Partition

[unmerged(5678)]

Of India/Pakistan

Was it inevitable?

Who was the blame for the 1 million who died?

Why was it peaceful in Bengal but so violent in the west?

Just an attempt to move away from WW2

Short history for those interested

http://www.emory.edu/ENGLISH/Bahri/Part.html

 

[unmerged(3908)]

Of India/Pakistan

Was it inevitable?
I think so especially after both COngress and the ML rejected the idea of a loose federation, and also b/c I dont think ML would have ever accepted to become a minor opposition party permanently out of power as they would have been in united India. Also I think by 1947 the idea of seperation had gained to much momentum to be stopped.
(and of course there is the old accusation, perfidious albion wanted partition)

Who was the blame for the 1 million who died?

Conress and ML for creating hysteria. COngress, ML and Britain for trying to carry out the process too quickly. It would have been better if Britain decided to gradually give independence over two or so years, like a proper mandate, though of course Britain had historically done nothing to prepare her mandates previously and neither the ML or the COngress would have accepted such a long time.

Why was it peaceful in Bengal but so violent in the west?

I understood Gandhi was in Calcutta and had been on a tour of E BEngal previously. Also I think historically there had never been such great religous tensions in Bengal ( Bengali nationalism with the literary revival and al that) as in UP and the Punjab. Rather like S India really where there was little violence by/ against the (relatively) small muslim population. ANd dare I say it? the bengali stereotype of being talkative and lazy, the southern stereotype of relaxed and reasonable compared to the Punjabi's - hotheaded and not too bright....

 

[unmerged(5678)]

Thanks for responding D. Marlborough (does the D stand for Duke?) I was about to give up hope that any topic under than WW2 could be duscussed on this board!

Originally posted by D. Marlborough
Was it inevitable?
I think so especially after both COngress and the ML rejected the idea of a loose federation, and also b/c I dont think ML would have ever accepted to become a minor opposition party permanently out of power as they would have been in united India. Also I think by 1947 the idea of seperation had gained to much momentum to be stopped.
(and of course there is the old accusation, perfidious albion wanted partition)

I think you're probably right, but it begs the question of why the two communities had become so entrenched (not forgetting that there were a number of Muslims remaining in Congress). It seems that there was a personality clash. Jinnah become very resentful of Gandhi's fame - he considered him something of a fraud. Gandhi, in turn, was very obstinate in refusing to see any cultural differences between Hindu and Muslims.

I think that if Congress had agreed to disband after independence, partition would maybe not have happened. Post-partition India would have been much better off without such a dominant party

I always find it ironic that a Western secularist like Jinnah could end up creating an Islamic republic. What a shame he died so soon after partition

Why would the UK want partition? I think the post-war Laboutr government simply wanted to fulfil its manifesto commitment to grant independence. It would much rather have handed India over in one piece

Who was the blame for the 1 million who died?

Congress and ML for creating hysteria. Congress, ML and Britain for trying to carry out the process too quickly. It would have been better if Britain decided to gradually give independence over two or so years, like a proper mandate, though of course Britain had historically done nothing to prepare her mandates previously and neither the ML or the COngress would have accepted such a long time.

Again not much to diagree with here (damn you )The independence movements were too scared that Britan would renege so they wanted independence at any price.

Why was it peaceful in Bengal but so violent in the west?

I understood Gandhi was in Calcutta and had been on a tour of E BEngal previously. Also I think historically there had never been such great religous tensions in Bengal ( Bengali nationalism with the literary revival and al that) as in UP and the Punjab. Rather like S India really where there was little violence by/ against the (relatively) small muslim population. ANd dare I say it? the bengali stereotype of being talkative and lazy, the southern stereotype of relaxed and reasonable compared to the Punjabi's - hotheaded and not too bright....

Careful - I'll tell Blade! on you! Actually Bengalis have a reputation for htheadedness as well.

 

[unmerged(3908)]

Hey I aint worried Blade! He isnt Punjabi (and I said some nice things about the great 18th century authors!)

Regarding Britain wanting partition, I personally do not agree with it, I was merely raising the old canard that the British Raj was completely evil and tried as hard as possible to weaken India before being booted out!

I think disbanding Congress would not have been wise at all! India would have been left without any leadership, and would have essentially lost some of her best men! For all Nehru's faults (like the Congress domination), at leats unlike all other 3rd world leaders, he did not betray his ideals, and India remained a democracy.

IIRC Gandhi offered Jinnah the first PM sip of united India, but Jinnah refused. Their was perhaps a personal element ( I dont know much about Jinnah), but as I said, I think the fear that the ML could never have power in a united India was their primary motivation for refusal. And in any case their claim to represent Indian muslms would have been shown to be completely hollow in a united India, given that Congress had muslims like Maulana Azad in its ranks! I too find this very ironic - here is a classical islamic scholar, a maulana and he supports a secular India, where as the cosmopolitan, thouroughly European Jinnah goes for the Islamic state!
But then Islam has been thouroughly abused by the generally irreligious miltary elites in most Islamic countries.
I do not know what would have happened had Jinnah lived longer, but certainly I think the competiiveness he probably felt against India would have probably meant Pakistan would have got a constitution long before 1956, and perhaps avoided the military take over all together. THen instead of an arms race, perhaps India and Pakistan would have been in an economical race against each other, each trying to say "look at us our people are more literate, more wealthy..." ok I am perhaps gassing far too much....

 

[Blade!]

That's right a bunch of Hotheads we are!

Yup it is good to stereotype those pesky Bengalis as rebels as well.. that's what we are busy philosophising while we are lazing around. Thinking about reunification of Bengal from our 2nd partiton!


No one brought up the point argument, that Jinnah himself may not have wanted partition, and was using it as a bargaining chip..but that it got out of control.

Sigh... where is Bose hiding; the Soviets really should have let him out of Siberia to come fix that mess. Seriously, it was an attempt at a good strategic move to partiton the nations of Panjab and Bengal for the Congress party...as they were bastions of internal Congress opposition, clearing the way for policy post-partition, and hoping that those Congress remnents on the otherside would help to maintain realtions...oops!

 

[unmerged(5678)]

Originally posted by D. Marlborough
I think disbanding Congress would not have been wise at all! India would have been left without any leadership, and would have essentially lost some of her best men! For all Nehru's faults (like the Congress domination), at leats unlike all other 3rd world leaders, he did not betray his ideals, and India remained a democracy.

I didn't mean to imply that the leaders couldn't stand for office, just that Congress was always a movement rather than a party. It included socialists, fanatic himdus, conservatives - vey much a rainbow coalition.

As Ghandiji's and Panditji's party it become untouchable for many years. It's continued existance prevented a meaningful multi-party democracy from coming into force

 

[unmerged(3908)]

Originally posted by Blade!

Thinking about reunification of Bengal from our 2nd partiton!

Say how strong is this sentiment in West Bengal? I have several Bangladeshi friends who strongly believe that the two Bengals should reunite (with Assam, Bihar and Orissa thrown in for good measure, ot restore 'historic' Bengal). They do not seem to bothered that such a country would be majority hindu, though all agree that it will never happen since India would not alow it.

 

[Blade!]

Originally posted by D. Marlborough


Say how strong is this sentiment in West Bengal? I have several Bangladeshi friends who strongly believe that the two Bengals should reunite (with Assam, Bihar and Orissa thrown in for good measure, ot restore 'historic' Bengal). They do not seem to bothered that such a country would be majority hindu, though all agree that it will never happen since India would not alow it.

Actually this surprises me! They sound like me (except I would seriously mind taking on Bihar and its problems! ).

I conduct interviews with those I meet from either side. Bangladeshis, for some reason very unknown to me, feel they would be better off economically... in reality, I am sure the biggest objection comes with the pride Bangladesh has and concerns about India's regarding this... a key point of its revolution was so that Bengali culture and language wouldn't be taken away...and until India gets rid of it's [rant] Imperialist, backwards, and damaging[/rant] Hindi policy, that will be a concern.

West Bengal has fewer issues, but is concerned that a reunification outside of the Indian Union would kill them economically. Though to tell you the truth, in Bengali, Bengal is Bangladesh..so it makes for a confusing state of affairs, when in 1970 you lived in Bangladesh, but because East Bengal named themselves Bangladesh..you can't really use the term!

Both sides admit it would be a great thing, as Bengali nationalism is strong on both sides. Both, however, seem to think that the chance has been lost, and talk about it regretfully but without much will to do it.

Some factions in India could not allow this to happen. The BJP fears a loss of Hindu influence. The Hindi language policy would suddenly look even worse... first the 15% native speaker percentage would drop further..and there would be more Bengali native speakers than anyone else. A united Bengal-Pradesh (state) within the Union would also have more population, and thus political pull than anyone else.

Assam and Orissa would also probably never join with them in the Union, as such a large state would be unacceptable to everyone..and outside the Union in a new Greater Bengal they would never join unless they were going to seriously benefit, as it took them 100s of years just to get people to recognize that they weren't seaking Bengali! Right now melding those 3 cultures would get the state known as The Former Parts of India Where Lots of Rebels like to Hang Out. Hee hee.

I would love to see a united Bengal-Pradesh inside of India.
~It would be better for the entire region economically in the long-run.
~It would be better for Bangladesh in particular in more ways than I can count.
~It would be better for the Bengali people in terms of recognition (AHEM... 4th largest native spoken toungue in the world..ahead of Hindi by a few million! )
~It is better for world security, democracy, and management of natrual resources.

Of course...all these points can be rewritten by others as reason for Bangladesh not to be incorporated.

I am surprised by many people's lack of enthusiasm..if they put their minds to it, no one could really stop them from doing what they wanted. I want to meet your friends someday!

If I ever learn Bengali well, AND get rich, then I will go launch a serious campaign.

 

[unmerged(469)]

Just read a piece in the NYT op-ed section about Ghaffar Khan, Pashtun pacifist ally of Ghandi and believer in "Greater India." How significant is this guy?

 

[Blade!]

Originally posted by Admiral Yi
Just read a piece in the NYT op-ed section about Ghaffar Khan, Pashtun pacifist ally of Ghandi and believer in "Greater India." How significant is this guy?

sp: "Gandhi"

Every "nation" in the India sphere had its revolutionary heroes and delgates to the Indian Congress... just to be a delegate from your area you were already newsworthy and huge. Of course there would be people in the same area at the opposite end of the spectrum as well in each area.

While in the biggest picture of things, Ghaffar Khan may not have been that important...he would be like the influence of a small European country's President or Prime Minister has on the entire EU process. Important, but not the star of the show by any means.

Sounds like an interesting article..doyou have a link or date/pg? Thanks.

 

[unmerged(469)]

Thanks B!alde.

Can't do a link cuz they make you do that registration for free junk mail routine. Today's Times, op-ed.

 

[Blade!]

Here's the link


A very interesting and sad article.

It seems he would make a good figure to study and promote when regarding today's problems. I will have to get those books mentioned.

 

[unmerged(3908)]

Most of my friends were actually vehemently opposed to joining the Indian federation unders any circumstances. What they wanted was a independent country of Bangladesh concisting of present day B'desh and W Bengal, with perhaps Bihar,Orissa....

havent read the nyt article, i'll look foer it.

 

[Blade!]

Originally posted by D. Marlborough
Most of my friends were actually vehemently opposed to joining the Indian federation unders any circumstances. What they wanted was a independent country of Bangladesh concisting of present day B'desh and W Bengal, with perhaps Bihar,Orissa....

Yeah that sounds about right as far as sentiments go... but it would be an economic disaster for all parties IMHO.