Partition Of India To India/pakistan In 1947

Partition Of India To India/pakistan In 1947 - Printable Version

+- Forums (http://india-forum.com)
+-- Forum: Indian History & Culture (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Indian History (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Partition Of India To India/pakistan In 1947 (/showthread.php?tid=707)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Partition Of India To India/pakistan In 1947 - Bharatvarsh - 12-11-2006

QUOTEHow many Hindus read Gita on a daily basis? Similarly most impoverished muslims do not read kuran. They go to the mosque and the children are sent to the madarsa. You have to live in India to realise this. So madarsas are the source of all problem.
Again madrasa is just a byproduct, if they went to a DAV school and read the Vedas everyday would you think that they would turn up into terrorists?

The madrasa teachers teach what is in the Quran and the Hadiths in the end and that is what changes people, if Hindus can't even understand that Islam is the problem after centuries of bloody conflict then god save us, the early Muslim conqurerers didn't need any madrasa to turn them into mass murdering tyrants, Muhammad himself set the precedent that was faithfully followed by his followers.

Partition Of India To India/pakistan In 1947 - Guest - 12-12-2006

QUOTESo madarsas are the source of all problem.


Are you saying that closing the Madrassas will solve the problem?

I think the Soviet authorities tried it in Central Asia but it failed.

[edited - Admin]

Partition Of India To India/pakistan In 1947 - Guest - 12-12-2006

QUOTEHow many Hindus read Gita on a daily basis?
You have to live in India to feel its everywhere.

QUOTEI think the problem is the Muslims themselves.
Problem is I-slam

Partition Of India To India/pakistan In 1947 - Guest - 12-12-2006

QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Dec 11 2006, 11:58 PM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTEHow many Hindus read Gita on a daily basis? Similarly most impoverished muslims do not read kuran. They go to the mosque and the children are sent to the madarsa. You have to live in India to realise this. So madarsas are the source of all problem.
Again madrasa is just a byproduct, if they went to a DAV school and read the Vedas everyday would you think that they would turn up into terrorists?

The madrasa teachers teach what is in the Quran and the Hadiths in the end and that is what changes people, if Hindus can't even understand that Islam is the problem after centuries of bloody conflict then god save us, the early Muslim conqurerers didn't need any madrasa to turn them into mass murdering tyrants, Muhammad himself set the precedent that was faithfully followed by his followers.
[right][snapback]62001[/snapback][/right]
</div>

You have to realise that madarsa besides teaching millitant aspects of Quran, also teaches a onesided history of the world i.e muslims are the world conquerors, that they have not lost _ANY_ war to the infidels. In addition IT DOES NOT TEACH SCIENCE or MATHS i.e it does not develop the ability to logically think and analyse.

It is true that learning Medicine or Engineering or Architecutre or going to DAV school does not guarantee that you will not be a terrorist but the opposite is quite true that if you go to madarsa, which BTW pretty much all muslims (below certain economic level) go to, you will be an easily brainwashable person and hence fodder to do jihaad in the name of Islam.

Bottom line quran cannot be dissolved i.e it will live, but where it is taught along with other junk, i.e madarsas _SHOULD_ be dissolved completely. Teach these people modern science/maths etc to make them less susceptible to brain washing.

-Digvijay

Partition Of India To India/pakistan In 1947 - Guest - 12-12-2006

QUOTE(mitradena @ Dec 12 2006, 02:53 AM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTESo madarsas are the source of all problem.


Are you saying that closing the Madrassas will solve the problem?

I think the Soviet authorities tried it in Central Asia but it failed.

[edited - Admin]
[right][snapback]62008[/snapback][/right]
</div>

Inside India yes all madarsas should be closed. Soviet authorities were fighting the deoband madarsa trained taliban.

-Digvijay

Partition Of India To India/pakistan In 1947 - Guest - 12-12-2006

QUOTE(Mudy @ Dec 12 2006, 07:55 AM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTEHow many Hindus read Gita on a daily basis?


You have to live in India to feel its everywhere.
</div>
I live in India. Do not see any of my friends, including myself reading Gita.
So your observation is plain wrong.

QUOTEI think the problem is the Muslims themselves.
QUOTE(Mudy @ Dec 12 2006, 07:55 AM)Problem is I-slam
[right][snapback]62024[/snapback][/right]


Yeah but can you dissolve Islam? What you can do is where this Islam is taught to make brain washed jihaad mongrels i.e dissolve madarsas.

-Digvijay

Partition Of India To India/pakistan In 1947 - acharya - 12-12-2006

From: "Yvette C. Rosser" <y.r.rani@mail.utexas.edu>

Subject: Abuse of History in Pakistan: Bangladesh to Kargil

<fontfamily><param>Geneva</param>In mid-June I traveled from India to
Pakistan during the height of the Kargil crisis. I made the trip on the
Delhi-Lahore "diplomacy" bus. The rhetorical and ideological distance at the
Wagh boarder crossing between India and Pakistan was like traveling a
million miles and one hundred and eighty degrees in less than fifty meters.
It was certainly an interesting time to be crossing that boarder. While in
Pakistan, I felt as if I was experiencing history in the making, and the use of
twisted history for nationalist justification.

I delivered a paper in Islamabad, in July arranged by the Islamabad Forum
for Social Sciences. This paper discussed how Pakistani textbooks practice
history by erasure and embellishment and how these distorted historical
"facts" are used to corroborate contemporary political perspectives and
justify current military adventurism. I cited examples from <italic>Pakistani
Studies</italic> textbooks and compared these to the headlines which
appeared in Pakistani newspapers during the Kargil crisis. My lecture was
discussed in a newspaper article published in "The News," a daily in
Islamabad, (quote): "Yvette drew examples from state-sponsored textbooks
used in Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan to illustrate the appropriation of
history to reinforce national philosophy or ideology wherein historical
interpretations are predetermined, unassailable, and concretized." History by
erasure can have its long-term negative repercussions. In Pakistani
textbooks, which narrate the 65 War with India, Operation Gibraltar is never
mentioned. Operation Gibraltar and the recent events in Kargil are products
of the same processes. The mistakes made in Kargil are a legacy of the lack
of information that citizens have about the real history of their country.
During the "war-like-situation" in Kargil, a headline in a Pakistani newspaper
read, "Kargil: Revenge for â71." This point of view can only be propagated by
someone who is unaware of the real facts that led the Bengalis to secceed
from the western part of the country, by someone who blames the breakup of
Pakistan on India Gandhi and "Hindu influences" in East Pakistan rather than
on 24 years of Panjabi-perpetuated internal colonization.

While I wasout of the USA last year, I also spent six months in Bangladesh
where I made several presentations. The first was in May 1999, entitled
"Hegemony and Historiography: The Politics of Pedagogy." I also delivered a
paper in Dhaka in late July when I returned to Bangladesh after a trip to
Pakistan. That paper was called, "The Pakistani Historian and the Bangladesh
War of Liberation." This talk received wide coverage in the Bangladesh
media. Here is a message sent from Dr. Ratan Lal Chakravorty, a history
professor at Dhaka University. This message describes some of the news
reports about that talk:

"1. The news coverage about you appears in a Daily Newspaper which is very
much popular at the present moment. Itâs name is the Janakanta (Voice of
the People) which I am a life subscriber. On 8 August, your photographs
appeared with news in four columns of half a page. The paper appreciated
you to such an extent that we had seldom received. The main topic covers
your findings about the historiography and historical studies of Bangladesh
and it suggests to follow your methodology to understand the things going
at present.

"2. The second also appeared in the Janakanta (Voice of the People) on 11
August, 1999, where an analytical and critical assessment of your work and
objectives were done in a very sophisticated way using metaphor. The writer
appreciated you very much for speaking the truth and the reality."

Here are some observations about current events in Pakistan as they relate
to the use of history in justifying current governmental and military actions
and also about the psychological health of the nation:

Pakistani nationalism is characterized by ironies and contractions. Its
ideology and national mythos have not been substantiated by its historical
realities. In the last fifty-two years the vision or ideal of Pakistan, as a
secure homeland where the Muslims in the subcontinent could find justice
and live in peace, has not been realized by the citizens. There is a shared
experience of disappointment and dissatisfaction among the populace that
has not abated since the restoration of democracy in 1988, and in fact the
feelings of betrayal and a collective mental depression have increased
dramatically in the last decade. This intellectual fatalism and depression
about the state of affairs is not something new, as can be seen in an excerpt
from the book,<italic> Breaking the Curfew, A Political Journey Through
Pakistan</italic><underline>,</underline> published ten years ago by a
British journalist, Emma Duncan, where she wrote, and I quote,"[. . . .] many
Pakistanis I talked to seemed disappointed. It was not just the
disappointment that they were not as rich as they should be or that their
children were finding it difficult to get jobs; it was a wider sense of betrayal,
of having been cheated on a grant scale. The Army blamed the politicians,
the politicians the Army; the businessmen blamed the civil servants, the civil
servants the politicians; everybody blamed the landlords and the foreigners,
and the left and the religious fundamentalists blamed everybody except the
masses.

"More than anywhere I have been - much more than India - its people worry
about the state of their country. They wonder what went wrong; they fear for
the future. They condemn it; they pray for it. They are involved in the
nationâs public life as passionately as in their small private dilemmas. . . "
(end quote).

In the ten years since this observation was written, the passion that the
people in Pakistan have for their country has not abated, but the shared
feelings of betrayal and disappointment have increased exponentially. A
friend of mine who is a professor, the principal at a womanâs college in
Lahore, confided that she and most of her colleagues felt not only
disillusioned, but abjectly hopeless about the condition and future prospects
of their beloved country. She said that she had lost all hope. She did not see
that the nation could survive given the current situation and there was no
alternative in sight. Here is a dynamic woman, a sincere practicing Muslim, a
patriotic Pakistani whose father was an officer in the Education Core. She
serves on the boards of directors of numerous institutions and works with the
government to develop and implement various educational projects. She
gives generously of her time and devotes herself professionally and
personally to her students, her colleagues and the educational organizations
of Pakistan. Yet, though she is totally committed to her country, and by
nature a jolly and friendly person not prone to any type of self pity or
despondency, she is overwhelmed by feelings of loss, failure, and depression
when she thinks of her beloved nation.

I was intrigued and disturbed by this expression of depression, which,
regardless of Emma Duncanâs observations did not seem as profoundly
obvious when I was in Pakistan two years ago. Since my dear sister working
in Lahore informed me that many of her friends and colleagues also felt the
same, I decided to ask the professors and scholars with whom I had
scheduled interviews if they shared this feeling of depression and sorrow
regarding their nation. I was astounded to find similar feeling of
disempowerment coupled with a dissatisfaction which offered no solutions.
Many of the social activists and progressives with whom I spoke expressed
this same helplessness while at the same time they counteract their feelings
of loss by publishing journals, holding seminars and discussion groupsâmany
work with NGOs to develop educational opportunities for girls in rural areas
or contribute their time to other altruistic and progressive endeavors. They
remain activeâtheir work belies the futility which they expressed to me.
They continue working, pouring their efforts and souls into positive activity
aimed at improving the social and intellectual climate of their country, and
they survive by <bold><italic>not</italic></bold> dwelling on the fact that
ultimately, they feel powerless to effect any positive change.

It distressed me that these very people who could help Pakistan the most
and whose voices should be heard and heeded are the very same people
who, because of their political perspectives and social critiques, are often
harassed by the authorities, denied jobs and otherwise discriminated against
by the establishment. The current democratically elected government
continues to make it difficult for intellectuals with alternative viewpoints to
do research and even to travel abroad, not to mention what has happened
lately to prominent journalists. Several professors at Quaid-e-Azam
University in Islamabad informed me that a recent decree by the government
mandated that professors must now obtain an NOC (No Objection Certificate)
when planning to travel abroad even for a family vacation. One well known
and respected Physics professor, Dr. Parvez Hoodbhoy is a vocal critic about
Pakistani affairs and writes magazines articles and essays about issues such
as corruption, the unequal availability of educational opportunities and lately
about the folly and danger of the nuclear option. Recently, Dr. Hoodbhoy was
denied an NOC when he was invited to lecture in the Physics Department at
MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology). He was able to leave the
country only through the intervention of the Vice-chancellor of his university,
Dr. Tariq Siddique, who also taught at the Civil Service Academy and served
as the education minister under Zulfikar Bhutto. Dr. Tariq Siddique is
well-known for supporting his staff and helping his former students.
However, his intervention on behalf of Dr. Hoodbhoy, I was informed, risked
provoking official ire. However, this type of potential threat is not something
new to Tariq Siddique, since he had been dismissed from Bhuttoâs cabinet for
too zealously advocating teacher empowerment and merit-based promotion.

Many scholars at the university level expressed resentment that research
was discouraged and intellectuals were often seen as a threat by the
establishment. They complained that mediocrity was encouraged and original
research impeded. Surrounded by a completely corrupt system, which they
felt powerless to change, yet endowed with self respect and moral
conscientiousness, many of these caring and intellectually brilliant
individuals lamented about their hopelessness and depression regarding the
condition of their nation.

As I was disturbed by this shared expression of depression, I interviewed a
psychiatrist and asked him his opinion about this phenomenon. He first
pointed out that the depression was a tangible reality and could be
quantified by the huge increase in the number of suicides in Pakistan in the
last few years. He said that there are 20 to 30 suicides per day in Pakistan
which occur primarily among the young between the ages of fifteen and
thirty, mostly upper-class urbanized females and newly educated rural or
newly urbanized lower middle class males. Dr. Inayat Magsi, from the Civil
Hospital in Karachi, explained that most of these suicides are the result of
the loss of hope for the future. But he also pointed out that the dramatic rise
in clinical depression which he has observed even among citizens with ample
economic opportunities can be partly attributed to the fact that even though
democracy has been practiced now for over ten years, there has been a
decline in the development of civil society, a death of collective vision, of
enthusiasm to change the system from within, a certain resignation.

During the time of Martial Law, the iron rule of General Zia-ul-Haq, the
intellectuals and socially conscious scholars, along with large segments of
the common people, had something to fight against, a mission and a
purpose to rid their country of authoritarian rule. Dr. Inayat Magsi pointed
out that this struggle against the military government and the hope for
democracy united the people with a vision which kept them enthusiastic
about the future potential of their country. Once democracy was restored, the
level of corruption certainly did not decrease, the practice of fomenting
regionalism which was practiced by General Zia increased, promises of a
better future rapidly died as the political parties fought a propaganda war for
their ascendancy instead working for the good of the country. The often
disenfranchised polity was once again dismayed and depressed by the
inability of their officials to focus on the needs and priorities of Pakistan. Dr.
Inayat Magsi added that now that there is no military government to rebel
against, they can only blame themselves for the lack of leadership and since
they are powerless to create other alternatives, they are disheartened. .
depressed.

Pakistan is a land that is torn by ethnic differences and is seemingly unable
to achieve unity within its diversity. It was founded on the principle that
Islam, as the great leveler of class and caste, was a sufficient force to tie
the Sindhis, the Pathans, and the Balouchi tribes, and also the Bengalis
together with the dominant Panjabis to form a cohesive and stable national
identity which would supersede regional loyalties and ethnicities. Through
the years, this mission to create a strong centrally controlled government
has been pursued by various methods including realignment of political
associations between its minority groups, usually based more on gains for
provincial party bosses than nation cohesion, and by the use of military
coercion, which as in the case of the Bengali majority, resulted in the split
up of the original country.

Even today the central government operates under the assumption that
Pakistan is a unitary entity, though the rhetorical idea of "One Unit" was only
abandoned immediately before the Bangladesh war of liberation. The
Pakistani military and bureaucracy are still grappling with the problems that
the contradictions inherent in the Ideology of Pakistan continue to create
within the varied cultural landscape of the nation.

The powers at the center, usually more intent at retaining the profitable
reins on the government, are inevitably unable to make equitable policies
which can reverse the decentralized loyalties nor reconcile these tendencies
with the imperatives of a highly centralized state apparatus. As Feroz Ahmed
in his book <italic>Ethnicity and Politics in Pakistan</italic>, published by
Oxford University Press in 1999, wrote, "The state and its ideologues have
steadfastly refused to recognize the fact that these regions are not merely
chunks of territory with different names but areas which were historically
inhabited by peoples who had different languages and cultures, and even
states of their own. This official and intellectual denial has, no doubt,
contributed to the progressive deterioration of inter-group relations,
weakened societies cohesiveness, and undermined the stateâs capacity to
forge security and sustain development." (end quote)

Denial and erasure are the primary tools of historiography as it is officially
practiced in Pakistan. There is no room in the official historical narrative for
questions or alternative points of view which is Nazariya Pakistan, the
Ideology of Pakistanâdevoted to a mono-perspectival religious orientation.
There is no other correct way to view the historical record. It is, after all,
since the time of General Zia-ul Haq, a capital crime to talk against the
"Ideology of Pakistan."

According to A.H. Nayyar from Quaid-e-Azam University, "What is important
in the exercise is the faithful transmission, without any criticism or
re-evaluation, of the particular view of the past which is implicit in the
coming to fruition of the âPakistan Ideology.â" Rahat Saeed of the Irtiqa
Institute of Social Sciences in Karachi explains that school level history
teachers are often aware that what they are teaching in their Pakistani
Studies classes is at best contradictory and often quite incorrect. They
usually do not attempt to explain the "real" history regarding such events as
the civil war in 1971, because to do so might jeopardize their jobs, and, as
Rahat explains, the teachers are afraid "to corrupt their students with the
truth."

In contemporary Pakistani textbooks the historical narrative is based on the
Two Nation Theory. The story of the nation begins with the advent of Islam
when Mohammed-bin-Qazm arrived in Sindh followed by Mahmud of Ghazni
storming through the Khyber Pass, 16 times, bringing the Light of Islam to
the infidels who converted en mass to escape the evil domination of the
cruel Brahmins. Reviewing a selection of textbooks published since 1972 in
Pakistan will verify the assumption that there is little or no discussion of the
ancient cultures that have flowered in the land that is now Pakistan, such as
Taxila and Mohenjo-Daro, though this lack seems to have been partly
addressed in the very recent editions of several history textbooks published
for Oxford-Cambridge elite schools. In most textbooks, any mention of
Hinduism is inevitably accompanied by derogatory critiques, and none of the
greatness of Indic civilization is consideredânot even the success of
Chandragupta Maurya, who defeated, or at least frightened the invading
army of Alexander the Great at the banks of the Beas River where it flows
through the land that is now called Pakistan. These events are deemed
meaningless since they are not about Muslim heroes. There is an elision in
time between the moment Islam first arrived in Sindh and Muhammad Ali
Jinnah.

This shortsighted approach to historiography was not always the case.

Up until 1972, the history textbooks included much more elaborate sections
on the history of the subcontinent, while adopting the colonial frame of
periodizationâthe books described the Hindu Period, The Muslim Period and
the British Period. History textbooks, such as <italic>Indo Pak History, Part
1</italic> published in 1951, included chapters with titles such as the
Ramayana and Mahabharata Era, Aryansâ Religion and Educational Literature,
the Caste System, Jainism and Buddhism, Invasions of Iranians and Greeks,
Chandra Gupta Maurya, Maharaja Ashok, Maharaja Kaniska, The Gupta
Family, Maharaja Harish, New Era of Hinduism, The Era of Rajputs. This same
basic table of contents, which also included the history of Islam, was
prevalent in textbooks until post 1971. A textbook published in 1964, for use
at a military academy in Abbottabad included similar chapters, and even had
a chapter entitled, Mahatma Gandhi, Man of Peace. This same edition of this
textbooks was republished without any changes until 1971. It can therefore
be seen that Pakistani textbooks were not always estranged from their
associations with South Asian history and culture. but beginning with the
Bhutto years and accelerating under the Islamized tutelage of General Zia-ul
Haq, not only has the history of the subcontinent been discarded, but it has
been vilified and mocked and transformed into the evil other, a measure of
what Pakistan is not. Zulfikar Ali Bhuttoâs influence on the textbooks was
profoundâhe was furious at India, whom he blamed for the break-up of the
country. Though ironically, his mother was a Hindu, a natch-girl (dancer) who
had converted to Islam in order to marry his wealthy father, Bhutto
vehemently launched an anti-Indian campaign with vituperative anti-Hindu
rhetoric. This legacy of his orchestrated hatred is still the basis of Pakistani
historical narratives where Gandhi is now usually referred to as a "conniving
bania."

Much of the historical discourse and social analysis in Pakistan is based on
negative methodologies which seek to justify Pakistanâs failures and
shortcomings by pointing out similar problems that also exist in neighboring
India. Instead of focusing their academic lens on the Pakistani situation, and
be the view positive or negative, analyzing what is seen
<italic>within</italic> their nation, scholars repeatedly use the tact of
dismissing problems in Pakistan by discussions of parallel problems in India.

Within this paradigm, Pakistani scholarship is defined by placing the
countryâs problems in a less negative light in comparison to Indiaâs problems.
This could be called the theory of self justification, but more aptly results in
self negation. A vivid example of this methodology can be found in the book
by Akbar S. Ahmed, <italic>Jinnah, Pakistan and Islamic Identity: the Search
for Saladin</italic>. It is one of a great number of books published in
Pakistan during 1997. Many of these books published in honor of Pakistanâs
fiftieth anniversary, such as Feroz Ahmedâs <italic>Ethnicity and Politics in
Pakistan, </italic>and others such as the work by the linguist, Dr. Tariq
Rehman, represent an effort to look objectively at topics such as Pakistani
nation-building, society, cultural myths, domestic and foreign policy. Prior to
this golden jubilee moment of self analysis, most books that graced the OUP
or Vanguard shelves were basically biased and very much situated in the
straight jacket of the two nation theory. This is not to criticize their
nationalist orientation, all nations write nationalist histories, but an
observation that historical discourse in Pakistan is dominated by negative
images of India and Hinduism. In general, the majority of books in the field
of the social sciences written in Pakistan have lacked theoretical basis and
are short on angst and verve, though perhaps books by ex-pats, such as
Mustfa Pasha are usually more circumspect. As Dr. Rahat in Karachi joked,
"In Pakistan, social scientists are more social than scientific!" However, since
1997, there have been several books written about the Bangladesh
experience, such as the recent book by Ahmad Saleem, <italic>Blood Beaten
Track</italic>, which does not lay the blame squarely in Indira Gandhiâs lap,
for conspiring to "Sink the Two Nation theory in the Bay of Bengal".

In Akbar S. Ahmedâs book, <italic>Search for Saladin,</italic> if judged by
its cover, the fairly post modern title gives the impression that perhaps the
book would be theoretically based and hopefully less biased than the
standard fare offered up as state sponsored Pakistani scholarship. In this
regard the book was a disappointment. Ahmed is a well know Pakistani
scholar, and though a civil servant and therefore perhaps prone to rubbery
research results stretching to accommodate the reigning regime, he is a
fellow at Selwyn College, Cambridge and would probably get a wider reading
audience in the West. Unfortunately, in this book he has fallen once again
into the prevailing discourse of Pakistani historians who define their nation in
the negative, in terms of what it is not. "We are not Hindus. We are not
Indians. We will not be ruled by the Hindus. We do not practice the evil
caste system. We do not mistreat our minorities. We do not attack our
neighbors." Through the decades Pakistani writers have used this discourse
of negation consistently describing their nation in contrast to Hindu Indiaâs
other. There have been far too few examples of reflexivity, inward looking
analysis.

In this book by Ahmed, much of the discussion centers on communalism in
India. He refers to books by Veena Das, Asghar Ali Engineer, Sarvepalli
Gopal, Kumari Jayawardena, T.N. Madan, Ashish Nandy, Khushwant Singh,
etc. He uses these Indian authorsâ work to prove his points about the
sufferings of minorities in India, couched in the usual
anti-Indian/Pakistani-centric rhetoric. He never pauses to question why there
are so many open and frank books about the plight of minorities in India and
there are very few such books about the problems faced by minorities in
Pakistan. He doesnât mention the bishop who blew his brains out on the city
hall steps to protest continuing officially sanctioned harassment of the
Christian community in Pakistan and the death sentence metted out to an
adolescent from the Christian community for his alleged blasphemy. Akbar S.
Ahmed fails to mention that Hindus and other minorities are delegated to
second class citizens through their prejudicial voting system and blasphemy
laws. Or that women are also second class citizens living under the burden of
Hudood laws. He can not see the problems in his own nation, for he is too
busy looking for problems in India. Once again, Pakistan is not looking at
Pakistan for its own meaning, it is looking to India to justify its own failings.
Akbar dwells extensively on rape during the Bombay riots of 1993, citing the
suffering in several pages, but he dismisses rape by Pakistani soldiers in
Bangladesh with less than one sentence. These types of examples are to be
found throughout the book. It must be said that some of the most exciting
and theoretically based and insightful scholarship in Pakistan is coming from
the small group of feminist intellectuals associated with such centers as
Simorgh, ASR, and Sahe in Lahore.

Discourses about Islam and its relationship to the Ideology of Pakistan make
up the majority of <italic>Pakistan Studies</italic> textbooks, which dwell
at length on how Islam will create a fair and just nation,"In the eyes of a
Muslim all human beings are equal and there is no distinction based on race
or colour. . . The rich or poor [are] all equal before law. A virtuous and pious
man has precedence over others before Allah."

The Pakistan Studies textbook goes on to say, "Namaz prevents a Muslim
from indulging in immoral and indecent acts." And regarding issues of justice,
the 1999 edition of this <italic>Pakistan Studies</italic> textbook written
by Rabbani and Sayyid which is in wide usage in Pakistan writes,

"On official level (sic) all the officers and officials must perform their duties
justly, i.e., they should be honest, impartial and devoted. They should keep
in view betterment of common people and should not act in a manner which
may infringe the rights of others or may cause inconvenience to others." How
does this discourse tally with the tales that the students have heard about
corruption and the hassles their parents have endured simply to pay a bill or
collect a refund? How do they rectify their cognitive dissonance when they
hear about elected officials and wealthy landholders and industrialists buying
off a court case lodged against them, or simply not charged for known
crimes, with statements from their textbooks such as, "Every one should be
equal before law and the law should be applied without any distinction or
discrimination. [. . . ] Islam does not approve that certain individuals may be
considered above law. The textbook goes on to state that "The Holy Prophet
(PBUH) says that a nation which deviates from justice <italic>invites its
doom and destruction"</italic> (emphasis mine).

With such a huge disparity between the ideal and the real, no wonder there
is a great deal of fatalism and depression among the educated citizens and
the school going youths concerning the state of the nation in Pakistan.
Further compounding the studentsâ distress and distancing them from either
their religion or their nation-state, or both, are the contradictions found in
this same <italic>Pakistani Studies</italic> book. On page 63 is the
statement that "the enforcement of Islamic principles . . . does not approve
dictatorship or the rule of man over man." Compared with the reality
unfolding a few paragraphs later when the student is told that,

"General Muhammad Ayub Khan captured power and abrogated the
constitution of 1956 [. . . .] dissolved the assemblies and ran the affairs of
the country under Martial Law without any
constitution.<smaller><smaller><smaller>
"</smaller></smaller></smaller>Since nearly half of this textbook is
dedicated to chapters with such titles as Islamization Under Zia, Hindrances
to Islamization, and Complete Islamization is Our Goal, the other themes
and events in the history and culture of Pakistan are judged vis-a-vis their
relationship and support of complete Islamization. Within this rhetoric are
found dire warnings that Islam should be applied severely so that it can
guard against degenerate Western influences, yet a few pages later the text
encourages the students to embrace Western technological innovations in
order to modernize the country. One part of the book complains that Muslims
in British India lost out on economic opportunities because conservative
religious forces rejected western education yet a few pages later the authors
are telling the students to use Islam to fend off Western influences and
lauding the efforts of conservative clerics who are the last hope of protecting
the country by the implementation of the Shari-a Law. This seems to be
schizophrenic reasoning.

Non-Muslim cultural influences are often blamed for regional allegiances,
such as in this discussion in Dr. Mohammed Sarwarâs <italic>Pakistani
Studies</italic> book, which states that, "At present a particular segment, in
the guise of modernization and progressive activity, has taken the unholy
task of damaging our cultural heritage. Certain elements aim at the
promotion of cultures with the intention to enhance regionalism and
provincialism and thereby damage national integration."

Once again progressive forces and regional cultural affinities are deemed
anti-Pakistani and thereby inherently anti-Islam. This is the same stance
that is used in describing the emergence of Bangladesh. This textbook goes
on to state that "It is in the interest of national solidarity that such aspects
of culture should be promoted as reflect affinity among the people of the
provinces." This type of discourse seems to deny the impetus and urges of
the cultural expressions of the Sindhis, the Pathans and the Balouchis,
instead of valuing them as part of the whole, these regional cultural
tendencies are seen as a threat to the nation, and Islam is employed to
ameliorate these dangerous cultural differences.

At the same time this textbook claims that Islam sees no differences and
promotes unity while it also discriminates between Muslims and
nonbelievers. For example, on page 120 the author states, "The Islamic
state, of course, discriminates between Muslim citizens and religious
minorities and preserves their separate entity. Islam does not conceal the
realities in the guise of artificialities or hypocrisy. By recognizing their
distinct entity, Islamic state affords better protection to its religious
minorities. Despite the fact that the role of certain religious minorities,
especially the Hindus in East Pakistan, had not been praiseworthy, Pakistan
ensured full protection to their rights under the Constitution. Rather the
Hindu Community enjoyed privileged position in East Pakistan by virtue of is
effective control over the economy and the media. It is to be noted that the
Hindu representatives in the 1st Constituent Assembly of Pakistan employed
delaying tactics in Constitution-making."

That this claim is spurious as can be seen in the recent book by Allen
McGrath, published by OUP, <italic>The Destruction of Democracy in
Pakistan</italic>, in which the author, a lawyer, analyzes the efforts at
constitution making in the first decade after independence before Iskandar
Mizra dissolved the National Assembly. In the McGrath book the productive
role D.N. Dutt played in constitution making is mentioned. Yet, in Pakistan
Studies textbooks, the anti-Hindu point of view and the vilification of the
Hindu community of East Pakistan are the standard orientation. In this
particular version of Pakistani history, which is the official version, General
Zia-ul-Haq is portrayed as someone who, "took concrete steps in the
direction of Islamization." He is often seen as pious and perhaps stitching
caps alongside Aurangzeb. Though Zulfikar Ali Bhutto is generally criticized in
the textbooks, General Zia usually escapes most criticism though he was the
most cruel and autocratic of the military rulers who usurped the political
process in Pakistan. Each time that martial law was declared in Pakistan, and
the constitution aborted, the textbook by Dr.

Sarwar describes it as an inevitable action stimulated by the rise of

unIslamic forces. For example,

"The political leadership did not come up to the expectations and lacked
commitment to Islamic objectives. Moreover, the civil service had not
undergone socialization process commensurate with Islamic teachings.
Bureaucratic elite had Western orientation with secular approach to all
national issues. [. . . ] the result was political instability and chaos paving
the way for the intervention of military and the imposition of Martial Law. "

In the next paragraph, however, Ayub Khan is accused of imposing unIslamic
laws, especially family laws, and the author claims that it was Ayubâs secular
outlook which ultimately brought about his decline.

General Zia, on the other hand, is described on page 138,

"During the period under Ziaâs regime, social life developed a leaning towards
simplicity. Due respect and reverence to religious people was accorded. The
government patronized the religious institutions and liberally donated funds.
"

This textbook, and many like it, claim that there is a "network ofconspiracies
and intrigues" which are threatening the "Muslim world in the guise of
elimination of militancy and fundamentalism." In this treatment Pakistan
takes credit for the fall of the Soviet Union and lays claim to have created a
situation in the modern world where Islamic revolutions can flourish and the
vacuum left by the fall of the USSR will "be filled by the world of Islam." This
textbook continues by saying that "The Western world has full perception of
this phenomena, [which] accounts for the development of reactionary trends

in that civilization." Concluding this section under the title Global Changes,
the author seems to be getting ready for Samuel Huntingtonâs Clash of
Civilizations when he writes,

"The Muslim world has full capabilities to face the Western challenges
provided Muslims are equipped with self-awareness and channelize their
collective efforts for the well being of the Muslim Ummah. All evidences
substantiate Muslim optimism indicating that the next century will glorify
Islamic revolution with Pakistan performing a pivotal role." (page 146)

<italic>Pakistan Studies</italic> textbooks are full of inherent
contradictions. One page the book brags about the modern banking system,
and another page complains that interest is unIslamic. There is also a
certain amount of self-loathing written into the <italic>Pakistan
Studies</italic> textbooks, and the politicians are depicted as inept and
corrupt and the industrialists are described as pursuing "personal benefit
even at the cost of national interest." Bouncing between the poles of
conspiracy theory and threat from within, the textbooks portray Pakistan as a
victim of Western ideological hegemony, and threatened by the perpetual
Machiavellian intentions of Indiaâs military and espionage machine, together
with the internal failure of its politicians to effectively govern the country
coupled with the fact that the economy is in the hands of a totally corrupt
class of elite business interests who have only enriched themselves at the
cost of the development of the nation. All of these failures and conspiracies
could, according to the rhetoric in the textbooks, be countered by the
application of more strictly Islamic practices. In fact, while I was in Pakistan
recently, I spoke to several well placed individuals who told me that they
would welcome a Taliban type government in Pakistan so that the country
could finally achieve its birth right as a truly Islamic nation. Though this is
certainly not a majority opinion, there is a large segment of society who
thinks along this line. Perhaps the choice of this alternative Taliban vision for
Pakistan is also a result of those feelings of helplessness discussed
previously, perhaps between the conspiracies and corruption, they see no
alternative.

When the textbooks and the clerics cry conspiracy and the majority of the
newspapers, particularly the Urdu press, misinform or disinform the people,
the tendency for the Pakistanis to feel betrayed and persecuted is not
surprising. During the 71 War, the newspapers in Pakistan told nothing of the
violence of the military crack down nor did they keep the people informed of
the deteriorating strategic situation. The role of the Mukti Bahini was
practically unknown in Pakistan, and when defeat finally came, it came as a
devastating and unexpected shock that could only be explained by Indira
Gandhiâs lies and treachery. It is no wonder that during and in the aftermath
of the Kargil crisis, newspapers often ran stories which called the occupation
of the heights above Kargil as Pakistanâs revenge for 1971. There has
historically been a lack of information available to the citizens of Pakistan
both in the 65 War and during the Bangladesh War of Independence. Yet
that split-up of the nation, and the creation of Bangladesh is a potent
symbol in Pakistan as evidenced by one headline that ran last summer in
"The News", which said, "Nawaz Shariffâs Policies are Turning Sindh into
Another Bangladesh."

During the recent war-like situation at the Line of Control in Kashmir, the
government claimed again and again that the muhajideen were not physically
supported by Pakistan, that they were indigenous Kashmiri freedom fighters.
However, the presence of satellite television, the internet, and newspapers
which are now more connected to international media sources, prevented the
usual propaganda machine of the government from keeping all the facts from
the people. Perhaps there is at least one positive outcome of the tragic
Kargil crisis where hundreds of young men lost their lives, in the aftermath of
the crisis there was a dramatic outpouring of newspaper and magazine
articles which attempted to analyze the brinkmanship from various angles.
This new found critical reflexivity is a positive development and though some
of the essays in Pakistani newspapers called for the military to take over the
government in the wake of Nawaz Shariffâs sell out to the imperialist Clinton,
most of the discussions were more circumspect and many authors looked at
the Kargil debacle through a lens of history, trying to understand the cause
of Pakistanâs repeated failures arising from military intervention. Many of the
observations made during and after the Kargil situation, such as the
complete inadequacy of Pakistani international diplomacy, are interestingly
also cited in <italic>Pakistan Studies</italic> textbooks regarding Indiaâs
perceived manipulation of world opinion during the 71 war and Pakistanâs
inability to counter it.

Pakistani textbooks are particularly prone to a historical narrative
manipulated by omission. According to Avril Powell, professor of history at
the University of London, "The ârecastingâ of Pakistani history [has been]
used to âendow the nation with a historic destiny.â"

Textbooks in Pakistan are the domain of distorted politics which have
victimized the Social Studies curriculum. History by erasure can have its
long-term negative repercussions. An example of this is the manner in which
the Indo-Pak War of 1965 is discussed in Pakistani textbooks. In standard
narrations of the 65 War manufactured for students and the general public,
there is no mention of Operation Gibraltar, even thirty years after the event.
In fact, many university level history professors whom I interviewed had
never heard of Operation Gibraltar and the repercussions of that ill-planned
military adventurism, which resulted in Indiaâs attack on Lahore. In Pakistani
textbooks the story is told that the Indian army, unprovoked and inexplicably
attacked Lahore and that one Pakistani jawan equals ten Indian soldiers,
who, upon seeing the fierce Pakistanis, drop their banduks and run away.
Many people in Pakistan still think like this, and several mentioned this
assumed cowardice of the Indian army in recent discussions regarding the
war-like situation in Kargil. The nation is elated by the valiant victories on
the battlefield, as reported in the newspapers, then shocked and dismayed
when their country is humiliated at the negotiating table. Because they were
not fully informed about the adventurism and brinkmanship of their military,
they can only feel betrayed that somehow the Pakistani political leaders
"grabbed defeat from the jaws of military victory."

It is interesting to note in this context an episode from the book by Akbar S.
Ahmed in which he tells of a personal conversation with General Niazi, who
according to Ahmed, claimed that he was planning to "cross into India and
march up the Ganges and capture Delhi and thus link up with Pakistan." Niazi
told Ahmed that "This will be the corridor that will link East with West
Pakistan. It was a corridor that the Quaid-e-Azam demanded and I will
obtain it by force of arms." This absurd reasoning can still be seen among
those who were battling the Indian army in Kargil. In a recent newspaper
article published in The News, a commander of the Pakistani based
muhajideen told the reporter that their plan was first to take "Kargil, then
Srinagar, then march victorious into Delhi."

Operation Gibraltar, the recent debacle in Kargil, and especially the tragic
lessons that could have been learned from the emergence of Bangladesh are
products of the same myopic processes. As mentioned earlier, the mistakes
made in Kargil are a legacy of the lack of information that citizens have
about the real history of their country. How similar the public knowledge and
their naive response, how similar the disinformation pumped out by the
government, and how sad the loss of life, the continued hostilities, the
inability or unwillingness to negotiate diplomatically. Hegel and Toynbee
among others, have warned that nations do not learn from their history.
There is, however, significant merit to the argument that access to
information about past mistakes and successes and their consequences can
guide decision makers and citizens as they chart a course into the next
millennium between diplomacy and disaster.

</fontfamily> If you like, I can send more messages about my adventures in
South Asia. I was in Bangladesh supported by a fellowship from the American
Institute of Bangladesh Studies and I was in Pakistan funded by the
American Institute of Pakistan Studies. I will be returning to Pakistan in
November and December and plan to travel in interior Sindh to meet with
scholar and intellectuals there, and interview them concerning their
perspectives about the writing of history in Pakistan. Is anyone on this list
can be of some assistance to me while I am there, I would be most grateful.

<fontfamily><param>Palatino</param> The recent series of translations
submitted to this list-serve by Dr. Gul Agha concerning the history of the
invasion of Sindh by the Arabs is in direct contrast to how these events are
treated in the <italic>Pakistan Studies</italic> syllabus which devotes
considerable space to Muhammad-bin-Qasim who is hailed for bringing Islam
to the subcontinent. In <italic>Social Studies For Class VI</italic>,
published by the Sindh Textbooks Board, Jamshoro, April 1997 the story of
the Arabsâ arrival in Sindh is narrated as the first moment of Pakistan with
the glorious ascendancy of Islam. This textbook tells the young sixth class
school children of Sindh that, "The Muslims knew that the people of South
Asia were infidels and they kept thousands of idols in their temples." The
Sindhi king, Raja Dahir, is described as cruel and despotic. "The
non-Brahmans who were tired of the cruelties of Raja Dahir, joined hands
with Muhammad-bin-Qasim because of his good treatment." According to this
historical orientation, The conquest of Sindh opened a new chapter in the
history of South Asia. "Muslims had ever lasting effects on their existence in
the region. . .

For the first time the people of Sindh were introduced to Islam, itspolitical
system and way of the government. The people here had seenonly the
atrocities of the Hindus. . . . The people of Sindh were so much impressed by
the benevolence of Muslims that they regarded Muhammad-bin-Qasim as
their savior. . . . Muhammad-bin-Qasim stayed inSindh for over three years.
On his departure from Sindh, the localpeople were overwhelmed with
grief.<smaller><smaller><smaller>"

</smaller></smaller></smaller>When I visited Hyderabad, Sindh in 1997, I
discussed the contents of this textbook with local Sindhis, who assured me
that they told their children an alternative version of this story. They
informed me that any good Sindhi knows that "in several cities in ancient
Sindh, Muhammad-bin-Qasim beheaded every male over the age of eighteen
and that he sent tens of thousands of Sindhi women to the harems of the
Abbassid Dynasty." They also explained that impact of these textbooks was
minimal because, though the back of the book indicated that 20,000 copies
were supposedly printed annually, that, because of corruption, "fewer than
10,000 were ever printed and distributed."

I apologize for the length of this message and hope it is of interest.

Thank you for your kind attention and for any suggestions you may offer.

All the best,

</fontfamily>

Yvette C. Rosser

Ph.D. Candidate Department of Curriculum and Instruction (ABD)

M.A. Department of Asian Studies

B.A. (with honors) Department of Oriental and African Languages and

Literature

The University of Texas at Austin

Partition Of India To India/pakistan In 1947 - Guest - 03-16-2007

QUOTEMirpur 1947 â the untold story 
Khalid Hasan
Private view
Â Â
The savagery that gripped the Subcontinent at a moment in history which should have been its most glorious remains inexplicable. While a great deal of academic work has been completed in India on the massacres and the movement of millions from one part of the divided land to the other, little of that has been done on our side, which is yet another pity that can be added to the long list of pities that every Pakistani carries in his heart.

Some years ago, I published a book of reminiscences about Jammu and how its Muslim population had been all but decimated in 1947, ironically with the connivance, if not at the directions, of the Maharajaâs government, which was supposed to have protected them. That slim book remains the only first-hand account, as far as I know, of what life was like for the Muslims of Jammu before 1947 and what happened to them as India and Pakistan awoke to freedom. Some copies of the book, Memory Lane to Jammu, found their way to Jammu and several people who read it later said that they really had no idea what had happened to the Muslims of Jammu city and outlying areas in 1947. Included in the book was a first-hand account recorded for the late Justice Muhammad Yusuf Saraf by Dr Abdul Karim, more than twenty of whose family members were killed and whose daughter was abducted, never to be found. He himself received eleven sword and knife wounds on his body and was left for dead.

A couple of months ago, I received an email from Bal Kishan Gupta, a retired engineer who lives in Georgia. He wrote, âI read your article on Jammu 1947 on the website. It is a heart rending account of the massacre of Muslims in Jammu. I am from Mirpur and was a witness to the slaughter of the Hindus and Sikhs of Mirpur. As a matter of fact, I am one of the few survivors of the Alibeg concentration camp. As Muslim refugees from Jammu mark the anniversary of the November 5 Jammu killings, the Hindu and Sikh survivors of Mirpur remember the November 25 holocaust of Mirpur.â He asked if I would publish his story and I said I would.

The account he sent me is harrowing. He was only ten at the time but he says he has a photographic memory. Many members of his immediate family, including some of his uncles and his great grandfather, a man of ninety, were killed in Mirpur. Some of what Gupta has recorded I have tried to corroborate from sources on our side but without luck. Hardly anything is on record. Even Justice Saraf in his two-volume history of the freedom movement in the State has confined his account to the military encounters that took place between bands of Pathan irregulars, sections of the Pakistan army and freebooters and the remnants of the Maharajaâs forces. It is not a satisfactory account and its gung-ho, super-patriotic tone is troubling because I expected more objectivity from a judge and Kashmiri patriot.

Justice Saraf writes that Mirpur district had Hindu majorities in its three principal towns of Mirpur, Kotli and Bhimber. Many Hindus fleeing from West Punjab had taken refuge in Mirpur town, swelling its non-Muslim population to 20,000. According to him, âlocal mujahids and Pakistani volunteersâ cut off the Mirpur Cantt and a 500-strong force moved towards Mirpur town which was surrounded by the second week of November 1947. A force of 1,000 of tribesmen from Dir also joined in. Most of the atrocities committed against the non-Muslim residents of Mirpur were by these men, though Saraf does not record that. The outer defences of Mirpur city crumbled and many houses were set on fire. He writes, âAt about 4 pm (on 23 November) a column of humanity was seen emerging from the barbed wire enclosure on the Eastern side,â made up of civilians and flanked by Dogra troops, which soon abandoned their helpless charges. The caravan scattered and as Saraf puts it âtheir condition was pitiable; the effects of the fighting and the conditions of siege were clearly noticeable; they were emaciated, exhausted and frightened.â By the evening, there was no Hindu or Sikh left in Mirpur town. Saraf records that while âsome Pathans as well as local Muslims wanted to kill the Hindus and abduct their women,â they were prevented from doing so and the people who had now become refugees in their own land, were sent to Alibeg Gurudwara which was turned into a refugee camp.

Guptaâs memories are different. âAs a ten-year-old child I, along with 5,000 Hindus and Sikhs, was held prisoner in the Alibeg prison. On March 16, 1948, only about 1,600 prisoners walked out from Alibeg alive. I was one of them. Most of the survivors of Alibeg have died since the horrific massacres. As one of its few survivors, I feel compelled to document the events I witnessed. Around November 25, 1947, there were nearly 25,000 Hindus and Sikhs living in Mirpur. During the cityâs capture, close to 2,500 were killed in the infernos that erupted due to Pakistani artillery fire. Another 2,500 escaped with the retreating Jammu and Kashmir army. The remaining 20,000 were marched in a procession towards Alibeg. Along the way, Pakistani troops and Pathans killed about 10,000 of the captured Hindu and Sikh men and kidnapped over 5,000 women. The 5,000 Hindus and Sikhs who survived the 20-mile trek to Alibeg were imprisoned. In Janaury 1948, the Red Cross rescued 1,600 of the survivors from Alibeg. Between 1948 and 1954, around 1,000 abducted Hindu and Sikh women were recovered from Pakistan and Azad Kashmir.â

Gupta writes, âMy grandmother Kartar Devi, my paternal uncle Mohanlal Gupta, and my maternal great-grandfather Lalman Shah were some of those who died in the infernos of Mirpur. My mother Padma Devi and my aunts, Rajmohni Gupta and Sushila Gupta, were some of the women kidnapped from the Mirpur courthouse. My wifeâs grandmother Diwan Devi Gupta and aunt were among those killed during the forced march towards Alibeg. My wifeâs cousin, Sesh Gupta, was one of the girls kidnapped by Pathans. Her fate is not known to this day. My motherâs uncles, Lal Chand Dhangeryal, Chander Prakash Dhangeryal, Dina Nath Dhangeryal, Khemchand Bhagotra and her many cousins (whose names I do not remember) were killed. I saw Sardar Ibrahim in Alibeg surrounded by his bodyguards. The only helpful Muslims to visit Alibeg were Chaudhri Abdul Aziz of Datial village, who saved many Hindu children and women in his village, and Fateh Mohammed of Serai Alamgir who saved some Hindus from being slaughtered.â

Many Mirpuri Hindus and Sikhs settled in Jammu, where there exists a Mirpur Road and a memorial sacred to the memory of the men, women and children who were killed for no other reason except that they were Hindus and Sikhs. I close this sad story with a snatch from the poem Faiz Ahmed Faiz wrote on his return from Dhaka: When will the eye behold the sight of grass without blemish? How many rains will it take for the blood spots to wash away?

Partition Of India To India/pakistan In 1947 - acharya - 08-14-2007

up

Partition Of India To India/pakistan In 1947 - Guest - 08-18-2007

QUOTE A bloody March in 1947 
Ishtiaq Ahmed
The Great Calcutta Killings of August 1946 in which both Hindus and Muslims lost lives in the thousands transformed forever the nature of the Congress-Muslim League standoff from a constitutional imbroglio to a violent communal conflagration that culminated in the subcontinent bleeding, burning and partitioned in mid-August 1947.

The first attacks on August 16 were the doings of Muslim hoodlums, but their Hindu counterparts retaliated with equal force within a day or two. South Asia's most revolutionary city had been turned into a killing field where poor and innocent blood was spilled without let or hindrance by criminals from the underworld connected to respectable political patrons. A few days later Hindus in Noakhali, East Bengal, were attacked by Muslims and hundreds were killed. In Bombay communal clashes took place at about the same time and the Muslims were on the receiving end.

It was followed by terror let loose on the Muslim minority in Bihar in September-October 1946. Official count of deaths in Bihar was put at 3000 and later at 5000, but the Muslim League claimed that at least 8000 Muslims were killed. In Garhmuktesar, UP, Muslims were killed in the dozens though the reason for that outrage was not political.

In December 1946, Sikhs and Hindus in Hazara district of NWFP were assaulted by Muslims. Hundreds of deaths and injuries took place and looting of property was widespread. Thousands fled to the Punjab taking refuge mainly in Rawalpindi. It must be said to the full credit of the Punjab Unionist Party that all its leaders, Sir Fazle Hussain, Sir Sikander Hyat and Sir Khizr Tiwana maintained impartial government, and communal peace and harmony were hallmarks of their government. All this was about to change.

Since at least the beginning of 1946, intelligence agencies had been reporting that private armies were being recruited and trained in the Punjab. On January 24, 1947 Punjab Premier Khizr Tiwana banned the Muslim League National Guard and the Rashtriya Swayam Sewak (RSS). The same day the Muslim League's direct action broke out.

A Muslim youth, Abdul Maalik, was killed on February 8 when a brick thrown at a Muslim League procession from a housetop in a Hindu locality of Lahore hit him. On February 24 an off duty Sikh constable was clubbed to death by a Muslim mob in Amritsar. The Punjab was now rapidly converting into a communal powder keg ready to blast any moment. Khizr resigned on March 2. On March 3 Master Tara Singh unsheathed his kirpan (sword) from the steps of the Punjab Legislative Assembly and gave the call to finish off the menace of Pakistan. That evening Sikh and Hindu Mahasabha leaders addressed huge crowds in Lahore making highly provocative speeches. Incited Hindus and Sikhs returning from the meeting killed three totally innocent Muslims when they reached their stronghold of Shahalmi Gate.

Regular communal clashes between armed gangs took place in Lahore and Amritsar on March 4. Knives, axes, long sticks and even firearms were used by both sides. In Multan on March 5 a Hindu-Sikh procession shouted anti-Pakistan slogans and even used abusive language against the Quaid-e-Azam. It was immediately attacked by Muslims. Serious rioting followed in the next few days. Dozens of non-Muslims were killed and suffered huge loss of property.

But the most critical rioting took place in the Rawalpindi region. Rawalpindi city had almost a 50-50 per cent Muslim and Hindu-Sikh population balance, but in the district as a whole the Muslims were 80 per cent. The Sikhs were the most prosperous Sikh community in that district, while the Hindus were mainly small shopkeepers, many engaged in the jewellery business.

On March 5, Sikh-Hindu agitators began shouting anti-Pakistan slogans and were challenged by Muslims. Firearms, stabbings and arson were employed by both sides. Initially the non-Muslims felt they had been successful in driving off Muslims from the streets of Rawalpindi. In the evening of March 6, however, the direction of violence changed from the city to the villages in the district. Suddenly armed Muslims in the thousands began to raid Sikh villages. Neighbouring villages in the Attock and Jhelum districts were also surrounded. In some places the Sikhs fought back, but on the whole the conflict was one-sided.

Subsequent inquiry reports established that the attacks had been planned according to military strategy and tactics and carried out accordingly. These districts were the main recruiting ground for the British Indian Army and the government investigation found abundant evidence of Muslim ex-soldiers taking part in the attacks. Government statistics claim 2,000 dead, but Sikhs say that as many as 7,000 lost their lives. My own research, based on visits in December 2004 to some of the villages, suggest that the figure of 2,000 was too low. In some places nearly the whole Sikh and Hindu populations were wiped out. However, the deaths included the Sikhs killing their own women and children rather than letting them fall in the hands of Muslim marauders.

Additionally many Sikhs and Hindus were forcibly converted to Islam. Most of them reverted to their original faith when help arrived. Many women and children were taken away by raiders but most were later recovered. Looting and pillaging of property was the prime reason for the attacks. The raids on the Sikh villages continued for a week: from the evening of March 6 to March 12 or 13. Such villages were only an hour or two away for military trucks to reach from the city. The headquarters of the Northern Command was in Rawalpindi and there was no dearth of troops. But intervention was delayed for too long. Perhaps government preparation for controlling rioting anticipated urban trouble and that it occurred on such a large scale in rural areas surprised the administration, but my research suggests that at least locally there was some sort of conspiracy at work to let the blood-spilling go on for some time. There was an exodus in the thousands of Sikhs from Rawalpindi, Attock and Jhelum districts to the eastern districts and the Sikh princely states; some reports suggest hundreds of thousands left and never returned. It is among them that many members of future Sikh jathas (armed gangs, often on horseback) were recruited that from August 18 onwards wreaked havoc on the Muslims of East Punjab.

Meanwhile on March 8, 1947 the Congress in its Delhi session had adopted a resolution supporting the Sikh demand for a partition of the Punjab in which the predominantly non-Muslim areas should be separated from the Muslim areas and given to East Punjab.

The writer is a visiting senior research fellow at the Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS), National University of Singapore on leave from the University of Stockholm, Sweden. Email: isasia@nus.edu.sg

Partition Of India To India/pakistan In 1947 - Guest - 08-18-2007

Sindhi, Panjabi, Bangali. These Hindu communities suffered the most before, during, and post the partition mayhem. These must have experienced the Gazi-s at their best.

In my general observation (which might be invalid), I have found that Sindhis have tried to preserve the memory of that experience and passed on to the next generation. As a result one finds Sindhis more open to Hindutva, and much less p-secularized.

On the contarary the Panjabis, (esp. Sikhs?) migrating from west Punjab, and Bangalis migrating from East Bengal - they have not been able to or willing to transmit that painful memory to next generations? Or they have had some other factors at work different from the case of Sindhi-s? Why! you would find the first or second generation from this persecuted, thrown out group of Punjabis-Bangalis to have produced the best of Islam-loving gems of the p-secs - from Amartya Sen to MM Singh, while Sindhi migrant group produced the likes of LK Advani.

I would like someone to correct me or provide some thougths here.

What is the difference between the Sindhi group vis-a-vis the other two? This despite the fact that Sindh was the first province of Bharat to have been colonized by Arabic imperialism - and one that continued to be continuously subdued!

History of Sindh and Sindhi might demand a separate thread if there is enough interest.

Partition Of India To India/pakistan In 1947 - acharya - 01-30-2008

Where Do Indian Muslims Go From Here?

This articles contains a good pack of lies & half-truths.

From Moghul emperor Akbar to Bahadur Shah Zafar - the hero of Indiaâs first war of independence, to Maulana Azad - the pre-eminent freedom fighter, to President APJ Abdul Kalam â the creator of Indiaâs missile program and beyond, there is an illustrious unending string of Muslims who contributed substantially in the building of the Indian nation over the centuries.

The Past
In the 600 years that Muslims were in power in India most Muslim kings were moderates who held power by forming alliances of Muslims and Hindus. During the 300 year long Moghul empire it was a political alliance of Moghuls and Rajput Hindus that held power in North India. Together, they spent decades to extend their hold into South India waging continual wars against the Bahmani sultans, the Golkunda dynasty, the Qutubshahi dynasty - all of whom were Muslims.

Most Muslim rulers and their noblemen in India forsook the ethos of the West Asian nations of their origin and integrated themselves with the culture and soil of India to create the Indo-Islamic civilization. Much as in ancient times the Aryans of central Asia integrated themselves with the same Indian soil to develop the Hindu civilization.

Indian Muslims are justifiably proud of their Indo-Islamic heritage. It is a genuinely Indian civilization that the people of India belonging to different religions created by merging the culture of the Muslim immigrants from West Asia with that of the Hindus of India.

At the dawn of independence while a sizeable number of Muslims migrated to Pakistan, about 60 million at that time chose to stay in India. Without a doubt these people rejected the two nation theory(rejected because it was difficult to move, not that they did not want to go), considered the formation of Pakistan a disaster for the Muslims and India, and believed in the secular and diverse milieu of India.

It can not be forgotten that a majority of Muslims in the provinces that remained in India supported Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Valabbahi Patel and Maulana Azad in their opposition to the partitioning of India.

The Present
However soon after independence in 1947 Muslims in India found themselves the victims of the backlash of the formation of Pakistan, an action that they had opposed strongly. They found themselves excluded from the mainstream and suspect in their nationalism, in the midst of people with whom they had grown up as youngsters. (If you goto a Madrassa but not to nearby govt. school, then what can anyone do)

Today the overwhelming majority of Indiaâs Muslims consider being Indian as important as being Muslim. (I am yet to find a IM, who will unequivocally put nation first and religion second and then you complain about being found wanted in nationalism) A majority of them are people who were born after independence and for whom stories of Indiaâs partition is something that they heard from their parents. Of their own free will Muslims vote for secular parties rather than for Muslim parties and candidates, who are not secular.

The result of the last election indicates that of the about thirty Muslim members of the Indian parliament, all of whom stood from constituencies with sizeable Muslim population, only three are from Muslim parties. Muslims in India never associate with any separatists or anti-national elements. As for the Kashmir problem, it is not a Hindu-Muslim problem. It is the result of years of mismanagement by successive governments in New Delhi and Srinagar, that allowed the festering impoverishment and deprivation of Kashmiris to acquire an anti-national color.

The Despair
In-spite of their being 140 million strong and their overwhelming festering impoverishment, Muslims in India have no leadership worth its name, no coherent direction and no roadmap to break out of their sixty year old state- of- siege. (that is the result of Madrassa training) The number of Indian Muslims living below poverty level has remained at 55 percent for decades, compared to the 35 percent national average. Similarly 45 percent of the Muslim community continues to be illiterate compared to 36 percent for all Indians; 55 percent of Muslim women are illiterate compared to 40 percent for all Indian women.

The blight and squalor of Muslim townships in Indiaâs many cities reflects the contempt with which successive federal and state governments have treated the Muslim community for decades. The very acute shortage of schools, medical clinics, parks, paved roads, sanitation facilities and the large number of unemployed youth in Muslim localities is a gnawing reality. (as if these are not a problem in Hindu villages) In most Muslim high schools there are either no libraries and laboratories, or they are in shambles. Despite many surveys, commissions and recommendations that successive federal and state governments have promulgated, the very poor condition of the basic civic infrastructure in Muslim townships flies in the face of the impressive modernized infrastructure in the rest of the country.

For sixty years now Muslim Dalits and Muslim OBCs, (I thought everyone is equal in Islam, isn't that the reason given why Hindu SCs converted to Islam) despite their impoverishment and despair, have been excluded from the purview of the governmentâs affirmative action plan while Hindu and Buddhist Dalits and OBCs have benefitted immensely from such plans.

For decades a variety of political parties, e.g. Congress, Samajwadi Party, Bahujan Samaj Party, Communist Party of India and others that proclaim themselves as sympathetic to Muslims, have continued to exploit the Muslim community for their votes with empty and meaningless promises that have remained unfulfilled, even though waves of elections have come and gone. While these parties have given tickets to Muslim candidates for parliament and state assemblies, and some of them have won, these powerless Muslim representatives in the political infrastructure have no voice in bringing development to the Muslim townships. Over a decade ago these parties proclaimed repeatedly in UP and Bihar that Urdu â the mother tongue of Muslims in those states â will be the second language. But after more than a decade hardly any Urdu teachers have been hired for the numerous schools, and Urdu with which their heritage is directly linked continues to die.

In such circumstances it is indeed strange that some political parties and politicians often campaign on the theme that successive governments have appeased Muslims. (Muslim community has long been appeased by granting special privilidges to them in constitution, separate laws, special status in Kashmir etc etc., forthcoming - 15% budget in the next 5 yr plan) This misleading propaganda has so charged the atmosphere that today every legitimate Muslim grievance, be it an appeal for financial relief for victims of communal violence, or basic infrastructure uplift, or better schools or preservation of Urdu, or protection of mosques and shrines, or freedom to retain their Muslim identity, is advertised by the obscurantist political forces as Muslimsâ attempt to seek special privileges.

The Future
After waiting for sixty years to have political parties and others lobby for them and help resolve their problems, today the future of the Muslim community lies in taking a bold lead and seeking the active help of the majority Hindu community and the power structure. They need to calmly persuade majority Hindus that their backwardness is a national Indian problem just like the backwardness of the lower caste Hindus, and that it is not a problem of just the Muslim community.

If the Muslims are trying to retain their Indo-Islamic identity then so are all major ethnic groups in India. Punjabi Hindus have very different social practices than Tamil Hindus; Bengali Hindus have totally different social practices than the Gujarati Hindus; UP/Bihar Hindus have completely different cultural practices than the Andhra Pradesh Hindus. So why should mainstream India interpret the attempts of the Indian Muslims to retain their distinct identity as lack of integration and nationalism? Why not lend a helping hand to help break their state-of-siege?

Kaleem Kawaja is past President of Association of Indian Muslims of America (AIM), Washington DC

QUOTE

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTEMost Muslim rulers and their noblemen in India forsook the ethos of the West Asian nations of their origin and integrated themselves with the culture and soil of India to create the Indo-Islamic civilization. Much as in ancient times the Aryans of central Asia integrated themselves with the same Indian soil to develop the Hindu civilization. 

The "Aryans of central Asia" business is a lie. That "history" has now been rubbished. Note that if Mr Kallem Kawaja can quote history that is convenient to his viewpoint, why be concerned but "injustices" being done to Muslims using similarly distorted history

QUOTEIndian Muslims are justifiably proud of their Indo-Islamic heritage.

No Doubt No doubt.
But most Hindus too are justifiably proud of their Indic heritage.

QUOTEIt can not be forgotten that a majority of Muslims in the provinces that remained in India supported Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Valabbahi Patel and Maulana Azad in their opposition to the partitioning of India. 

Sir. The Muslim majority provinces voted for the Muslim league. Some of those provinces still remain very backward.

QUOTEHowever soon after independence in 1947 Muslims in India found themselves the victims of the backlash of the formation of Pakistan, an action that they had opposed strongly. They found themselves excluded from the mainstream and suspect in their nationalism, in the midst of people with whom they had grown up as youngsters.

True. But look at the Hindu viewpoint. The Hindu could survive ONLY if he chose India. The Muslim in 1947 was free to choose to live in India or Pakistan. And for years it was not clear to Hindus whether a given Muslim would choose this nation or that. The Hindu was restricted, not the Muslim. The Hindu was restricted from living or visiting what had been part of his land. The Muslim was given rights in india and would be welcome in Pakistan.

QUOTEAs for the Kashmir problem, it is not a Hindu-Muslim problem. It is the result of years of mismanagement by successive governments in New Delhi and Srinagar, that allowed the festering impoverishment and deprivation of Kashmiris to acquire an anti-national color. 

Maybe correct sir. Maybe correct. But there is a Hindu viewpoint too. "Years of mismanagement" includes the ethnic cleansing of Hindu pandits by Muslims, so it's a little lie to say that there was no Hindu-Muslim problem there. Another little lie is the complaint that partition made Indian Muslims suspect in an earlier paragraph, and quietly forgetting that Pakistanis, who, for Hindus were "people with whom they had grown up as youngsters." made every effort to portray Kashmir as a Hindu Muslim problem. How can an Indian Muslim conveniently deny that there was no "Hindu-Muslim problem" in Kashmir?

QUOTEMuslims in India have no leadership worth its name, no coherent direction and no roadmap to break out of their sixty year old state- of- siege.

It is another lie to say that Muslims do not have leaders. When Muslims do not have leaders they go to the ulema and follow what the ulema say. That is part of the problem. There are plenty of Hindu leaders to follow. One has to learn to trust at least some of them. They are telling Muslims what to do, but Muslims do not follow them. Tell the truth sir, are Muslims taught, or are they not taught to distrust non Muslims?

QUOTE55 percent of Muslim women are illiterate compared to 40 percent for all Indian women.

Social workers that I speak to tell me that Muslims refuse to send their girls to school. Muslims may want slamic schools for them. If Muslims want to stay apart, why complain about Hindus. Hindus are begging for Muslims to join, not remain separate. Muslims choose not to join and choose to whine and whine and whine and complain.

QUOTEFor sixty years now Muslim Dalits and Muslim OBCs, despite their impoverishment and despair, have been excluded from the purview of the governmentâs affirmative action plan

But sir - this is confusing. You say "Muslim Dalits and Muslim OBCs". But "dalits" and "OBCs" are HHindu problem are they not? castes are for Hindus not Muslims? Are you conveniently now asking for case because it is beneficial to do that.

From a Hindu viewpoint, Muslims in 1947 asked for a separate country because that was convenient. Now you are asking for a new definition that makes caste a Muslim feature. That sounds like a convenient ploy. Doesn't everyone want an advantage?

QUOTEIf the Muslims are trying to retain their Indo-Islamic identity then so are all major ethnic groups in India. Punjabi Hindus have very different social practices than Tamil Hindus; Bengali Hindus have totally different social practices than the Gujarati Hindus; UP/Bihar Hindus have completely different cultural practices than the Andhra Pradesh Hindus. So why should mainstream India interpret the attempts of the Indian Muslims to retain their distinct identity as lack of integration and nationalism? Why not lend a helping hand to help break their state-of-siege?

Yes, yes yes Sir. But you forget that all these Punjabi, Tamil and UP/Bihar Hindus - with all their differences, share in Indic culture. Can Muslims show that they share that Indic culture too? After all that indic culture has been dissed, criticized and trashed. Pakistan has tried to reject it, and you too are denying it by pretending that all these Hindus are different. Yes they are different - but the link is Indic culture boss. It has survived and will thrive. Why do you choose to deny that it is present?

And don't forget that dalits and OBCs - a group you now claim includes Muslims are ALSO Indic culture. Why deny it in one area and beg to join it in another?
</div>

Partition Of India To India/pakistan In 1947 - acharya - 02-05-2008

Pakistan's uncleQUOTEAs Pakistan stands on the brink of civil war, the National Post presents excerpts from a new book that traces the country's earliest roots. In today's excerpt: how Churchill helped India's Muslims create their own nation

Pakistan's father

Mountbatten's Gamble

Jinnah's last days

Partition Of India To India/pakistan In 1947 - acharya - 02-12-2008

Let us revive Jinnah

PROF M. MUZAFFAR MIRZA
I have gone through the article "Let us Revive Jinnah" published in a local English daily on December 25, 2007. At the first instance I would like to express my views about the substance and an overall analysis of this article.

The respectable writer perhaps is not clear about his political perceptions regarding the charismatic and virile personality of Quaid-i-Azam and even not well-versed with the dominantly important milestones of the Pakistan Movement. Understanding the gory process of the Pakistan Movement, and then the creation of Pakistan needs a more concrete and enthusiastic study with commitment.

Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, was not only a versatile, multi-dimensional and all-encompassing personality of the subcontinent, but he became the beacon light for the whole Islamic World. Much needs to be written about his meritorious national services in the field of liberating the Muslims of the subcontinent from the ugly yoke of imperialistic government of Great Britain, as well as from the hegemonic designs and prejudiced of the Hindu majority. I must say, that so many aspects of Quaid-i-Azam's life need to be written and elaborated keeping in view of his achievements. The writer must keep this thing in mind that thorough comprehension and substantial views should be highlighted and not to be taken in a light philosophy.

The writer is of the view that due to active assistance of Mr Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, the Quaid was able to establish Pakistan. This is a negation and distortion of the historical and genuine process of the establishment of Pakistan. I would like to recommend the writer to study "Verdict on India" written by Mr Beverley Nicholas particularly, the chapter "A Dialogue with a Giant" that is a sufficient study.
Nicholas writes "India is likely to be the world's greatest problem for some years to come and Mr Jinnah is in a position of unique strategic importance. He can sway the battle this way or that as he chooses. His 100 million Muslims will march to the left, to the right, to the front, to the rear at his bidding, and at nobody else's...that is the point. It is not the same in the Hindu ranks. If Gandhi goes, there is always Nehru or Rajagopalachari or Patel or a dozen others. But if Jinnah goes, who is there?
By this I do not mean that the Muslim League would disintegrate it is for too homogenous and virile a body, but that its actions would be incalculable. It might row completely off the rails and charge through India with fire and slaughter, it might start another war so long as Jinnah is there, nothing like this will happen" (P-216).
This is how the stature of Quaid-i-Azam is analysed by an Englishman like Mr Beverley Nicholas in his book that was published perhaps in 1944. In my opinion, keeping in view the hard facts of history of the subcontinent, Gandhi, Nehru and Patel are not relevantly in the picture of attainment of independence, but only Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah through his consistent, valuable and volatile efforts, the Hindus had been honoured to achieve independence from the British Raj.

The Quaid was a votary of political logic, philosophy and psychology of Hindu mind and reasoning rather than being a magician like Gandhi.
British Labour Delegation once attended the Nagpur Session of the Congress for the non-cooperation programme said, "India could no longer be denied freedom or Sawaraj as it has produced at least one man of Mr Jinnah's calibre, courage and character." This is all the way a rigmarole on the part of the writer and he is not justified in his statements.
The Quaid on his inaugural speech on August 11, 1947 as the president of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan said, "It shall be a liberal democratic state in which religion shall have nothing to do with the business of the state. All its citizens irrespective of their caste, creed or colour shall be equal.

Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is a personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of Pakistan." There is no misconception in the speech of the Quaid and the question of over-use and becoming meaningless would create imbroglio in the minds of the Pakistanis and cannot be considered as a substantive discussion.
As far as independence is concerned, as it is presumed an unsuccessful war, but in fact it was not. The war of independence created deep down a sense of nationalism, integrity, solidarity and enthusiasm for getting out of slavery, in the hearts and minds of the Muslims of the subcontinent, which later resulted in a preponderant movement on the basis of this, Pakistan was established.
The Ideology of Pakistan paved the way for the establishment of a separate homeland for the Muslims of the subcontinent and culminated into an Objective Resolution of March 12, 1949, which succinctly elaborates that the constitution of Pakistan shall be based on the commandments of the Almighty, as incorporated in the Holy Quran.
About theocracy, the Quaid-i-Azam never favoured theocracy or papaism for Pakistan. He always supported the establishment of an Islamic, democratic and a welfare state. On the other hand, Liaquat Ali Khan and the other Muslim League stalwarts also never supported theocracy in Pakistan.

http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/feb-2008/12/columns2.php

Partition Of India To India/pakistan In 1947 - acharya - 02-14-2008

To synopsise the Muslim empires in India prospered when it allowed Hindus to remain dhimmis, rather than pushing them in to rebellion. The Mughals were secure as long as they allowed the Rajputs to be their junior partners, etc, etc.

Permitting Hindu dhimmitude not only allowed the Muslim elite to exercise power over Hindus, it gave them a large and vital buffer against the orthodox mullahs who might have cramped their not-entirely-Islamic lifestyle.

Pakistan started out as the Muslim elite's fear of the destruction of Hindu dhimmitude, *not* a desire for Islamic purity, even though thats where its ended.

I dont believe Jinnah's speech was PR - I believe he wanted to preserve that traditional status quo, non-Muslim dhimmitude in the new Pakistan. That was what the wealth, power and freedom of the Muslim elite was ultimately built on. And that meant giving Hindus and others that minimum space to practice their religion.

Jinnah was incredibly bitter over the partition of Punjab and Bengal (the mutterings about a 'moth-eaten Pakistan') - he wanted the whole of both states, along with their non-Muslim populations.

I dont think Jinnah really understood how his dependence on Islamist ideology in the run-up to the creation of Pakistan, and the unforgiving demands of the modern nation-state would make his preferred vision impossible.

Basically there was no way back to the past, however much he may have wanted it. The Muslim League was the wrong lead vehicle for something like that.


Let me try to refute what Johann said about Jinnah wanting to keep a lot of kafirs in pakistan

*The Rahmat Ali Chaudhury document openly called for getting rid of non-muslims
*Jinnah in 1946-47 openly called for population exchange
*Jinnah made his secular speech in Aug 11, 1946
*Upto Aug15 1947, only 1 mil out of the 6 mil non-muslims in west pakistan had crossed over. The remaining 4 mil crossed over after Aug 15
*The ethnic cleansing of Sindhi hindus commenced in Jan 1948, AFTER the punjab violence had died down
*The Radcliffe line left W.Pakistan with 23% kafirs and east pakistan with 28% kafirs. These kafirs if left alone could have led to the evolution of pakistan a-la-Malaysia. Just leaving the remaining kafirs alone would have allowed the muslim elite to neutralise the bearded mullahs

Partition Of India To India/pakistan In 1947 - Guest - 03-02-2008

The Indian Partition and Independence

Partition Of India To India/pakistan In 1947 - Bodhi - 08-15-2008

Recall Great Calcutta Killing 
Prafull Goradia || Pioneer

For Jinnah, Direct Action Day on August 16, 1946, was the 'most historic act'

Not many people remember or know that on August 16, 1946, began the bloodiest and the biggest State-sponsored riot in the country's history. That was in Calcutta, capital city of undivided Bengal whose premier was Hussein Shahid Suhrawardy, the Muslim League leader; he later became Prime Minister of Pakistan.

The League, led by Mohammed Ali Jinnah, planned to launch 'Direct Action' on August 16 to convince the British that Hindus and Muslims could not coexist in the same country and hence India must be partitioned. A 23-point tactical manifesto was distributed to League activists. Some of the points read as: "Destroy Hindus and drive all Hindus out of India. All transport should be used for battle against Hindus. Hindu women and girls should be raped, kidnapped and converted into Muslims from October 18, 1946. Hindu culture should be destroyed." The Calcutta District Muslim League published on August 13, 1946 an elucidation, clarifying that 'Direct Action Day' was to be conducted in the name of jihad a la the Battle of Badr.

On August 22, Bengal Governor Frederick Burrows wrote a report to Viceroy Lord Wavell on what came to be known as the 'Great Calcutta Killing'. "The trouble had already assumed the communal character which it was to retain throughout. At the time it was mainly in the northern half of the city. Later reports indicate that the Muslims were in an aggressive mood from early in the day and that their processions were well-armed with lathis, iron rods and missiles," he said about August 16.

To quote Burrows for August 17: "This tour that convinced me that the reports that I had received of the seriousness of the situation had erred on the side of underestimation. I observed very great damage to property and streets littered with corpses." The highlight of August 18 in the Governor's letter was: "I made another tour of inspection, this time with the Army Commander and the Chief Minister, covering large areas in the south and south-east of the city which I had not visited before. The Chief Minister showed an exasperating preoccupation with the sufferings undergone by members of his own community."

The slaughter over the first few days was so widespread that Burrows could not give any authoritative figures for casualties. Guided mainly by hospital figures, he guessed 2,000 dead at the very least. No one was available to clear the bodies until "the Army came to my rescue on the basis of Rs 5 a body to volunteers", the Governor wrote.

The Statesman, then a British owned daily, wrote on August 22: "The group of incompetents, or worse, who owing to their office necessarily bear primary responsibility for the criminal carnage in Calcutta, a catastrophe of scope unprecedented in India's history, have been insufficiently seen or heard in these grim days. We mean the Ministry."

In a leading comment, headlined "Calcutta's Ordeal", The Statesman said on August 20, "The origin of the appalling carnage and loss in the capital of a great Province, we believe the worst communal rioting in India's history, was a political demonstration by the Muslim League." What Jinnah said was the most authoritative declaration on the killing: "What we have done today is the most historic act in our history... This day we bid goodbye to constitutional methods."

Today, we are witnessing something similar in the Kashmir Valley where the PDP is inciting the people to take to bid goodbye to constitutional methods. Elsewhere, the 'Indian Mujahideen' has put out an e-mail, urging "Muslims to wage jihad against Hindus". The e-mail invokes Ghauri and Ghaznavi to charge Muslims. We could yet witness violence that may make the 'Great Calcutta Killing' look like a skirmish.

Partition Of India To India/pakistan In 1947 - G.Subramaniam - 08-15-2008

The positive aspects of the hindu-sikh reprisals in 1947

1. 50000 muslim women were kidnapped and this helped to rescue 33000 hindu-sikh women as POW exchange
2. The islamic corridor from Amritsar , 45% muslim to Deoband, 37% muslim was broken and this has hampered jinnahs dream of islamic corridor from punjab to bengal
3. The pakistani muslims are terrified of sikhs and will not infiltrate unlike the bangladeshi muslim who has no fear of the secular west bengal hindu and therefore infiltrates by the millions
4. Thanks to #3, we will have no islamic partition of western India unlike the soon to come islamic partition in eastern India
5. The sikh-hindu reprisals reduced muslim % in residual India from 13.4%
in 1941 to 10.4% in 1951. and it has taken them 50 years of breeding to get back to 13.4% by 2001
6. The muslim % in residual India is likely to stop at 17%, whereas without the sikh-hindu counter-attack they would reach 22%, very close to the 24% that emboldened muslims to try to for partition in 1947

Partition Of India To India/pakistan In 1947 - Guest - 08-15-2008

G.Subramanium, So there is hope that India would remain Hindu majority. With so much conversion and slow growth rate of Hindus, it would seem that the nation would lose its Hindu majority and character in a few decades.