India's Kargil operation - An Analysis

Society Military and Strategic Issues
41

By the way, unlike the notion that MUSLIMS=MOUGHALS in Indian history books you would find that the Mughals were more secular in their approach than some regional rajas. (With the exception of Babur and Aurangzeb).
Tell me, if you are right and muslims are reffered to as Moughals, then what were you guys told about the identity of Shahbudin Ghauri, Qutbudin Aibek, Iskander Lodhi, Sher Shah Suri, Mahmud Ghaznavi, Ahmad Shah.

Are you telling me that the history books of UP do not account for Nadir Shah as the MUSLIM RULER WHO MERCILESSLY KILLED IN THE STREETS OF DELHI.

That is true, he did and was wrong to do so. This is something that muslims in Pakistan and Iran are taught, I wonder what are implying about the intellectual ability of muslims in India.
By the way, I have read the accounts displyed in the text book of a friend's younger brother in Kanpur. I am afraid that does repeatedly refer to teh above as muslims.
They were quick to mention that Dark period of

Muslim Raiders from Afghanistan and did not mention the "VERY COMPASSIONATE" movements of Chuhan in Attock. If you ever visit Attock go to the mound where Prithvi killed what is accounted on the stone to be "10,000" muslims (though I think the mass grave has about 2 or 3 thousand".
Then see the temple where ohar Mohammad's blood was used to wash the stairs.
After that, GHaznavi attacks the third time and then made an equally horific killing field near Rhota.
I was taught both, I wonder why these facts are hidden by the GoI. Maybe, knowledge is something to be frightened of in India.

Your friend was very quick to compare the incident of Somnat with teh Baburi mosque.

Well, dear friend. Ghannavi was at war with rulers of that area. Who may I ask the RSS and the SS were at war with ? The muslims of India?
That might destroy that "YOU ARE INDIAN BEFORE MUSLIM" rhetoric preached by many.

You would, after just a little historical reading, find that Somnat was used as a fort by the defending King. Once he used it as a defensive position it would be very silly to persue your argument as last time I checked the Barburi Mosque was not a fort or command post for muslims taking up arms against RSS, SS,BJP or India.

But then that would be actually RESEARCHING to form an argument, something not ver actively used by many.

By the way, pick up some books about Ghaznavi and read about Somnat, Chuhan and Ghaznavi and then try to compare the two. You might find that both were rulers and committed questionable acts. Then try to undersatnd why the Pakistani authorities are willing to teach their children about the ills of both and your are not.

By the way, give me the reason why Muhammad Bin Qasim attacked Debul...... lets see if teh account taught to you is similar to that in Pakistan, Iran, Saudia and Egypt. Remember detailed accounts of it are kept at present in Al Azhar in Al-Qahirah(Cairo to you guys). Those include the written document that led to the attack.

Lets compare notes..... if you don't mind.

You might open your mind to something ....

42

Some one required names of muslims who were involved in teh revolt against the English.....

Lets talk about the regions....

Ok
Mysore is a bit easy.... Fateh Ali Khan (tipu)
Bengal,remember Plasey.... Siraj ud Daula
Maharashtra .............. Farid Muhammad Jaan
Punjab.................... Fateh Jung Muhammad who stopped his revolt against the Sikhs to join them in teh Sikh wars (well documented by the British who raised a reward on his head along with the Sikh rulers)
Southern Punjab .......... Mahabbat Khan Niazi who alligned the Baluch tribes and fought the British when they annexed Gujrat (Remmeber these guys were Pasni and came to the aid of Gujrat against the British)
Bhawalpur ............ Nawab Bahahwalpur whom the british later decided to allow to rule his sultanate because they were taking too many losses.

NWFP.................. The British were unable to make any head way into the reion and were forced to sign a treaty with the tribes to allow them to reside in the Cantonment in Peshawar. (If you read the accounts of Sir Olaf Caroe and Sir Robertson you will understand what the situation was in tehse areas).
Kashmir............... Amjad and Akmal Khan (nice to point out that it was help from the English that led to the Sikhs capturing Kashmir. A favour that was very close to Mountbatten, as he reffers to it in his memoirs).

Mughals though by now were almost devoid of any sence of rule (more indulgent in poetry and women) were the political idiots who allowed the English passage to India and where instrumental in stopping the creation of a Navy by Yaar Muhammad of Makran and Haider Ali in Mysore. Even after that they still found amongst their youth some who rose to oppose. Bakht Muhammad Khan and Zarar Shah were the first to take up arms (they were subsequently out manouvered by a british force involving 30 British Officers and 25,000 Marhattas.... interesting , I wonder what side they thought they were on, Indian or Non Muslim).
Similar to these were scores of Rajputs and some Indian-Afghans (Muslims) who thought it prudent to join the English, despicable but true.

Now to political leaders.

Lets start with :
Mualvi Muhammed Ali
Muhammad Ali Jinnah (a former member of congress and a champion of hindu-muslim unity.....I wonder what attitude of the congress led him to go back to England)
Allama Iqbal
Liaqat Ali Khan
Ghulam Muhammad
Syed Ahmed Khan
Syed Ahmed Shaheed (who opposed both British and Sikh rule, and the Sikhs found in the British a good ally against them, as did they in Yaar Khan of Peshawar whose children still find it hard to live with the label of traitors)
I guess Nawab Dhakka
Nawab Tonk and Amir Sukkhur are also names that are completely benign to you guys.
By the way Nawab of Tonk was later targetted by teh Indian National Congress for his remarks about Mount Batten which offended Nehru greatly (I wonder if it was the remark about Mrs Mountbatten that Nehru found offensive)

Guys,

The bottom line is that both Muslims and Non Muslims struggled for independence from the English. The muslims were in the vanguard of most of teh armed struggles because they were in general the rulers of emirates and sultanates in India. Non Muslims were very forward in plitical organisations as the muslims bore the brunt of the English wrath after the end of the War of Independence in 1857.

To have political organisations headed by or run by Muslims was a foolish idea and almost entirely tantamount to having your head chopped of.

However, there were olitical leaders that emerged and these are those who emerged well into the 1900s. Muslim resistance in the 1800s was more armed resistance and not political.

Majority of Hindu (and I use the word deliberately) opposition was based in political forums and came to light in the early 1860s.
(The Pukhtoon Revolt in 1890s as acounts of scores of Hindus who were serving in teh Punjab civil service as aid to English dignataries and many were killed in ambushes and attacks. the factor went against teh Gandhi-Bacha Khan alliance later in the next century)
So you see, hindu movements were more in the political eyes while muslims were not.
A good comparison would be the lack of Sikh representation in the political forum till the late 1930s. They, similar to the muslims, used armed conflict for some time.

So, lets get out of the foolish debate about counting numbers.......ok.

43

What? Farid Muhammd Jaan of Maharashtra? Who?
And u are telling me thet Muhammad Ali and allama Iqbal were leaders for freedom movement.
Why not count numbers? Why it is foolish game? Your folks are claiming independence movement to be Muslim movement. In fact, participatrion is not even proportionate to population.
If any religion can calim disproportionately high sacrifices in freedom movement, it is Sikhs. Hindus were anyway majority and their sacrifices are expected.
jinnah may have contribution to partition. I am not doubting that. My statement was thbat he has no contribution to Indian indipendence.
The Ali brothers and others woked under Gandhi's leadership. Not Muslim League. In fact most of religious leaders opposed partition unlike ur Jinnah. And I believe, if true Islam is secure somewhere, it is India.

[This message has been edited by sabah (edited March 07, 2000).]

44

ZZ

I might have missed it, lekin Saeed didn’t use any objectionable word against Gandhi, so why did you?
You can do better then this.

45

As is clear from Saeed's post also muslim rulers fought for saving their kingdoms, nawabis, etc. and when it comes to fighting for india as a whole, they were not much in numbers. So saving your kingdom from British is something every ruler will do irrespective of what religion they belong. When it comes to saving a country as a whole and knowing that you may not be a ruler (at least not the only ruler) after end of the fight is something great. I am not demeaning Muslims when I say this, they did fought for freedom, shoulder to shoulder, but when it was near, many of them broke away sensing that they could finally be kings of their own country, if they manage to divide it somehow on the basis of religion as there are not many political muslim leaders and a few of them will get the lion's share, simple. Of course when something is done in the name of religion, many sentiments come into play and finally things took a gory turn and has become a black chapter in the history of mankind, we should be sorry for all the massacres, etc. just to meet the political dreams of a few opportunists.

46

[quote]
Originally posted by KK:
While mentioning this, don't forget that, had it not been for the Muslims' struggle for independence, u guys would still be licking angrez's boots just as u did to Mughal emperors...u r looking from the wrong angle. Look back at ur own history. Hindus have been ruled by every tom, dick & harry who ever happened to wander around this region and it had become the basic instinct of ur nation to be ruled....thanks to the Muslims of subcontinent, who showed u guys that slavery is not the only option in a nation's life....thanks to the Muslims, u were finally able to get urself to a more humane level!
[/quote]

O.K. K.K., Mughals ruled over most of the North India, but they did it when India did not fought as one, in any case it was not whole of India. One reason for this is that Indians never bothered to amass large armies because they never intended to rule over other lands as we had land fertile enough to support any number of local population. Mughals and other rulers of that time on the other hand descended from infertile, barren lands which had made them wanderers and were forced to build a large army to snatch land from others. Otherwise why do you think they didn't go back to their mainland after being victorious, leaving the land to be ruled by their managers.

Again, as you said it is not thanks to muslims of subcontinent, all the muslims in the subcontinent were also part of those slaves that you chose to call. The muslims of the subcontinent were those who chose to change there religion to please their masters of that time and enjoy the benefits that come with it. So all the Indian people, including muslims of the subcontinent were slaves (I don't call them by this name because if you are living in a kingdom, that doesn't make the people slaves, it is only that they are not rulers, please correct yourself).

47

Listen guys, India as an entity never existed untill 1947.

There were statelets all over the region and even teh English were not in control of all areas, they were the dominant rulers amongst many others.

As for the argument that teh muslims fought for their rule and not indian independence, well, if I am not mistaken, that means that before the struggle for freedom which began late in teh 1920s hindus and sikhs were not working for anything ?

Your logic is misguided.

The Sikhs, NWFP and teh Baluch were the only regions taht kept up armed struggle TO OPPOSE BRITISH RULE, into the 1900s. Now if opposing British rule does not equate to struggling for independence, then untill Congress started their civil disobedience, there was no INDEPENDENCE struggle, as if you read teh text for the CIVIL DIS OBEDIENCE MOVEMENT it states that the NATIVES OF INDIA, (muslim and otherwise), declare that British soveriengty is not acceptable.
Before this congress was working towards a DOMINION status where teh highest offices were to be held by the English with soveriegnty liying with the KING.

I mean a struggle for independence TRULY STARTED after the 1936-37 elections.
The WW2 brought the neccessary momentum to this movement and that is when teh league changed its stance too.
The league was initially asking for

1.

1/3rd representation in Parliment with 10% for the Sikhs.
Hence, the muslim representation in teh parliment would be no more than (and no less than) 1/3rd. The Sikhs with 10% minimum but no maximum.(which the Sikhs rejected as they thought alligning themselves with congress would bring more political clout. They were right, it did in those elections. Many muslims rejected the argument that in a United parliment they would be eclipsed and stood by Congress).

Greater autonomy to regions that are muslim dominated and special status for teh muslim civil law that should be unilaterally practiced and implemented. That would mean that teh civil laws of muslims would incumberant on muslims and ONLY muslims. (a matter rejected by congress then and was thrown out of parliment in 1938, however in teh 1946 elections teh league managed to storm it through using its special status for minorities statutes, still part of teh penal system).

So you see, independence from teh British started in the 1939 movement when teh Congress ministries resigned to put pressure on a British union that had stumbled into an unwinable war.
Before that it was about having the greatest level of control within a Dominion, ending up as Canada did. That was teh path which was marked by teh political movements. Had teh WW2 not intervened Independence would have been a LONG TERM goal afetr autonomy and loose dominionism.

So, if you think that armed struggle to OPPOSE the British does not QUALIFY as fighting for independence, then you only have from 1939 to 1947 to choose from.
I think you would agree that Ranjit Singh, Fateh Ali Khan, Siraj-ud Daula, Rani of Jhansi, Aimal Khan, Niazis, Nawab BHahawalpur and the Baluch would disagree with you.
But then that is your opinion and this is theirs. I for one subscribe to the fact that opposing the british is in light of keeping teh Sub-Continent Independent. If that means that teh struggle was to safeguard Muslim rule or Sikh Kingship, then so be it.
Maybe that is what led so many to fight FOR the British, but not my people and not my family.

Sorry.

Khudai pa amaan
Saeed Afridi

2.

48

It seems when u mwant to armed struggle, you are talking of 1857 or prior. Not till 1900 that you are claiming.
You have made a long post. But a few points. Clearly you agree there is little armed or unarmed Muslim contribution in 20th century, when energy was mostly spent in partition than independence.
Even about 19th century, after 1857, u see a subdued presence. Few rebellions were there. Vasudev Balawant Phadake in Maharashtra would be an example. But in general, armed struggles were few after 1857. It gathered another momentum in post-42 period. 'Quit India' movement was not non-violent. Muslims were busy in chalking out partition plans.

49

ZZ

Maybe this would help.

There was an all in all revolt in Attock (NWFP) in 1875 that led to Attock and Mardan becoming seperate autonomous staelets under a local jirga nad only ONE british reperesentative on board.

Then there was teh complete Revolt to free Peshawar from teh English. In this series of battles that lasted from 1888 to 1907 the English lost 15,000 personnel. You can double check that from the autobiography of Lord Curzon and the semi autobiography of Sir Olaf Caroe.
Roos Kepel was teh first English officer to call this the "Beginning of the End". In 1909 The waziris and teh Afridis started yet another revolt, this time to free Baluchistan and the Derajat. The British took heavy casualties (many were Indian soldiers fighting for the British, hindu,muslim and sikh).
At the end of which there was the declaration that the British would only be allowed to keep a total of 4,000 troops(whatever origin i.e Indian or otherwise) in the total region of Baluchistan and NWFP if the local tribes were to agree that no efforts would be made to use their influence with Afghanistan to rebel in Punjab.
However, in 1919 the Afridis, Mohmand, Yusafzai (arch rivals these last two) Waziris and the Mahsud rebelled and were able to free the present Mianwali region by assiting the Niazis.
Then at the height of the Khilafat Movement teh region was again in flames due to teh Faqir of Ippi's revolt.

All these are incidents taht are recorded in teh autobiographies of Lord Curzon, Olaf Caroe and Roos Kepel.

As for teh other regions I don't know that well.
But I am presuming that not all the regions in pre partition India were lame enough to not try to oppose British rule by arms.
I may be wrong, but I hope I am not.

The last time Peshwar, Attock, Multan and Chasma, Sanderman, Quetta and Razmak Cantonments were simultaneously attacked was in 1939 during the WW2.
Actually if you read the chapters about this in Olaf's biography he states that he sent a message to Mountbatten on teh night of teh attck and requested that troops from Bengal and UP to be sent urgently if a complete defeat and subsequent breakaway of the NWFP Baluchistan, Makran and Mianwali sectors is to be avoided. he calls it his darkkest hour as he fought against the Yusafzais that he had grown to love so much, in Noshera.

So, as I said I don't know about other regions, but as far as NWFP and Baluchistan is concerned the last war with the British Indian Troops ended in January 1940 when the Niazis lost Mianwali and the Achakzais lost Fort Sandermann leading to an imminant attack on Quetta.
A peace wa made and through that peace accord teh British exercised control till Fort Sandermann in Baluchistan and Mianwaali and Multan was finally taken over by the British, though their occupation lasted only till August 1947.

So you wanted an account of armed struggle, there you have it. Atleast in my region.

You would be well served to read up about teh Bacha Khan movement. I am sure that you will find a lot of material on it in India. (no pun intended).

His no violence movement started because he had had enough of the killing and suffering of the Pukhtoons and was very demoralised by the fact that most of the troops fighting on the British side were either Muslim or Hindu (some pukhtoons fought for them too, to keep lavish estates in India).
His idea that we could give up armed struggle and try for a political, non-violent, solution was not really suited to teh mentality of the Pukhtoons and if it were not for his social work before the decleration of his alliance with Gandhi he would have had very little support.
However, his "Khudai Khudmatgaar" movement was responsible for education and medicinal outlets all over NWFP.
Had he not been opposed by people like Khan Abdul Qayyum Khan, Abdul Rab Nishtar, Suraab Yusafzai, Miangul Jaan , Wali Swat and Khan Hashmat Khan of Derajat he would have been a very powerfull ally to the ONE-INDIA slogan of Nehru. All the others believed that no flag should fly over their regions which did not have a muslim soveriegn (A fact that helped the league in its 1946 campaign. Mind you this region was not under voting in 1936 but if it had been they would not have voted for the league as the league, at that time, wanted one indian parliment).

Later on , when Nehru came to visit the region to drum up support for One-India (thinking Bacha Khan's views were very popular in teh Tribal areas) he escaped an assasination attempt. Had the local Khan (who was himself a league supporter and in teh parliment at the time) not taken precaustions at teh right time, Nehru would not have survived the subsequent brawl.

So there you have, the political and Armed struggle of NWFP and Baluchistan.

All these incidents are documented by teh British in the biographies that are mentioned above.

I hope that helps you in your assessment.

Khudai pa amaan
Saeed Afridi

50

By the way, maybe we should start this debate in a different thread, or loose the KARGIL topic heading ..........

Just a suggestion.