India Pakistan Partition BBC Special Presentation

Re: India Pakistan Partition BBC Special Presentation

You can only have one imagination.

One of the Indians they interviewed said that Hindus treated Muslims like they were untouchables and thus the partition was essentially their own fault... How is that in any way biased against Muslims?

History is not bias, its just how it happened.

Re: India Pakistan Partition BBC Special Presentation

Like I mention before, the team also showed that there was great resentment between Hindus and Muslims, and in fact Muslims were often looked down upon. I didnt get the impression that they were bias at all. If anything, they were quite sympathetic toward the Muslim pov.

I came away from it thinking perhaps partition was a necessity, but one that should have been handled by far wiser individuals.

And as for Sikhs and Hindus being made to look good, I think if anything, the opposite is true, it made them, and Sikhs in particular look extremely barbaric.

I think those that see a bias here are simply those who havent come to terms with historical reality.

Re: India Pakistan Partition BBC Special Presentation

^Fox news always calls " mainstream media" " liberal media". Some people see bias unless 100% of reporting is in their favor.

Re: India Pakistan Partition BBC Special Presentation

Punjab was shown because that is where most of the killing occurred.

The Documentary mentions over and over how Sikhs began arming themselves and readying to attack Muslims, and they make it clear the Sikhs were determined to prevent the loss of Punjab to Pakistan at all cost. The Sikhs began arming and becoming violent on the basis of rumors. This isnt made up, that is fact. Usually, people only begin arming if they hear a rumor.

Sikhs are shown in a village chanting Sikh slogans and bucking each other up for battle.

Before they mentioned that Muslims attacked, they interviewed two people that said Muslims were treated horribly by Hindus, and so there was animosity due to mistreatment.

So because they didnt show a Muslim crying, you assume they are trying to paint Muslims in a negative light? Dont you think the mention of atrocities committed by Non Muslims should suffice in instilling in you the fact that both sides suffered?

So you were expecting the Sikh person to have welcomed the departure of the Muslims? At the end, Mr Khan is shown to be sad at what Lahore had become with the departure of Hindus and Sikhs. So if Sikhs were sad to see their Muslim friends go, so were Muslims to see NonMuslims people go.

Nehru was mentioned as being a socialist who could not accept a Untied India in which central authority did not rest with the Govt, hence was blamed in part for the failure of negotiations. Gandhi is understood to be well meaning but out of touch and not in anyway capable of reaching Muslims. If anything, this documentary was dismissive of both men. This is not the Movie "Gandhi" this is actual history.

The sikh person who killed Muslims with his sword was not being glorified. They are showing him in stark reality. They are leaving it to you to make the judgment. Any normal person who would hear him, would think this man is purely evil. If a Sikh had watched that interview, he would have accused the documentary of vilifying Sikhs based on that old man alone.

The comment about Jinnah was a direct quote from Mountbatten. This is history, are they supposed to sugar coat it for your consumption?

Again, it was mentioned that despite Gandhis walks through villages, he did not appeal to Muslims and hence failed on that account.

They may not have mentioned the killings on the Train but they mentioned multiple attacks on Muslims. For you, if they mention atrocities against Muslims, they are glorifying NonMuslim crimes. But if they dont mention atrocities against Muslims, they are guilty of omission. Cant win with you.

Mr Khan is shown to be one of those people who mourned the loss of culture and heritage. When the Sikh mourns his friends, they are being empathetic towards NonMuslims, according to you. But when a Muslim mourns the loss of his city, he is seen as a propaganda tool.

Most of your arguments are just you sitting there knit picking and trying to find something wrong. I would be surprised given the massive chip on your shoulder, if you hadn't already assumed a bias even before pressing the play button.

Re: India Pakistan Partition BBC Special Presentation

Exactly... Facts are so inconvenient.

Re: India Pakistan Partition BBC Special Presentation

^Med. I'm not talking about who is most involved or not I'm talking about British role on this which is totally a negligence and they left and stay un touch like it's not their headache more, one more thing in this docmnt.is I missed about kashmir, they point out about Bengal or Punjab divisions but didtnt talk about Kashmir! Both nation still suffering a lot due to that.

Re: India Pakistan Partition BBC Special Presentation

Interesting video, I agree with Diwana that it is focused mainly on Lahore (the reason could be that it is the capital of the province which was affected the most). The first attack as per most people was carried out by Muslims in Rawalpindi (which is mentioned in this documentary as well). But then there were reprisals on both sides of the border. Division of the province, delaying the announcement of the borders led to killings on both sides. Every community was basically trying to evict the others from their land so that their areas could join either India or Pakistan. Many Muslim women were raped or abducted during the partition days. I have heard about the horrors of reprisals from the elderly and that how people who had been living together for centuries suddenly became vicious enemies. Another thing is that most of my family members believe that they used to be discriminated against in India (this was basically the basis of demand for Pakistan), which that guy from Model Town was also talking about.

Re: India Pakistan Partition BBC Special Presentation

Master Tara Singh, in March 47 bra@ndished a sword in front of Punjab assembly against the concept of Pakistan. Panthic party passed a resolution that they’d fight Pakistan to the last drop of their blood. This inflamed the sentiments of all the communities and led to the massacre in Rawalpindi and Attock in March 47.

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

At the end of the day, 10 million Punjabis had been driven away from their ancestral abodes: it is the greatest forced migration in modern history

In February 1947, the British government announced the transfer of power to Indians by June 1948. Although the Muslim League agitation had ended on February 26 and all Muslim League detainees released, Premier Tiwana had lost heart because British rule would soon end. He therefore resigned on March 2, 1947, precipitating an acute political crisis.** On March 3, Master Tara Singh famously flashed his kirpan (sword) outside the Punjab Assembly, calling for the destruction of the Pakistan idea. That evening, Hindu and Sikh leaders gathered in Purani Anarkali and made even more extremist speeches (The Punjab Bloodied, Partitioned and Cleansed, Oxford, 2012, pages 128-135).
**

Next day Hindu-Sikh protestors and Muslims clashed in Lahore. The same day in the evening, Sikhs and Muslim clashed in Amritsar. On March 5, violence spread to Multan and Rawalpindi. The same day, Governor Jenkins imposed governor’s rule. Punjab remained under governor’s rule until power was transferred to Indian and Pakistani Punjab administrations on August 15, 1947.

In Multan, the fight was uneven from the first day. There were very few Sikhs and the Hindu minority was also heavily outnumbered. Almost all casualties were those of Hindus and a few Sikhs. The gruesome murder of Seth Kalyan Das, a highly respected gentleman, whom all communities respected, is narrated by old-timer Ataullah Malik (op. cit., pages 160-161).
In Rawalpindi, Hindu-Sikhs and Muslims clashed on March 5. In the evening of March 6, Muslim mobs in the thousands headed towards Sikh villages in Rawalpindi, Attock and Jhelum districts. Until March 13, they had a free hand to kill, burn, rape, and forcibly convert mainly Sikhs but also Hindus. I have given eyewitness testimony of Muslims, a Sikh survivor from Thamali, interviewing him in Kapurthala city (op. cit., pages 165-193). The pictures of the interviewees are also given.

According to British sources, some 2,000 people were killed in the carnage in the three rural districts. The Sikhs claim 7,000 thousand dead. Jinnah committed a major blunder when he did not issue any condemnation of those atrocities. An exodus of Sikhs in the thousands to the eastern districts and Sikh princely states from Rawalpindi, where they narrated their woes, set up the nucleus of a revenge movement.

The Akalis had been working on some Sikh princes to convince them to try establishing a Sikh State. If India could be partitioned for two nations based on religion, then why could it not into three for the Sikh nation as well? To achieve that, a compact Sikh majority was needed and that could be achieved only by expelling nearly six million Muslims from East Punjab. However, 1947 was too early for such a bid; it emerged in the 1980s as the Khalistan movement.

By May 1947, it dawned upon Jinnah that the Sikhs were not going to join Pakistan. For a while he argued that Punjabis and Bengalis shared a common culture and identity. However, since it contradicted his basic stand that Hindus and Muslims were separate nations who did not share any national character, the discovery that Punjabis (Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs) and Bengalis (Hindus and Muslims) shared the same culture was the weakest argument in his brief for the Two-Nation Theory. He then demanded that a corridor should be provided through more than 1,000 miles of Indian territory to connect East and West Pakistan!

Nevertheless, Viceroy Mountbatten brokered talks between Jinnah and the Sikhs during May 14-16 with a view to keeping the Punjab united. Jinnah offered very generous terms. Hardit Singh Malik who acted as spokesperson of the Sikhs reported the following concluding remarks:

“This put us in an awkward position. We were determined not to accept Pakistan under any circumstances and here was a Muslim leader offering us everything. What to do? Then I had an inspiration and I said, ‘Mr Jinnah, you are being very generous. But, supposing, God forbid, you are no longer there when the time comes to implement your promises?’ His reply was astounding…He said, ‘My friend, my word in Pakistan will be like the word of God. No one will go back on it.’ There was nothing to be said after this and the meeting ended” (op. cit., page 213).

Meanwhile, the British military had on May 12, 1947 come round to the view that if Pakistan was created it would be good for their interests in South Asia and the Persian Gulf. On page 209, I have quoted verbatim the memorandum the British heads of the three branches of the armed forces and Field Marshal Montgomery prepared in support of the creation of Pakistan.
In any event, on June 3, 1947, the British government announced the Partition Plan. It brought forward the transfer of power date to India and Pakistan to mid-August 1947. On June 23, the Punjab Assembly voted in favour of partitioning Punjab. It was followed by the deliberations of the Punjab Boundary Commission, which culminated in the Radcliffe Award of August 13, which was made public on August 17.

In June, the Hindu-Sikh locality of Shahalmi in Lahore was set ablaze. I traced one of the culprits whose confession is given in detail on pages 237-243. Until July, the East Punjab Muslims were not attacked. On August 17, when the Radcliffe Award became public, all hell broke loose on the East Punjab Muslims. **In India, scores of studies exist on the suffering of Hindus and Sikhs in what became West Punjab. The fact is that more Muslims were killed in East Punjab than Hindus and Sikhs combined in West Punjab. 500,000-800,000 Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs lost their lives altogether. The macabre dance of death that took place in western Punjab until June 1947 was now played out in East Punjab more pitilessly and on a much grander scale.
**

The evidence is based on heart-wrenching interviews I conducted over a period of 15 years with many Muslims. Pages 411-525 highlight the slaughter of Muslims. The book also documents cases of extreme magnificence as Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs save lives across the communal divide, sometimes of complete strangers and at great risk to their own lives. Humanity was debased in 1947 but not without outstanding cases of sublimation as well.

**At the end of the day, 10 million Punjabis had been driven away from their ancestral abodes: it is the greatest forced migration in modern history. Except for the tiny Malerkotla State, Indian East Punjab was emptied of all Muslims; equally, from the Pakistani West Punjab, Hindus and Sikhs were driven out to the last man almost. **

(Concluded)
The writer has a PhD from Stockholm University. He is a Professor Emeritus of Political Science, Stockholm University. He is also Honorary Senior Fellow of the Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore. His latest publication is The Punjab Bloodied, Partitioned and Cleansed: Unravelling the 1947 Tragedy through Secret British Reports and First-Person Accounts (Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2012; New Delhi: Rupa Books, 2011). He can be reached at [EMAIL=“[email protected]”][email protected]

Re: India Pakistan Partition BBC Special Presentation

From what I read, relations between Sikh, Hindu and Muslim Punjabis was very cordial and pleasant prior to 1920's.

It was only after fundamentalist muslims from U.P/Bihar started to move into Punjab in the 1920's -1930's + partition politics that relations started going bad.

Re: India Pakistan Partition BBC Special Presentation

There was always mistrust between muslims and hindus/sikhs (in Punjab). One of the main complaints that muslims had was that hindus considered them worse as compared to untouchables.

As far as Punjab is concerned, there's no role of "UP muslims" in initiating the rioting. What ever happened was carried out by the people living there (Hindu, Muslim and Sikhs) and the main reason was the division of the province.

Re: India Pakistan Partition BBC Special Presentation

I do not think you read my post.

It identified the reasons for it being biased and one sided. The overall video is overwhelmingly one sided.

In the first part of my post I talked about the video as well as the wordings. Both were biased and selective.

Any event in the history can be made one sided by selective quotes and events as well as personal account. And that goes against Mountbatten quote you talked about.

The mourning of Sikh was for his family but Khan talked about loss of city being cosmopolitan and becoming conservative...a self criticism.

Two different reasons. Khan mourning is actually against division of the city. Sikh mourning and tears brings the emotional effect that they were the victims.

Remember when he talked about a Muslim 'Ghunda' asking for a girl?

The camera was focused on his face for a while for a reason while crying.

The comment about Gandhi was that he had some kind of foreign idea and he was being 'out of touch'. But he is shown to be some kind of hero. He was given too much time on video.

Isn't that not a selective account of one person to create a selective impact?

**Let's be clear. The movie makers are biased and brought selective quotes and accounts to show largely one sided views.

I can easily say over 95% of this movie was biased and you are focusing on rest of less than 5%.**

Re: India Pakistan Partition BBC Special Presentation

My comments mostly are based on the criticism of video.

I have deliberately not talked about the background of division and who was right or wrong.

That is a separate discussion.

Re: India Pakistan Partition BBC Special Presentation

I agree 100 hundred percent that the British were responsible. And in fact, the documentary did explore that opinion. The people they interviewed made this point throughout, that the British were not present when the violence started and they were not present to stop it or prevent it. The only one's who supported the British position were the two british they interviewed, Mountbatten's daughter and Radcliffe's close friend.
That they included the british perspective on the issue lends credence to their credibility. Every coin has two sides, and so one could have concluded there was bias if the British perspective were NOT expressed.

And yes, perhaps they should have included Kashmir somewhere along the way, but the documentary i believe was more on the issue of what led up to the division, and how it effected people involved. The time frame which they covered involved only the time preceding partition, the run up to the actual division, where as Kashmir became a major issue following the partition. if they would have included the politics in any great length, the documentary would have turned into an epic marathon event, and would have defeated the purpose of the documentary itself, which was to discuss the human cost of partition. That they did not mention Kashmir is not a flaw, but as any good writer will tell you and any good documentarian will tell you, one must stick to the initial thesis of the piece. it is very easy to go of on a tangent and lose sight of your topic. Citing Kashmir would have done that, create a tangent in which the human cost is lost in the politics.

Re: India Pakistan Partition BBC Special Presentation

I read your post and replied to each one of your points one by one.

We were not comparing Mr Khan to the Sikh mourning his family. We were comparing the mourning of a Sikh who was saddened by the departure of Muslim from his village to the mourning of mr Khan for the departure of the Hindus and the loss of his cities heritage.

If you are going to talk about the relationship of Mountbatten and Jinnah, then you cant pretend it was something it wasnt and still be accurate. Mountbattten and Jinnah did not have a friendly interaction. To pretend it was something else is being deceptive. When talking about the relationship between Mountbatten and Jinnah, then the "Jinnah was cold" quote is the only one that is relevant.
Gandhi was shown walking about vilages? And did they say anything of him that was in anyways complimentary? They said he was unable to reach the Muslims... They did not glorify, they simply showed him walking..

I dont think you have a valid argument. And i dont think you have an basis to conclude any bias. We will leave it to others to decide. You simply want to hear an account that conforms to your own bias. Anything then that doesnt conform to your historical perspective is suspect.

Re: India Pakistan Partition BBC Special Presentation

my advice to you...

when you are debating with diwana on any issue ................ make you point clear and then let other GS members make a judgement..because diwana will NEVER EVER agree on any thing... plus he will continue posting same point again and again until u r ready to bang your head into the wall!

Re: India Pakistan Partition BBC Special Presentation

The punjabis did have a say through the military rule of ayub khan, even if he was a pathan or not (some consider him fake). Btw, how is dividing into 3 provinces mean a loss of identity? I think that a southern punjab and bhawalpur province would actually promote seraiki identity.

Re: India Pakistan Partition BBC Special Presentation

This is not only for that time , This is the history of last thousand year or more , We failed to produce any good .

Re: India Pakistan Partition BBC Special Presentation

So March 47 was the trigger?

Re: India Pakistan Partition BBC Special Presentation

It was a real tragedy , I was not born but I grew up in those stories .
I have seen the wells where dozens bodies were thrown
People were living together since some unknown period .
They just became mad and started killing each other .

Re: India Pakistan Partition BBC Special Presentation

Ayub Khan was not a punjabi. You can call Zia one, but I have never heard even him speaking Punjabi. By loss of culture and identity I mean that today's (Pakistani) Punjabi is confused, he disses his own culture and language. The way things are going in a few generations we would lose punjabi language from our side of the border.

As far as dividing Punjab is concerned there are many Punjabis among south Punjab. Some Punjabi dominated districts have also been included in the proposed province. There is a feeling (among some people) right or wrong that Punjabis were neither consulted (before partition of Punjab) in 47 and now.