AkhandBharat: Strategic implications

Discussion in 'West Asia & Africa' started by AkhandBharat, Apr 28, 2010.

  1. AkhandBharat

    AkhandBharat Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2009
    Messages:
    542
    Likes Received:
    78
    Location:
    Brokeland
    Bharat has had a complex and glorious past. Bharat gave the world one of the oldest religions and introduced the concept of Dharma and Karma, which was a very sophisticated rule of law emphasizing self governance guided by a very comprehensive moral code. Later as various Kings and Emperors ruled big and small fiefdoms, various variations of the Hindu culture sizzled and thrived, giving rise to many languages, ideologies and philosophies, which co-existed side by side. Manu had prepared a class system, which gave people their occupation based upon their abilities. A Shudra's son could become a Kshatriya if he displayed good martial skills. Similarly a corrupt son of a Brahmin or a Kshatriya was degraded to a Shudra if he wasn't competent or corrupt.

    Over time, The caste system became rigid due to the system's abuse and power concentrated in the hands of the few. This led to rising discontent, which the invaders took advantage of. First the Mughals, and then the Europeans came and looted this land of its riches. Bharat's GDP share declined from 30% of the world's GDP in 1000 AD to 5% in 1900 AD.

    Even after Bharat achieved independence, it was not spared. The westerners divided India amongst communal lines, on both its eastern and western borders. Instead of keeping the country as one based on ethnic population, the country was divided along religious ideology resulting in a significant loss of life as a result of the artificial border demarcation.

    Had Bharat been left intact, we would have had a considerable amount of time to achieve economic and military parity with the developed nations. But we lost the opportunity once again to rise to our glorious past. I have been asked to create this thread to start a strategic debate on the implications of Akhand Bharat, how it would have affected our lives, and how it can, if in fact we can be one nation in the future.

    ..=i+_=..i2-=..=i+
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2010
    LETHALFORCE likes this.
  2.  
  3. Zaki

    Zaki Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    398
    Likes Received:
    56
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Akhand Bharat – Well first of all in order to understand whether this question itself has any credibility or not we will have to look into the history first. I have shared few examples from our history to illustrate Akhand Bharat Ideology was never into existence after the death of Maharaj Ashoka – The Great of Maurya Empire and the way it is always portrayed by the Indian Akhand Bharat ideologists that the Two-Nation theory divided the whole subcontinent is wrong.

    Before the fall of Maurya Empire Indian sub-continent had only one major religion that is Hinduism (and later on budhuism upto certain extents) most of the peoples had similar culture, moral values, traditions, way of life and every mean to live together as a one unit. But after the fall of Maurya Empire this whole subcontinent was divided into several smaller kingdoms i.e Sunga Dynasty, Indo-Greek Kingdoms and later on further divided into smaller kingdoms i.e. Kharavela Empire, Vakataka Empire, Rajputs, Gujjars, Solanki, Chauhans etc. All these Kingdom were countries in itself having control of one Raja or another clearly indicating a Two-nation theory is false but still these Kingdoms though very different from each were still sharing common rituals up to certain extents so lets assume they could live together in harmony but after the invasion of Ummayyad Empire – dispatch of Muhammad bin Qasim to Sindh and the fall of Raja Dahr I would say the last hope of their re-emergence of Akhand Bharat Ideology was also shattered. Later on we all all know Sultan Mehmood Ghaznvi defeated Chauhans and slowly and steadily the whole of the Indian sub-continent was under the control of Muslim empire.

    One point to notice is, This Indian subcontinent was not under the control of one person as a Akhand Bharat ideology and several rulers were ruling different states and all the Raja’s or the Emperors were fighting with each other for the expansion of their territory and this division itself portrays the false claims of Akhand Bharat. Even the Muslims could never say Akhand Muslim kind of word as they were also divided among themselves in the name of Sassanid Empire, Khilji, Mughals, Mysore, Hyderebad Daccan, Rajputs and not to forget the Sikh Empire that was established before the British Raj.

    The point i am trying to make is these several different smaller kingdoms were different countries in itself just like today’s Pakistan and India and there was never a moment when an Emperor could keep a major control of Indian subcontinent under his Kingdom and we also must not forget these are only Kingdoms but during this period of thousands of years Indian subcontinent was further divided into different religions, languages, cultures, traditions, moral values, interests and so on. The list is never ending, you can say you level of difference of opinion is huge where One thing is Allowed for Muslims and not allowed for Hindu’s and other thing Allowed for Hindu’s and forbidden by the Muslims and then other religions takes an entry and further divide the difference in opinion. It was simply not possible to stay united in such a diversified environment. I know you might adhere on your claims by saying still all kind of religions existing in today’s India but we must also not forget somewhere at some stage, someone from either religions have to compromise up to certain extents and if two parties are not willing to compromise then the Gujarat genocide or the Sikh’s war of independence starts shaping up again. The time when we were divided the leaders of both nations were in consensus that the both nations will maintain friendly relationships even after the division. Our hostility started after the dispute of Kashmir back in 1948 and the first War between India and Pakistan and also the way both nations were divided, the division of things and not to forget the killings on either decides in due course of migration these things sowed the hatred among us all otherwise if some signs of maturity were shown on either sides we may have been living together in a friendly like relationships even today but of course in two different countries. The ideology of two-nation theory was not wrong but the way it was divided is regretable.

    I guess this post is very long so I am stopping here – will write more after your post.

    Regards
     
    A.V. and DaRk WaVe like this.
  4. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,272
    Likes Received:
    11,273
    Location:
    BANGalore
    That the two nation theory itself fostered the division of India is well known. The false presumptions led to the division. Kashmir was acceeded to India by its ruler as did all other princely states with the exception of a couple. So there was no issue at all in it till Pakistan decided to get Kashmir too. What will follow in this thread from now on is the usual things we have heard over and over again. Zaki i hope you have some fresh thinking on this one.
     
  5. Daredevil

    Daredevil On Vacation! Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2009
    Messages:
    11,613
    Likes Received:
    5,670
    Thinking about non-existent Akhand Bharat and what it could have achieved is simply hypothetical question and so talking about the strategic implications of Akhand Bharat is moot. Even if there was Akhand Bharat, there was no guarantee that there would have been no further division on religious or ethnic basis. It is too difficult to comprehend what would have happened if Akhand Bharat were to exist after independence in 1947.
     
    Singh likes this.
  6. Zaki

    Zaki Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    398
    Likes Received:
    56
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Oh Please! lets not drag Kashmir issue into this and focus on Akhand Bharat ideology only

    We may discuss these issues in various other threads :) - Most welcome

    @ topic

    Like i said before we have so many diversified views and have to compromise on each and every issue arising. Why not get seperated like brothers usually does after they are married and their childrens are grown up? Like in our desi families we often see the division of two families after their childrens are grown up? does it not bring peace towards the whole of the family who simply can't live together in one house after everybody is matured

    One day or another we have to move on and in order to maintain this peace and not start Hindu- Muslim genocide every now and then, we not move respectively and maintain good relationships like we (Pakistan) have with China?

    We simply can't bring peace in this region as long as this dream of Akhand Bharat is enriched among some Indian fellows
     
  7. tarunraju

    tarunraju Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2009
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    3,884
    Location:
    Hyderabad
    Akhand Bharat was an expansionist political idea. At the time of independence, it was merely the unification of all British colonies in (and around) the Indian sub-continent into one nation-state, even though history doesn't back most of the idea. Not India-Pakistan (which were just "India"), but India-Burma, India-Ceylone, etc.

    [​IMG]

    That idea wouldn't have worked out, as proportions of Hindus, Muslims, and Buddhists would be too precariously held to guarantee stability of governance in the longer run, even if we were to call ourselves a secular state. We would have later balkanized like the Soviet Union, with the Hindus losing more territory than what is the present size of India. The Hindu majority in today's India more or less guarantees stability, similarly ethnic majorities in other resulting nation states do.

    If you want to see a test-tube example of how two ethnicities in precarious proportions cause instability, look at Sri Lanka and the Sinhalese-Tamil conflict.
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2010
    Singh likes this.
  8. tarunraju

    tarunraju Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2009
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    3,884
    Location:
    Hyderabad
    The idea of Akhand Bharat is confined to fringe groups, the Indian state doesn't subscribe to it. India doesn't dream of "reintegration" with Pakistan of the likes of China with Taiwan. All it aspires for as far as territory goes is the recovery of Kashmir under Pakistani and Chinese control. That's about it.
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2010
    Singh and ahmedsid like this.
  9. Zaki

    Zaki Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    398
    Likes Received:
    56
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Thats what the problem is............ the key reason of our hostility.............. you don't want to listen the opinion of Kashmirs........ you just want to impose your decision upon them.

    Whereas we have been arguing for free and fair elections in Kashmir for once and for all................... Trust me by imposing this decision India will not gain anything and the whole region will continue remaining unstable.


    Btw this was not Indian vs Pakistan thread - read the title again
     
  10. tarunraju

    tarunraju Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2009
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    3,884
    Location:
    Hyderabad
    Part of the reason why Pakistan was created was that a majority of the architects of independent India wanted it to be a Union and not a Federation. In a Union, provinces (states) lack the power to decide their own fate, can be merged and bifurcated, and are held together by a strong capital (in our case, Delhi), whereas in a Federation, the provinces (states) are powerful and have the power to secede, are held together by common interests, and contribute to the power of a weaker center (like the United States, in which any state can invoke its right to secede). Congress wanted India to be a Union, as it could bring about order in chaos much more efficiently, whereas the Muslim elite (ML) wanted a Federation. Had Congress agreed to that, there wouldn't have been a Pakistan, but given the sheer number of little "power centers" thrown about in the country, India would have broken up into dozens of pieces.

    Moderate Kashmiris of India know they're on the right side. They're part of a superior country that allows free religious thought, a stronger currency, a much stronger economy, tons of opportunity, etc.
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2010
  11. Zaki

    Zaki Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    398
    Likes Received:
    56
    Location:
    Pakistan
    I will reply to your above comments later

    Independance cannot be bought by the money or lucrative offers. I am yet to find a Kashmiri who is happily living in India though met with thousands of peoples from Azad Kashmir who did not even bother to say anything about independance.

    Whatever discussion i had with Indian members on different forums in beginning everybody starts from Ground 0 that all is well, later on agrees himself that the large population of Indian side of Kashmir does not want to stay with India and a solution of this problem must be sorted out............ i have been fed up repeating everything again and again and hope you won't start the debate again as a sane person you will know the gravity of this issue. The problem is like you said before India wants to impose her decision on Kashmiris and trust me by providing few $$$ or treating like they are the kings of the whole India - Nobody can be successful to eliminate their war of Independance.

    They are not interested in Stronger economy or tons of opportunity what matters to them the most is the relief of Independance which is still lacking. You may have seen 1000s of pictures of Kashmiri brothers being beaten up in Indian side of Kashmir but would have a tough time finding such images in Pakistani part of the Kashmir.

    Thats what the truth is.............. As a nuteral person i would want all three parties to sit on the tables and find a peaceful solution of this ever rising problem and come to the conclusion after the concensus of everybody. Its a simple give and take system........... Your drream getting back Pakistani side of Kashmir is just dream that cannot be fullfilled after the existance of Nuclear bomb. Both parties know very well they cannot win each other after the latest inventions of Missiles and nuclear bombs. The betterment is only to find the peaceful solution just like we did back in 1963 with China. Resolve the issues according to the willness of the Kashmiri peoples and leave your ego's aside. Both of us you cannot win Kashmir by just offering them couple of bucks. Its a matter of life and death, money does not work in this business.
     
  12. tarunraju

    tarunraju Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2009
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    3,884
    Location:
    Hyderabad
    Because you're yet to step on Indian soil - or - Indian Kashmirs don't find the need to go to Pakistan for whatever reason. Whatever separatism exists is controllable, and are just tools for local political parties sitting in the opposition to needle the ruling parties.

    That should nail the rest of your argument.
     
  13. Zaki

    Zaki Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    398
    Likes Received:
    56
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Well said by the genius Thomas Gray that Ignorance is a Bliss (with no offence intended).

    Don't see at the screams of the Kashmiri peoples - or should i post those pictures and videos again?

    Call it a drama by the local political parties and never resolve this issue.............. Be it as it is ........... lets continue these relationships of Hostility and let our childrens fight for the same cause

    Trust me this way Indian dream of becoming super power can never be fullfilled - anyway i am who to explain you - afterall you have to see from the Eyes of India and not a nuteral observor ;(
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2010
  14. tarunraju

    tarunraju Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2009
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    3,884
    Location:
    Hyderabad
    I can come up with ample videos of Baloach "screams" or Pashtun "screams" or even "screams" from so-called Azad Kashmir (where they're not happy with Pakistani rule), so don't place yourself on an imaginary higher moral ground.

    And no, we don't aspire to be a "superpower". Being a superpower comes with a load of responsibilities and obligations, which we're better off not having. India aspires to be a country that is, at any point in time, proportionately powerful to its economy and population, is able to defend the interests of its people, that eliminates poverty, that spreads literacy, and that which preaches the ideals of liberty.
     
  15. ajtr

    ajtr Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    715
    Let me qoute the following post from thanx to ramana at BR


    "The question to ask oneself is when did the partition of Bharat begin?There are tons pakers written on the partition of British India in 1947.While theories are all interesting, it is still about the latter not the former.

    I would say partition was proposed when Najib invited Abdali in 1757 and the process actually began on 14th January 1761 on the plains of Panipat.. I think we really need to understand the Mughal-Maratha dynamics for complete grasp of the phenomenon of partition.

    The key figures here are

    1. Mughals (and last of them, Aurangzeb).
    2. Pathan lobby from upper gangetic plains, Punjab, AFG and Iran)
    3. Mullahs like Shah Wali and Sirhindi
    4. Marathas
    5. other Hindus in the region (Jats, Sikhs, Rajputs etc).

    The antagonism between Pashtoons and Central Asians is legendary. Even today, the local saying goes like,"where anger and revenge of pathan ends, love of a tajik begins". This says a lot about their interactions. Central asians are the true "Bete Noir" of Indian civlization throughout the history's current. There are three blocks of populations which we must understand here.

    a. Outer tier - Central asian block - Turks, Tajiks, Mongols, Kazaks etc. I like to talk in terms of river basins, hence the region beyond the Bakshu river (Oxus/Amu darya).
    b. second tier - Pathans (southern afghanistan and NWFP - the lands between Sindhu and Kubha (Kabul) rivers (Or some times Amudarya).
    c. Third tier - Punjab - Attock to Delhi and Jammu to Multan.
    d. Fourth tier - Gangetic plains (the historical core - geographical and for considerable amount of time, civilizational)

    When we speak of foreign invasions on India, it refers to people from the Outer tiers (Iran and trans Oxus regions) invading India. That means, the attack of Central Asians on Pathans is considered as foreign invasion. Hence Greeks, Bactrians, Scythians, Kushans, Huns, Arabs, Mongols, Mughals, Persians, British were undoubtedly "foreign in origin" and so was their incursion of subsequent tiers of India.

    But when we count the total time the geographical core (Not the civilizational one which shifts) was under occupation "ethnic foreign people", it turns out to be not more than 800 years in the course of documented 5000 years of Indian history since times of IVC (not considering MBH as history just for sake of argument). Out of those 800 years, 500 are in past millennium. That is, only 18% of time, Indic core was under foreign domination.

    The problem arose with Islamization of Afghanistan. Afghanistan resisted islamization for 250 years after fall of Iran. It was within 20 years of fall of Gazni (which was being ruled by Raja Shiladitya), Mehmood invaded the core and consolidated frontier of India along with outer regions. However, it is the trait of power-centre of frontiers to periodically seek expansion into Sindhu basin and vice-versa. Following that trait, Mehmood of Gazni, Muhammad Ghori, subsequent sultans of Delhi until Babar followed that tradition. The rule of the "core" was in hands of people who were ethnically Indians but culturally alienated. This is popularly known as "The Pathan Lobby".

    The game-changer was First Battle of Panipat when an outsider displaced this entrenched Pathan lobby and consolidated the power of the core. The lobby of Pathans and Rajputs struck back and overthrew this foreign domination. There was internal dynamics to this struggle as well. Pathans (of Babur and Humayun's era) were alienated Hindus. Rajputs were defenders of Indic culture. Just as Rajput-Pathan lobby threw out ethnic outsider (Mughal/Mongol), Rajputs later overthrew the cultural outsiders too (Hemu Vikramaditya taming Lodis). Here we see the power-dynamics between Indians and foreigners and amongst Indians themselves (Indics and alienated Indics).

    The Mongols/Mughals struck back in Second Battle of Panipat, this time successfully acquiring the throne and consolidating vast stretches of lands for long time period keeping the traditional aspirants of the power, away from the power. The Pathan lobby and Rajput lobby is beautifully handled by Akbar, Jahangir, Shahjahan and Aurangzeb and played against each other, keeping them preoccupied.

    In 1681, when Aurangzeb descended on Deccan with full might of Mughal empire, the entrenched lobby of Pathans saw their chance to win what was rightfully theirs. Rajputs were deracinated by then and were out of power-struggle. It is here when the dynamics of "Islam" comes into picture. The traditional habit of Ulema to stay close to power-centre of region paid off when the regions of Awadh, Rohilkhand and Braj started making tremendous profits out of Deccan war of 27 years, when rest of India was suffering and revenues plummeting. The revenue and produce of Bengal and Odisha dropped by sharp 70% from 1690 to 1700, that is within 10 years. In same 10 years, the war-profits of western UP and Awadh (mostly dominated by Pathan lobby) increased by 67%.

    Thus, after death of Aurangzeb in 1707, within few years of confusion, the chance begins to appear before Pathan lobby to usurp the long lost power. Ulema was quiet and indifferent as they do not care who the ruler is, as long as he is Islamic and is patronizing them and their quest of conversion. The first move was made by Sayyid Brothers to dethrone the Mughal successor of Aurangzeb to much more pliable successor. These brothers were the working towards restoration of Mughal (and their own) domination on north India. They managed to quell the discontent in Rajputana and rest of India, they had to give entry to an unlikely player in the game - The Marathas.

    The events of similar to those prior to Second Battle of Panipat - just like Rajput-Pathan lobby tried to overthrow Mongol influence out of India, Maratha-Pathan lobby did actually manage that. After Mughals were overthrown, the internal Maratha-Pathan dynamics unravelled just like Rajput-Pathan dynamics of Hemu era. If Hemu were victorious at Panipat, he would have had to fight off Pathans just like Marathas did.

    Almost all the regions which was previously under Mughal empire smoothly passed on to Marathas as protectorate. This however does not include the Braj, Awadh and eastern Bengal and Punjab, Sindh and NWFP. This is when Shah Wali started making noises about the danger that Islam will be in.

    While Marathas were waiting to establish their legitimacy as natural successors to Mughals, the Pathan lobby was busy organizing their own revival. The opportunity came in 1740 when Nadir Shah invaded India. Bajirao-1 was in south, hence no army which was big enough to stop Nadir shah, was stationed in Punjab. Ahmadshah Abdali was one of the commanders of Nadir Shah in this campaign. After Nadir's assassination, and Abdali's ascension, pathans of gangetic plains contacted abdali to invade and occupy the land so as to create a continuous pathan ruled state. By Shah wali, this was given a religious overtone as "jihad" against kafir Marathas.

    One has to understand the global perspective of the decade of 1750's to see the roots of partition of India. The kingdom of Pathans from Caspian sea to Bengal was in making. The kingdom from Punjab to Tamil-nadu of Marathas was in making. EIC was a small force then. This chance of establishment of Pathan kingdom was antagonistic to India and Marathas and vice versa.

    Panipat ended in stalemate. All the dreams of Pathan lobby and Ulema were vanished. Marathas continued to expand but not with earlier zeal and power. Sikhs rose but could not give a sustainable dynasty to consolidate Punjab and NWFP. Eventually British took over the administration of India in 1818 and after 150 years, India was partitioned.

    To fill the gaps in between, one has to understand this lost dream of Ulema (primarily based in westen UP) which was using Pathan lobby's political ambition to establish earlier Islamic dominance of Mughal era. This dejected Ulema mobilized the funds, influence, private armies and support of zamindars and local power-satraps of Indo-Gangetic plains under Muslim league, when chips were down. The dream was truly shattered on plains of Panipat and ironically, that heart-break came in form of victory. Hence the need to reclaim this victory and establish islamic state so fondly cherished by many people from this region. This need of alienated Indics and foreign ideology using them to find a incubator to relaunch their efforts which were stalled at Panipat, marks the beginning of partition. The man who established Darul Ulum Deoband was grandson of Shah Waliullah himself.

    Figures say that since Islamization of Afghanistan, Pathans and later Pakjabis (which are ethnically Indians) were more detrimental to India and Indic civilization than foreign rulers (Mughals except Aurangzeb and British). The inner Vibhishana has been more detrimental to India than outer Vaanaras.

    Successor of Hemu's India and Maratha's India is modern Republic of India. The aim which Hemu (Rajputs) and Marathas tried to achieve was five-fold.

    1. to overthrow the influence of a visible foreign power (with or without the help of alienated Indians (Pathans, Pakjabis)
    2. to defeat alienated Indians and overthrow their influence on policies of India and her core.
    3. To reconquer the territory currently occupied by alienated Indians
    4. To establish Indic system of socio-political and economics in reconquered/consolidated territory.
    5. To bring alienated Indians back to Indian fold.

    The fourth and fifth point has to happen simultaneously along with first three, which happen in the given order.

    Hemu succeeded in overthrowing foreign power temporarily.

    Marathas succeeded in overthrowing the foreign power permanently and overthrow the influence of alienated Indians on the territories and policies of India. Marathas tried to win back territory (Attock campaign) but not for long (only 19 months). They tried to implement Indic system of governance and remove foreign influence but not uniformly.

    INC (with help of other nationalists) overthrew a visible foreign power. Republic of India (ROI) overthrew the influence of alienated Indians from core territory and policy-making of ROI. ROI has established a system of governance which is largely Indic and partially Western (Similar to Marathas). ROI has partially quarantined the alienated Indian lobby in its western and north-western regions like Marathas had it quarantined in Western UP. So, ROI stands at position where Marathas were in 1760. Thankfully, owing to democracy, the early deaths of good leaders won't harm ROI in a way it harmed Maratha-India.

    Just like the global politics then, the internal lobby of alienated Indians trying to establish a continuous state. That lobby is being used by a foreign ideology which aims for uniform society without state and class. ROI is the only player which stands in its way."
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2010
    Zaki and A.V. like this.
  16. Zaki

    Zaki Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    398
    Likes Received:
    56
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Nice post ajtr!

    Thats what i call - quality post :)

    I agree with most of the comments and will reply to this post later.
     
  17. ajtr

    ajtr Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    715
    Following are the four relevant pages from Narendra Singh Sarila's book "The Shadow of the Great Game: The Untold Story of India's Partition". The images are linked below.

    The first two pages show how Cripps was to offer conditional independence containing the condition that provinces of India - could walk out of the union.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]



    This page shows how Nehru was "waiting breathlessly" to lead India into the "New world order" and he accepted an election in which only 14% of the people were allowed to vote.

    [​IMG]

    The last scan shows how the partition plan was actually opposed by the British Chiefs of staff. This page also contains details of the two "Cabinet Mission Plans". Incidentally the fact that the division of Punjab would be troublesome was known

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2010
    Zaki likes this.
  18. ajtr

    ajtr Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    715
    [​IMG]

    EPILOGUE
    [We need better statesmanship than Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Jinnah have shown]



    Here I propose to stop. For I feel that I have said all that I can say about the subject. To use legal language, I have drawn the pleadings. This I may claim to have done at sufficient length. In doing so, I have adopted that prolix style so dear to the Victorian lawyers, under which the two sides plied one another with plea and replication, rejoinder and rebutter [=rebuttal], surrejoinder and surrebutter, and so on. I have done this deliberately, with the object that a full statement of the case for and against Pakistan may be made. The foregoing pages contain the pleadings. The facts contained therein are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I have also given my findings. It is now for Hindus and Muslims to give theirs.

    To help them in their task it might be well to set out the issues. On the pleadings the following issues seem to be necessary issues:

    (1) Is Hindu-Muslim unity necessary for India's political advancement? If necessary, is it still possible of realization, notwithstanding the new ideology of the Hindus and the Muslims being two different nations?
    (2) If Hindu-Muslim unity is possible, should it be reached by appeasement or by settlement?

    (3) If it is to be achieved by appeasement, what are the new concessions that can be offered to the Muslims to obtain their willing co-operation, without prejudice to other interests?

    (4) If it is to be achieved by a settlement, what are the terms of that settlement? If there are only two alternatives, (i) Division of India into Pakistan and Hindustan, or (ii) Fifty-fifty share in Legislature, Executive, and the Services, which alternative is preferable?

    (5) Whether India, if she remained [=remains] one integral whole, can rely upon both Hindus and Musalmans to defend her independence, assuming it is won from the British?

    (6) Having regard to the prevailing antagonism between Hindus and Musalmans, and having regard to the new ideology demarcating them as two distinct nations and postulating an opposition in their ultimate destinies, whether a single constitution for these two nations can be built, in the hope that they will show an intention to work it and not to stop it.

    (7) On the assumption that the two-nation theory has come to stay, will not India as one single unit become an incoherent body without organic unity, incapable of developing into a strong united nation bound by a common faith in a common destiny, and therefore likely to remain a feebler and sickly country, easy to be kept in perpetual subjection either of [=to] the British or of [=to] any other foreign power?

    (8) If India cannot be one united country, is it not better that Indians should help India in the peaceful dissolution of this incoherent whole into its natural parts, namely, Pakistan and Hindustan?

    (9) Whether it is not better to provide for the growth of two independent and separate nations, a Muslim nation inhabiting Pakistan and a Hindu nation inhabiting Hindustan, than [to] pursue the vain attempt to keep India as one undivided country in the false hope that Hindus and Muslims will some day be one and occupy it as the members of one nation and sons of one motherland?

    Nothing can come in the way of an Indian getting to grips with these issues and reaching his own conclusions with the help of the material contained in the foregoing pages except three things: (1) A false sentiment of historical patriotism, (2) a false conception of the exclusive ownership of territory, and (3) absence of willingness to think for oneself. Of these obstacles, the last is the most difficult to get over. Unfortunately thought in India is rare, and free thought is rarer still. This is particularly true of Hindus. That is why a large part of the argument of this book has been addressed to them. The reasons for this are obvious. The Hindus are in a majority. Being in a majority, their view point must count! There is not much possibility of [a] peaceful solution if no attempt is made to meet their objections, rational or sentimental. But there are special reasons which have led me to address so large a part of the argument to them, and which may not be quite so obvious to others. I feel that those Hindus who are guiding the destinies of their fellows have lost what Carlyle calls "the Seeing Eye" and are walking in the glamour of certain vain illusions, the consequences of which must, I fear, be terrible for the Hindus. The Hindus are in the grip of the Congress and the Congress is in the grip of Mr. Gandhi. It cannot be said that Mr. Gandhi has given the Congress the right lead. Mr. Gandhi first sought to avoid facing the issue by taking refuge in two things. He started by saying that to partition India is a moral wrong and a sin to which he will never be a party. This is a strange argument. India is not the only country faced with the issue of partition, or shifting of frontiers based on natural and historical factors to those based on the national factors. Poland has been partitioned three time,s and no one can be sure that there will be no more partition of Poland. There are very few countries in Europe which have not undergone partition during the last 150 years. This shows that the partition of a country is neither moral nor immoral. It is unmoral. It is a social, political or military question. Sin has no place in it.
    As a second refuge Mr. Gandhi started by protesting that the Muslim League did not represent the Muslims, and that Pakistan was only a fancy of Mr. Jinnah. It is difficult to understand how Mr. Gandhi could be so blind as not to see how Mr. Jinnah's influence over the Muslim masses has been growing day by day, and how he has engaged himself in mobilizing all his forces for battle. Never before was Mr. Jinnah a man for the masses. He distrusted them./1/ To exclude them from political power he was always for a high franchise. Mr. Jinnah was never known to be a very devout, pious, or a professing Muslim. Besides kissing the Holy Koran as and when he was sworn in as an M.L.A., he does not appear to have bothered much about its contents or its special tenets. It is doubtful if he frequented any mosque either out of curiosity or religious fervour. Mr. Jinnah was never found in the midst of Muslim mass congregations, religious or political.

    Today one finds a complete change in Mr. Jinnah. He has become a man of the masses. He is no longer above them. He is among them. Now they have raised him above themselves and call him their Qaid-e-Azam. He has not only become a believer in Islam, but is prepared to die for Islam. Today, he knows more of Islam than mere Kalama. Today, he goes to the mosque to hear Khutba and takes delight in joining the Id congregational prayers. Dongri and Null Bazaar once knew Mr. Jinnah by name. Today they know him by his presence. No Muslim meeting in Bombay begins or ends without Allah-ho-Akbar and Long Live Qaid-e-Azam. In this Mr. Jinnah has merely followed King Henry IV of France—the unhappy father-in-law of the English King Charles I. Henry IV was a Huguenot by faith. But he did not hesitate to attend mass in a Catholic Church in Paris. He believed that to change his Huguenot faith and go to mass was an easy price to pay for the powerful support of Paris. As Paris became worth a mass to Henry IV, so have Dongri and Null Bazaar become worth a mass to Mr. Jinnah, and for similar reason. It is strategy; it is mobilization. But even if it is viewed as the sinking of Mr. Jinnah from reason to superstition, he is sinking with his ideology, which by his very sinking is spreading into all the different strata of Muslim society and is becoming part and parcel of its mental make-up. This is as clear as anything could be.
    The only basis for Mr. Gandhi's extraordinary view is the existence of what are called Nationalist Musalmans. It is difficult to see any real difference between the communal Muslims who form the Muslim League and the Nationalist Muslims. It is extremely doubtful whether the Nationalist Musalmans have any real community of sentiment, aim, and policy with the Congress which marks them off from the Muslim League. Indeed many Congressmen are alleged to hold the view that there is no different [=difference] between the two, and that the Nationalist Muslim inside the Congress are only an outpost of the communal Muslims. This view does not seem to be quite devoid of truth when one recalls that the late Dr. Ansari, the leader of the Nationalist Musalmans, refused to oppose the Communal Award although it gave the Muslims separate electorates in [the] teeth of the resolution passed by the Congress and the Nationalist Musalmans. Nay, so great has been the increase in the influence of the League among the Musalmans that many Musalmans who were opposed to the League have been compelled to seek for a place in the League or make peace with it. Anyone who takes account of the turns and twists of the late Sir Sikandar Hyat Khan and Mr. Fazlul Huq, the late Premier of Bengal, must admit the truth of this fact. Both Sir Sikandar and Mr. Fazlul Huq were opposed to the formation of branches of the Muslim League in their Provinces when Mr. Jinnah tried to revive it in 1937. Notwithstanding their opposition, when the branches of the League were formed in the Punjab and in Bengal, within one year both were compelled to join them. It is a case of those coming to scoff remaining to pray. No more cogent proof seems to be necessary to prove the victory of the League.

    Notwithstanding this Mr. Gandhi, instead of negotiating with Mr. Jinnah and the Muslim League with a view to a settlement, took a different turn. He got the Congress to pass the famous Quit India Resolution on the 8th August 1942. This Quit India Resolution was primarily a challenge to the British Government. But it was also an attempt to do away with the intervention of the British Government in the discussion of the Minority question, and thereby securing [=secure] for the Congress a free hand to settle it on its own terms and according to its own lights. It was in effect, if not in intention, an attempt to win independence by bypassing the Muslims and the other minorities. The Quit India Campaign turned out to be a complete failure.


    It was a mad venture and took the most diabolical form. It was a scorch[ed]-earth campaign in which the victims of looting, arson and murder were Indians, and the perpetrators were Congressmen. Beaten, he started a fast for twenty-one days in March 1943 while he was in gaol, with the object of getting out of it. He failed. Thereafter he fell ill. As he was reported to be sinking, the British Government released him for fear that he might die on their hand and bring them ignominy. On coming out of gaol, he found that he and the Congress had not only missed the bus, but had also lost the road. To retrieve the position and win for the Congress the respect of the British Government as a premier party in the country, which it had lost by reason of the failure of the campaign that followed up the Quit India Resolution and the violence which accompanied it, he started negotiating with the Viceroy. Thwarted in that attempt, Mr. Gandhi turned to Mr. Jinnah. On the 17th July 1944 Mr. Gandhi wrote to Mr. Jinnah expressing his desire to meet him and discuss with him the communal question. Mr. Jinnah agreed to receive Mr. Gandhi in his house in Bombay. They met on the 9th September 1944. It was good that at long last wisdom dawned on Mr. Gandhi, and he agreed to see the light which was staring him in the face and which he had so far refused to see.

    The basis of their talks was the offer made by Mr. Rajagopalachariar to Mr. Jinnah in April 1944 which, according to the somewhat incredible/2/ story told by Mr. Rajagopalachariar, was discussed by him with Mr. Gandhi in March 1943 when he (Mr. Gandhi) was fasting in gaol, and to which Mr. Gandhi had given his full approval. The following is the text of Mr. Rajagopalachariar's formula, popularly spoken of as the C. R. Formula:—

    (1) Subject to the terms set out below as regards the constitution for Free India, the Muslim League endorses the Indian demand for Independence and will co-operate with the Congress in the formation of a provisional interim government for the transitional period.
    (2) After the termination of the war, a commission shall be appointed for demarcating contiguous districts in the north-west and east of India, wherein the Muslim population is in absolute majority. In the areas thus demarcated, a plebiscite of all the inhabitants held on the basis of adult suffrage or other practicable franchise shall ultimately decide the issue of separation from Hindustan. If the majority decide in favour of forming a sovereign State separate from Hindustan, such decision shall be given effect to, without prejudice to the right of districts on the border to choose to join either State.

    (3) It will be open to all parties to advocate their points of view before the plebiscite is held.

    (4) In the event of separation, mutual agreements shall be entered into for safeguarding defence, and commerce and communications and for other essential purposes.

    (5) Any transfer of population shall only be on an absolutely voluntary basis.

    (6) These terms shall be binding only in case of transfer by Britain of full power and responsibility for the governance of India.

    The talks which began on the 9th September were carried on over a period of 18 days till 27th September, when it was announced that the talks had failed. The failure of the talks produced different reactions in the minds of different people. Some were glad, others were sorry. But as both had been, just previous to the talks, worsted by their opponents in their struggle for supremacy, Gandhi by the British and Jinnah by the Unionist Party in the Punjab, and had lost a good deal of their credit, the majority of people expected that they would put forth some constructive effort to bring about a solution. The failure may have been due to the defects of personalities. But it must however be said that failure was inevitable, having regard to certain fundamental faults in the C. R. Formula. In the first place, it tied up the communal question with the political question in an indissoluble knot. No political settlement, no communal settlement, is the strategy on which the formula proceeds. The formula did not offer a solution. It invited Mr. Jinnah to enter into a deal. It was a bargain—"If you help us in getting independence, we shall be glad to consider your proposal for Pakistan." I don't know from where Mr. Rajagopalachariar got the idea that this was the best means of getting independence. It is possible that he borrowed it from the old Hindu kings of India who built up alliance for protecting their independence against foreign enemies by giving their daughters to neighbouring princes. Mr. Rajagopalachariar forgot that such alliances brought neither a good husband nor a permanent ally. To make communal settlement depend upon help rendered in winning freedom is a very unwise way of proceeding in a matter of this kind. It is a way of one party drawing another party into its net by offering communal privileges as a bait. The C. R. Formula made communal settlement an article for sale.
    The second fault in the C. R. Formula relates to the machinery for giving effect to any agreement that may be arrived at. The agency suggested in the C. R. Formula is the Provisional Government. In suggesting this Mr. Rajagopalachariar obviously overlooked two difficulties. The first thing he overlooked is that once the Provisional Government was established, the promises of the contracting parties, to use legal phraseology, did not [=would not] remain concurrent promises. The case became [=would become] one of the executed promise against an executory [=yet to be executed] promise. By consenting to the establishment of a Provisional Government, the League would have executed its promise to help the Congress to win independence. But the promise of the Congress to bring about Pakistan would remain executory. Mr. Jinnah, who insists, and quite rightly, that the promises should be concurrent, could never be expected to agree to place himself in such a position. The second difficulty which Mr. Rajagopalachariar has overlooked is what would happen if the Provisional Government failed to give effect to the Congress part of the agreement. Who is to enforce it? The Provisional Government is to be a sovereign government, not subject to superior authority. If it was unwilling to give effect to the agreement, the only sanction open to the Muslims would be rebellion. To make the Provisional Government the agency for forging a new Constitution, for bringing about Pakistan, nobody will accept. It is a snare and not a solution.

    The only way of bringing about the constitutional changes will be through an Act of Parliament embodying provisions agreed upon by the important elements in the national life of British India. There is no other way.

    There is a third fault in the C. R. Formula. It relates to the provision for a treaty between Pakistan and Hindustan to safeguard what are called matters of common interests such as Defence, Foreign Affairs, Customs, etc. Here again Mr. Rajagopalachariar does not seem to be aware of obvious difficulties. How are matters of common interest to be safeguarded? I see only two ways. One is to have a Central Government vested with Executive and Legislative authority in respect of these matters. This means Pakistan and Hindustan will not be sovereign States. Will Mr. Jinnah agree to this? Obviously he does not. The other way is to make Pakistan and Hindustan sovereign States and to bind them by a treaty relating to matters of common interests. But what is there to ensure that the terms of the treaty will be observed? As a sovereign State Pakistan can always repudiate it, even if it was [=were to be] a Dominion. Mr. Rajagopalachariar obviously drew his inspiration in drafting this clause from the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1922. But he forgot the fact that the treaty lasted so long as Ireland was not a Dominion, and that as soon as it became a Dominion it repudiated the treaty, and the British Parliament stood silent and grinned, for it knew that it could do nothing.

    One does not mind very much that the talks failed. What one feels sorry for is that the talks failed [at] giving us a clear idea of some of the questions about which Mr. Jinnah has been observing discreet silence in his public utterances, though he has been quite outspoken about them in his private talks. These questions are— (1) Is Pakistan to be conceded because of the Resolution of the Muslim League? (2) Are the Muslims, as distinguished from the Muslim League, to have no say in the matter? (3) What will be the boundaries of Pakistan? Whether the boundaries will be the present administrative boundaries of the Punjab and Bengal or whether the boundaries of Pakistan will be ethnological boundaries? (4) What do the words "subject to such territorial adjustments as may be necessary" which occur in the Lahore Resolution mean? What were the territorial adjustments the League had in mind? (5) What does the word "finally" which occurs in the last part of the Lahore Resolution mean? Did the League contemplate a transition period in which Pakistan will not be an independent and sovereign State? (6) If Mr. Jinnah's proposal that the boundaries of Eastern and Western Pakistan are to be the present administrative boundaries, will he allow the Scheduled Castes, or, if I may say so, the non-Muslims in the Punjab and Bengal to determine by a plebiscite whether they wish to be included in Mr. Jinnah's Pakistan, and whether Mr. Jinnah would be prepared to abide by the results of the plebiscite of the non-Muslim elements in the Punjab and Bengal? (7) Does Mr. Jinnah want a corridor running through U. P. and Bihar to connect up Eastern Pakistan to Western Pakistan? It would have been a great gain if straight questions had been put to Mr. Jinnah and unequivocal answers obtained. But instead of coming to grips with Mr. Jinnah on these questions, Mr. Gandhi spent his whole time proving that the C. R. Formula is substantially the same as the League's Lahore Resolution—which was ingenious if not nonsensical, and thereby lost the best opportunity he had of having these questions clarified.

    After these talks Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Jinnah have retired to their pavilions as players in a cricket match do after their game is over, as though there is nothing further to be done. There is no indication whether they will meet again, and if so when. What next? is not a question which seems to worry them. Yet it is difficult to see how India can make any political advance without a solution of the question which one may refuse to discuss. It does not belong to that class of questions about which people can agree to differ. It is a question for which solution will have to be found. How? It must be by agreement or by arbitration. If it is to be by agreement, it must be the result of negotiations—of give and take, and not of surrender by one side to the other. That [=surrender] is not agreement. It is dictation. Good sense may in the end prevail, and parties may come to an agreement. But agreement may turn out to be a very dilatory way. It may take long before good sense prevails. How long one cannot say. The political freedom of India is a most urgent necessity. It cannot be postponed, and yet without a solution of the communal problem it cannot be hastened. To make it dependent on agreement is to postpone its solution indefinitely. Another expeditious method must be found. It seems to me that arbitration by an International Board is the best way out. The disputed points in the minorities problem, including that of Pakistan, should be remitted to such a Board. The Board should be constituted of persons drawn from countries outside the British Empire. Each statutory minority in India—Muslims, Scheduled Castes, Sikhs, Indian Christians—should be asked to select its nominee to this Board of Arbitration. These minorities, as also the Hindus, should appear before the Board in support of their demands, and should agree to abide by the decision given by the Board. The British should give the following undertakings :—

    (1) That they will have nothing to do with the communal settlement. It will be left to agreement or to a Board of Arbitration.
    (2) They will implement the decision of the Board of Arbitration on the communal question by embodying it in the Government of India Act.

    (3) That the award of the International Board of Arbitration would be regarded by them as a sufficient discharge of their obligations to the minorities in India, and [they] would agree to give India Dominion Status.

    The procedure has many advantages. It eliminates the fear of British interference in the communal settlement, which has been offered by the Congress as an excuse for its not being able to settle the communal problem. It is alleged that, as there is always the possibility of the minorities getting from the British something more than what the Congress thinks it proper to give, the minorities do not wish to come to terms with the Congress. The proposal has a second advantage. It removes the objection of the Congress that by making the constitution subject to the consent of the minorities, the British Government has placed a veto in the hands of the minorities over the constitutional progress of India. It is complained that the minorities can unreasonably withhold their consent, or they can be prevailed upon by the British Government to withhold their consent, as the minorities are suspected by the Congress to be mere tools in the hands of the British Government. international arbitration removes completely every ground of complaint on this account. There should be no objection on the part of the minorities. If their demands are fair and just, no minority need have any fear from a Board of International Arbitration. There is nothing unfair in the requirement of a submission to arbitration. It follows the well-known rule of law, namely, that no man should be allowed to be a judge in his own case. There is no reason to make any exception in the case of a minority. Like an individual, it cannot claim to sit in judgement over its own case. What about the British Government? I cannot see any reason why the British Government should object to any part of this scheme. The Communal Award has brought great odium on the British. It has been a thankless task and the British should be glad to be relieved of it. On the question of the discharge of their responsibilities for making adequate provision for the safety and security of certain communities, in respect of which they have regarded themselves as trustees, before they relinquish their sovereignty, what more can such communities ask than the implantation in the constitution of safeguards in terms of the award of an International Board of Arbitration? There is only one contingency which may appear to create some difficulty for the British Government in the matter of enforcing the award of the Board of Arbitration. Such a contingency can arise if any one of the parties to the dispute is not prepared to submit its case to arbitration.
    In that case the question will be: will the British Government be justified in enforcing the award against such a party? I see no difficulty in saying that the British Government can with perfect justice proceed to enforce the award against such a party. After all, what is the status of a party which refuses to submit its case to arbitration? The answer is that such a party is an aggressor. How is an aggressor dealt with? By subjecting him to sanctions. Implementing the award of the Board of Arbitration in a constitution against a party which refuses to go to arbitration is simply another name for the process of applying sanctions against an aggressor. The British Government need not feel embarrassed in following this process if the contingency should arise. For it is a well-recognized process of dealing with such cases and has the imprimatur of the League of Nations, which evolved this formula when Mussolini refused to submit to arbitration his dispute with Abyssinia. What I have proposed may not be the answer to the question: What next? I don't know what else can be. All I know is that there will be no freedom for India without an answer. It must be decisive, it must be prompt, and it must be satisfactory to the parties concerned.
     
  19. tarunraju

    tarunraju Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2009
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    3,884
    Location:
    Hyderabad
    Did you just lift that post from here?
     
  20. ajtr

    ajtr Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    715
    yes.i would have quoted that but ritesh had once requested not to use use quotes and multi coloured as it makes eye straining reading.secondly i think its against rule here to advertise other forum links so didnt share the link.
     
  21. Daredevil

    Daredevil On Vacation! Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2009
    Messages:
    11,613
    Likes Received:
    5,670
    At least you need to mention that this is a post from another forum.
     

Share This Page