like Pakistan thought only in terms of relgion then we would have a Sikh state in Punjab, Christian states in Goa, Pondicherry etc.
Maybe the way India fought for nation state was not totally fault-proof but many secular Indian leaders were guided by “higher-than-life” concept of nation state. This played out well with the Hindu right who smelt the possibilty of “Bharata Varsha” from Hindu mythology. Now if the Muslims could give religion more priority than the concept of nation-state then India could have done the same with Hindu religion and asked all the progeny of Muslim invaders to vacate the country. The secular Indian leaders didn’t want to do that. But was also a limit to how much Hindus can tolerate Muslim appeasement ( by Gandhi and other secular leaders ). So Gandhi got assasinated and the secualr leaders had to give way to the “stronger” way of establishing nation state by annexation.
Bottomline…yes Hyderbad begs the question of Hari Singh in Kashmir… But having appeased Muslims ( read Pakistan ) once I don’t see any reason why they should be appeased all the time. They can’t have the cake and eat it too all the time.
ACD,
I agree they were other factors too, such as, Pakistan Chief of Army had called Indian Chief of Army, and warned – Both Brits.
We’ll discuss all this next week.
Is that so?. I have read Jinnah being dissatisfied with the army general of Pak. (a Brit) who refused point blank that he would not attack Indian army and if forced would resign along with all the Brit. officers. We can wait till next week.
But it would be interesting to know why it took so long for India (almost an year and another month after Independence) to invade and annex Hyderabad and what role Mountbatten played in delaying the inevitable.
dizzydesi, I agree with Ponniyin’s comment(#89). Also, a lot of the bad blood, as I said earlier, is because we keep revisiting 1947 and partition again and again. And everytime we as Indians do that, we question the very existence of Pakistan: I can see why that gets Pakistanis bristling. Personally, I’d never insult a Pakistani by saying that the partition shouldn’t have happened: I am sure they love their country as much as I love mine. Pakistan, on the other hand, is stuck on Kashmir, essentially again harking back to 1947.
There needs to be some sort of reconciliation on both sides with what happened in the past.
I personally think Hyderabad and Kashmir are two different situations. I think India took the right action (I don’t believe there is any moral right or wrong here considering history was still being made and the region historically did not have the Nizam controlling it for centuries). Hyderabad was smack dab in the middle. There was a huge potential for problems. Areawise, it was not that huge a territory. It was not as attractive a destination as Kashmir was for tourists. It’s best to be swift and forceful when things are in their infancy.
As far as Kashmir, I personally think that it is understandable for both Pakistan and India to want to claim it. Pakistan wanted to claim it for religious reasons, India wanted it because it was an attractive state(not to mention Nehru had a personal stake as he is a Kashmiri). Geographically it could have gone both ways. I think the accession agreement was merely an instrument for India to break that tug of war rather than treat it as a sacred document. I would like do more research on it when we deal with the Kashmir excerpt of the book.
All Patel-ing aside, Pakistan also integrated all the Muslim majority princely states (e.g. Bhalawpur) on its territory without any trouble — excepting Kashmir. The states were doomed, one way or another.
Trivia: The current Nizam of Hyderabad is living broke in Turkey, harrassed by his (4? 5?) ex-wives. He is also a grandson of the last Ottoman emperor and Caliph of Islam. Also, an ex-Australian Sheep farmer.
More trivia: Don’t forget Junagadh (Hindu majority, Muslim ruled), which, along with Kashmir, appears as part of Pakistan on some PK government maps. The Nizam of Junagadh wanted to accede to Pakistan. After he fled to Karachi, his Prime Minister (Deewan) went against his wished and invited in the Indian government. For years, the goverment of Pakistan argued the the Deewan had no right to usurp the Nizam and give the territory away to India.
Who was the last Prime Minister of Jungadh, the guy who gave away potentially Pakistani territory? The Sindhi feudal lord, Shah Nawaz Bhutto, father of PM Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, grandfather of Benazir Bhutto.
–> I remember reading about V P Menon in a Patel’s biography 10 years back. It is disappointing that popular coverage of Patel and integration of princely states has been given a short shrift.
–> Wasnt this the same group(now driven by owaisi family) that went bonkers, throwing flower bouquets at Taslima Nasreen in hyderabad a month back ? IUM(and currently, MIM), carrying proudly the flag for ignorance and intolerance, sixty years on……
–> I read it a long time back and then I read his book on Nehru. From both the books, I felt like Wolpert was mightily straining to correct what he perceived as imbalance in ascribing villainy of partition between Nehru and excoriation of Jinnah in partition. So, he proceeds to crap on Nehru while showering (undeserved, in my opinion)praises on Jinnah.
–> A head of state who used religion to split a country all the while claiming to be above religion. After the formation of the two states, Nehru was the head of one country and Jinnah, as duplicitous as he was, the head of another. Why would Nehru show greater magnanimity to Jinnah ? So, Jinnah’s feelings wont get hurt ?
–> Why this self-flagellation ? The whole thing(of annexation of hyderabad) could be wished way if only we(as in India) had been nicer and shot ourselves in the foot. For tamil movie fans, kind of like Kamal’s introduction scene in Guna, ‘Nann asingam, intha moonji asingam….’
–> While Gandhi and Nehru undoubtedly have better coverage, there are enough books on lots of other politicians too. There are good biographies of Patel, Savarkar, Ambedkar in addition to others. Maybe not Rajaji. If anyone is in chennai, Connemara library is a good place to find those books.
–> That portrays Nehru pettier than he actually was. While I can understand your sympathy for Jinnah(anyone who reads Wolpert’s book would be hard pressed not to feel sympathy for that man), it is also unfair to Nehru to portray him as actively sabotaging the recognition others received, for their achievements. Maybe, try reading Wolpert’s book on Nehru. Your anathema for Nehru will be complete and will help you hoist Jinnah’s cause even higher.
–> He was one among other leaders who felt the pain.
–> I thought it was the right that had visions of Akhand Bharat. Maybe BJP can join with liberals to form ABSAF( Akhand Bharat South Asian Federation). That should work.
Patel and Nehru: Each had their place. I personally think Nehru would have been fine if he stuck to his role as charming diplomat and lay out a vision. He should have delegated the implementation of all areas to people like Patel to a greater degree. Also Nehru did not have the decency to step down after a while. It didnt seem to occur to him that he was taking advantage of his stature to hang on to the post until death like a monarch. Patel, on the other hand, never showed an inclination to cling to power. He offered to resign on more than one occasion. Each has his own place, but Nehru tried to do more than he was capable of, and overstayed his welcome. Another bad thing Nehru did was the lack of mentoring of a new generation of leaders.