I agree to your thinking, people settled scores and given the irrational psyche of masses in both countries, it is any body's guess how the riots would have started. i am not absolving the blame from Muslims but i just wanted to argue that who has to be blamed first.
In creation of Bangladesh, if we come out of convoluted history, So many west Pakistanis were killed, breasts of women cut and placed in stacks ( i am narrating you eye witness accounts of West Pakistanis there and beharis), Pakistan Army also in trying to quell the riots killed a lot of people. The government white paper accepted 35k, Bangladesh accuses sometimes 3 million, but mostly million. Independant Newspapers correspondents (NY Times) say 100k. But people of Pakistan admit that the story started here, due to the intolerance of the leadership in the west. What happened afterwards was a chain reaction, stopping which requires a lot of courage and guts. You can read all the editorials on 16 december in all Newspapers, not a single one blames Bengalis, not that they had not committed atrocities. Their atrocities were inhuman. Army killed for counter insurgency but killing young babies and women like this was inhuman, but we do not blame them, the thing started here in our Pakistan. Now as Partition is a done subject, we have developed seemingly good relations though the propaganda machines of bangledesh had done a damage which i believe will take generations to wipe out of the minds of bengalis.
BUt i fail to see such admission on the part of India, you blame us for partitioning and blame squarely jinnah, why don't you see that life was made miserable in one small congressional governments tenure. It has been argues by many scholars of Independence Movement that Idea of Pakistan was a bargaining chip and acceptance of cabinet mission plan promptly highlights that, however congress proved too intolerant. They assumed that Pakistan would not survive without dependance on India and sooner or later will fall into her lap. In fact congress was more enthusiastic of partitioning in the later years of freedom struggle i.e. 46-47. Lord Mountbatten has said that Partition will happen in one year but congress insisted in 3 months so that nothing can be established in Pakistan (india inherited a running system, we had to built from scratch). In fact it was this haste which triggered riots as thousands of Muslims all across India either decided to migrate or were forced out of their homes.
Then India started high handed tactics, it refused military equipment to Pakistan. Its atitude of distribution of military equipment was so biased that Auchuinlek had to resign in protest as Mount Batten was favoring India while he was a just man. We never got the promised weapons. All depots were in your country, ordnance factories in your territory. Water was stopped in 48, coal blockade in 48-49 which virtually stalled the Pak railways. India refused 200 Million rupees of cash reserves in start to starve the new government and bring it to its knees, We all thank Ghandi Jee that he started maran barat to get the payment done otherwise Nehru had flatly refused. You see the list is too long (not finished yet) and still you call us the hate mongerers.
Well, as I have shown by refering Pakistani and Bangladeshi historical material earlier, the Muslim majority states were ruled by Muslim parties (not necessarily ML), whereas Congress ruled Hindu-majority states.
MKF, even if the Muslims in Congress-ruled states were badly treated (as you claim), then the Muslims in ML or Muslim ruled states were in a majority and were pretty-well treated. So why did only ML demand partition and the other muslim parties were silent ? The obvious answer is to wrest power from other muslim parties and gain lost ground.
Also, I can also make the claim that Hindus were very badly treated in Muslim majority states considering the actions of Suhrawardy in Bengal during Direct Action Day (Noakhali, et. al).
Anyways, the idea of Pakistan/separation was germinated long back in the 1920s and 1930s and widely circulated (Iqbal and Jinnah were pretty well-known even then). *Its got nothing to do with Congress ruled Hindu-majority states where muslims were treated "badly" *.
But in 1940, ML took on the British to demand a sepatae country for the muslims which was radical and took the Muslim electorate by storm. This won ML, 99% of the Muslim seats.
Circumstantial evidence shows that it was more due to taste power rather than muslim emancipation, for it was very well-known that Jinnah was practically a non-practising Muslim. He has been recorded to consume foods prohibited in Islam, and married a non-Muslim.
It is also a myth that the Congress was a party of only Hindus. It also had a number of prominent Muslims like Saifuddin Kitchlew, Asaf Ali and Aruna Ali (his Hindu wife), Maulana Abul Azad (President of the Congress several times till 1946) and Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan till the end, and a few others who passed away in the 1930s.
In 1922, the Congress adopted Iqbal's "Sare Jahaan se achcha..." as the National Anthem while rejecting Vande Mataram because it would hurt muslim sentiments. As I pointed earlier, the 2 stanzas in which Hindu-goddesses were invoked were dropped in 1937 and has remained so ever since then.
The last minute U-turn from Congress as well as ML on the Cabinet mission Plan is not an indication that Congress partitioned the country. Congress opposed communal electorates of the CM Plan---something which it had been doing since Jinnah's 14-point plan in 1927. Also, the mayhem of Direct Action Day (let's not debate who started first) convinced the Congress that a united but fractured dominion will lead to Civil-war for sure. It would not have been Hindu-sided because Muslims of present-day Pakistan and Bengal were a sizeable number though numerically inferior.
As to why ML accepted it, I don't know given that a separate Islamic country of Pakistan was their core political ideology and because of which they had won all elections.
This is not to say that I condemn Jinnah. I appreciate that he was Bhagat Singh's lawyer (what was Congress doing ?). Finally I think that partition was necessary as civil-war would have erupted between the Muslims and Hindus.
The seeds of India's partition were sown by two individuals in the later part of 19th century. These two individuals are as below:
Bankim Chand Chatterji, who authored the poem "Vande Matram". He dreamt of Hindu India.
Iqbal, who created "Sare Jahan Se Achha....". The idea of Pakistan arose in his mind.
Eventually Hindu Mahasabha was formed to realize the dream of Bankim Chand Chatterji and as a reaction, Muslim League was formed to create a separate state for muslims.
The fear of Hindu India triggered muslims to demand for Pakistan.
These two individuals also created a small fire which is still burning as a live tension between India and Pakistan on Kashmir issue and occasional small fires in the form of communal riots between Hindus and Muslims across parts of India from time to time.
It is an irony that "Vande Matram" is a national song of India whose author is indirectly responsible for the division of Indian subcontinent and creating permanent rift between Hindus and Muslims which never existed before in the history of India. Hindu and Muslim communal riots were unheard in the 19th century.
The 1857 freedom movement had no communal colour and it was fought by Hindus and Muslim kings to drive out British and to restore Moghul kingdom's authority.
Eventually Hindu Mahasabha was formed to realize the dream of Bankim Chand Chatterji and as a reaction, Muslim League was formed to create a separate state for muslims.
Bull ****, hindu mahasabha was formed as a reaction to muslim league. not the other way round. put all blame on hindus eventually????
you guys never give up your support to your ummah even if it is unfair.....
In my opinion both nehru and jinnah were responsible which many indians know. but who cares what happened 60 years ago???...should not make any difference!
MKF, even if the Muslims in Congress-ruled states were badly treated (as you claim), then the Muslims in ML or Muslim ruled states were in a majority and were pretty-well treated. So why did only ML demand partition and the other muslim parties were silent ? The obvious answer is to wrest power from other muslim parties and gain lost ground. .
No. The other parties were congress collaborators for cheap bucks and maintaining their power. It was not idea of a muslim homeland that galvanized muslims under ML. It was general attitude of hindus in power that did so. you still cannot explain the sudden change of heart in favor of ML from regional power brokers.
Abhiman, it is not tit for tat discussion, no where they were treated wrongly, if some riots errupted on direct action day, you cannot compare it with systematic ethnic supression policies of congressional governments.
Than go further behind, if you talk about ideas, Sir Syed said in 1867 on urdu-hindi riots that i do not feel that these nations will be able to live together from now on. Man idea is something else and mass popularity is something else. who says that Muslims were not wary of congress getting power in centre after departure of british. That is why all the political process went on from simon comission to cabinet mission. Muslims only wanted constitutional guarentees, which hindus in congress were never ready to give. so there was lack of trust. but the first governments under congress ensured that all the paranoia about hindu leadership being highly intolearnt to muslims is real and get the acts together before it is too late.
Yaar, it is not that easy to sell an idea like this that too by a person who was so unlike the ones who were following him. Ghandee jee was wearing a traditional attire, he seemed liek a common man, but Jinnah was simply a modern british styled person. if masses trusted him was because he was the only one who took congress by the horns, he has the guts to say something once people said that it is a dream of a mad man. He showed the world that if you do committed and principled politics, every thing is possible.
As i said earliler, why then muslims trusted such a non-muslim looking muslim over there abul kalam azad type people. because they trusted him that he will never sell them to congress like these azad and ghulam types. It is not that easy to develop such a trust. People were worried and he was the one who defined what is the solution to their problems. where is your circumstantial evidence and where has ML tasted power which went to its head?
Showmen as said by Jinnah about them, you still can find some naqvi's in BJP who is responsible for carnage in Gujrat. Money makes the mare go!!!
and i said that good job done
It seems that you only read the official history, 1927 was the simon comission, 14 points were given in 1929 and no sir, congress had accepted separate electorates in 1916 in Lukhnow pact with 33% seats. It took a u-turn in Nehru report where it though accepted separate electorates but gave only 25% seats which were not acceptable. it was not against separate electorates but the debate was about percentage of representation
Direct action day is mayhem than what were the carnage of urissa and bihar?
here is the catch. you must understand that Pakistan could not have been solution to all the problems of Muslims but it was a partial solution because since Nehru report congress was not ready to accept Muslim demands and was hell bent on enforcing her will. Why ML accepted was because it was exact manifestation of its 14 points and would have given benefit to all the Muslims of India. You see congress was not ready to give even autonomy to muslims in the plan. there was nothing wrong in the plan. it was only giving autonomy to groups of provinces and congress was simply wanting to subjugate muslims.
Carnage erupted because of partition in haste prompted by congress as she thinked that tehy can bend Pakistan to its knees and make it a failed state. And it was not civil war but a delibrate attempt to punish muslims who succeeded in obtaining a separate homeland.
Abhiman, lets finish this debate here as i assumed that it is going no further. it was an intellectual excercise sans emotional attachment for me. i just quoted history and explained the events retrospectively. It is any body's choice to accept or not.
singh, muslim league was a political party. Mahasabha was nothing but a collection of goons and badmaash. please do not link them. no one is suuporting ummah here
I am sure that Iqbal was giving an opinion and see his wordings that he foresees that it is necessary to create a separate state. it was his foresight not that he said it should be made. and remember he and nehru were at very good terms till the end of his life.
I admit Nehru was a learned man so as Jinnah. I do not blame nehru to be sole driver of congress mentality. however their lower rung was a bit too active in anti muslim attitude. You are a generation of modern India which is now a fairly open minded and rational society. you cannot think that even at the height of Hindu-Muslim cooperation there was different water served for muslims and hindus and dharam was bhrasht by drinking water in a vessel used by a muslim.
what is direct action day? who called for it which resulted in so much loss of life?. wasn't it the muslim league?!.....even those you call goons also have a political arm now called BJP/jan sangh!...just because anyone has a political party doesn't mean they are not goons.
[quote]
you cannot think that even at the height of Hindu-Muslim cooperation there was different water served for muslims and hindus and dharam was bhrasht by drinking water in a vessel used by a muslim.
[/quote]
dont highlight stray incidents. if that is the case then why is it that dharm is not "brahst" in post-independent india?...of course the relations between hindus and muslims have not been really that good, but still dont give stray incidents that too when other so called low caste hindus were treated the same way like the dharm brahst you mentioned.
Tuker writes: “Buses and taxis were charging about loaded with Sikhs and Hindus armed with swords, iron bars and fire arms.” About the number of deads, Tuker writes: "1 do not know-no one knows-what the casualties were…All one can say is that the toll of dead ran into thousands. " See his book, While memory serves, op. cit., pp. 161,163,165.
It must have been wrong to have a direct action day but see who died in more numbers. please do not twist history, under the garb of direct action day mahasbhai’s played havoc with Muslim bastees and definitely leaguers were also having nasty elements. But see the congress celebrated the rememberence day on 9 aug and nothing happened. Why? Because ML had no malafide intentions to use it as a cover to generate riots but congress had. read all the story of tuker your self.
It is good that if it is not now, even i know it as i have a lot of Indian Colleagues. Why it was at that time? DO not tell me they were stray incidents. They were commonly accepted principles.
You have accepted the attitudes of Hindus of those times yourself. to muslims, to dalits etc etc, why should’nt than they aspire to have their own separate state.
MFk, i like your patience in writing long posts. I read all of it but unfortunately I dont have time to point out each mistakes. I think Abhiman would reply to it.
But let me put in my comments, If muslims just wanted constitutional guarantee why not then after creation of pakistan did it become an islamic state. jinnah wanted it to be a secular state isnt it. He had noble ideas for pakistan but the way he got it by using religion as the sole criteria lead to the rise of funadamentalism in pakitstan. Why did India remain secular and pakistan not.
Ur description of of hindu mahasabha was correct and it was indeed a marginal organisation made up of conservative people. It didnt have a political voice. But what did ML do. It used religion to further its vote bank. It is a political organisation used religion unbashedly. Congress fight was against the Britishers while the ML fought against the HIndus. They played with the fear of the muslims in India that Hindus are going to run this country and they will be treated second class citizens. Hindus are going to take revange over the muslims because of the muslim rule over the major part of India for centuries.
In India(old and present) if u mix religion with politics, its disaster. What Jinnah did in the early 30 and 40s is what LK advani is doing now.
You have accepted the attitudes of Hindus of those times yourself. to muslims, to dalits etc etc, why should'nt than they aspire to have their own separate state.
all other things apart(which i am not interested in actually), what is that etc etc??...i am not telling that hindus had been frekin angels but still what is that etc etc!.....brahmins(who constitute 4% of india) and may be others in india might have had trouble living with others . open your eyes, try to google elsewhere(from neutral sites, sometimes your own muslims and see). besides many reform movements in hinduism happened due to brahmins. dont want to blame them entirely when many of my own friends are so called brahmins.
I agree to you about mixing religion with politics!!!anyway just a remark about rise of fundamentalism in Pakistan. It never rose after partition till Zia-ul-Haq's era once Pakistan aligned it self with US to defeat russian forces in Afghanistan. There they used fundamentalists to achieve their ends, but the genie once out of bottle can not be put back. The forces US-KSA-Pak nexus unleashed, we are still suffering from the after effects. This nexus thought that they have used fundamentalists to achieve their ends, they never knew that its them who have used us.
may be you are right. i was quoting you about past times anyway. neither do i say that Muslim masses are angles either.(you can see what they are once they act like a mob). Actually the horrors of carnage which was played on migratees coming from India to Pakistan was so terrible that it has taken some 60 years and may be two generations to dilute to the extent it is today.
why could'nt we divide peacefully, why were Muslims punished just because they asked for a separate country for them is a question i always ask.
P.S: etc etc is an attmep to give an impression that you know more than you actually do.
P.S: etc etc is an attmep to give an impression that you know more than you actually do.
same horrors have been explained by hindus and sikhs coming from other side. besides, i will also ask. why were hindus punished just because they are hindus by rulers whom you call pious?why were their places of worship destroyed?....your scripture even says they will burn in hell just because they are hindus. what had india done to saudi arabia?.. wanna google and paste me from neutral sources?...
and :D .....why couldn't you divide peacefully in 1971? why were muslims punished by muslims just because they asked for a seperate country for them is a question i too always ask. but i wouldn't give a damn about it in the end.
if you are talking about me, then i would never call any such ruler pious who comitted such atrocities.
why were their places of worship destroyed?.
who so ever destroyed should be punished. very simple, place of worships are to be sanctified. but whta do you say about babri mosque, was'nt it a place of worship destroyed on some ficticious claims and now i see such claims coming up for Taj Mahal as well.
...your scripture even says they will burn in hell just because they are hindus.
Never, if they had remained all life as hindus and just before death started believing in unity of Allah and Muhammad as the last prophet, they will be better than me, who stayed life long as a muslim but kept on commiting sins. don't you see it as a very good deal.
what had india done to saudi arabia?.. wanna google and paste me from neutral sources?...
i am not sure what India has done to Saudia, please google and paste, i would love to see.