Posted in History

The Brahmin-Baniya Nexus Partitioned India, Muslims not responsible for Partition

Before I begin writing about the Brahmin-Baniya nexus I would like to most emphatically state that there are millions of Brahmins and Baniyas and not all of them would agree with those Brahmins and Baniyas who are against Muslims, and this Blog is in no way blaming entire Brahmin or Baniya community for what happened. It is just that those who were involved were from these communities and these specific individuals were biased and prejudiced against Islam and Muslims.

My grandfather (born around 1916) always said that it was Brahmin-Bania nexus (or simply The Nexus) that divided India and not Muslims or Muslim League. He explained several things to me when I was much younger but I have only documented one thing of his numerous narrations. This was written in 1994-95, while I was still in school. I was so young that I spelt names of Muslim League leaders incorrectly.

The Note
The background to the note is that our family had very good relations with Nawab Chattari. In early 1946 a group of our senior members of my family asked Nawab Sahab to get a meeting arranged with top brass of Muslim League to talk to them frankly. Nawab Sahab himself accompanied my family members, given the gravity of the meeting. The prime reason for the meeting among others was to answer the question of the day, ‘Pakistan’. They wanted to know what should they do with regards to moving to Pakistan, given that they were from United Provinces of Agra and Awadh which in no way was going to go to Pakistan. Should they sell their properties and move to Karachi or Punjab?

The Note says (with corrections),
21st March 1946 – Mr. Mohammed Mustafa Khan asked for appointment with Nishtar Sahab
29th March 1946 – Met Mr. Nishtar and Mr. Chundrigar in Mr. Nishtar’s Office. Mr. Nishtar told them that they do not have any plans to make Pakistan.

Muslim League on 29th March 1946 had no plans to make Pakistan. My family was also told that Pakistan is an argument to get security for Muslims in India. Muslim League understood it very well that creation of Pakistan would be detrimental for Muslims of India as they were thinly spread out across India. And specially because many members and leaders of Muslim League were influential landlords and industrialist who had properties in those parts of India that would never become Pakistan like United Provinces of Agra and Awadh, Jinnah himself was from Bombay Province. My grandfather always said that Pakistan was not created by Muslims but by Brahmin-Bania Nexus.

Impact of Brahmin-Baniya Nexus on Muslims
The Brahmin-Baniya nexus started to antagonise Muslims right from 1860s. It was started by launching an Anti-Urdu campaigns, British saw 1857 revolt primarily as a Muslim revolt, hence they had deep distrust of Muslims during this time. This led to them to favouring Brahmins in administering India. Brahmins with their enmity towards Muslims and Urdu convinced the English that Hindi was spoken by most Indians (an unknown language then, it was put together taking all lanugages from Rajasthani to Maithili, speakers of which would neither be able to understand each other, nor would be able to read each other’s script).

This was followed by Shuddhi and Sanghatan movements (of several Right Wing Hindu Sabhas that later united to become Hindu Mahasabha), specially Shuddhi movement which was deep rooted in Hindu Caste System came to be applied to Muslims as well, such public humiliation of Muslims was unacceptable to Muslims. Hence was born the idea of separate electorates for Muslims in 1909.

Almost all Britishers and many Hindus could see a genuine hesitancy that Muslims had to be governed by Hindus. Many wrote openly about it, including Lala Lajpat Rai and several Viceroys and Governor Generals, from Lord Minto to Lord Wavell. Nobody denied that Muslims needed protection and representation, thus when Lucknow Pact was signed between Congress and Muslim League to fight for the nation together, separate electorates for Muslims was kept in as binding clause for future constitution.

Congress may have been a secular party but it never had Muslim membership over 3% and this was when India had around 25% Muslims. Hence British and everyone else found it difficult to consume Congress’s claim that it represented Indian Muslims as well.

For Muslims Congress was essentially a Brahmin-Baniya party. Although Baniyas were not as Anti-Musims as Brahmins were, but it was clear to Muslims that The Nexus could not be trusted with welfare of Muslims. Specially as Congress was infested with Muslim hating Hindu Mahasabhites. Here look at the list of Members of the last Executive Committee of Hindu Sabha before all Hindu Sabhas were merged into Hindu Mahasabha in 1915. You should be able to spot names of several important Congress Leaders. Congress was infiltrated by Hindu Mahasabhaites to an extent that the proper word for it is infestation not infiltration.

The Brahmin-Baniya Nexus Breaks Lucknow Pact
Twelve years later when Nehru Report came out The Nexus broke the promise of separate electorates which they promised to Muslims and Muslim League. The Brahmin-Baniya Nexus found it difficult to share power with Muslims, this unwillingness of The Nexus to share power with Muslims is what will be the reason for partition of India in 1947.

The antagonism against Muslims gradually progressed to Hindu Mahasabha’s open hostility to Muslims. To the extent that they openly said Muslims are not Indians because their Punya-Bhumi is not India. This was propagated in Principles of Hindutva by Kaayar Savarkar, published in 1923, the concept found grounding not just in Mahasabha but also Congress which was infested with Mahasabhites. Not even being regarded as Indians rang alarm bells among Muslims. Muslims realised that they needed constitutional guarantees protecting their rights, specially those pertaining to their religion, law, language, customs and culture. And that is what Muslims kept demanding for a long time. But since Hindu Mahasabha (and Congress through Mahasabha’s influence) was refusing Muslims their identity of being Indian, constitutional guarantees needed to be secured. A Muslim India within India needed to be demanded and agreed before British left India, because after British leave Muslims would not be able to secure any guarantees due to their smaller numbers.

Back To Note’s Claim: Muslim League Had NO Plans To Create Pakistan
My Grandfather and the Note claimed that Muslim League had no plans to make Pakistan. Let us work this the European Union way. In European Union it does not matter what statements Country Leaders make for their home audience as long as they agree with the Union, and makes European Union richer, stronger and more influential. We will take the same approach and keep the statements of leaders aside, and see what they actually did when it was the last chance to save the country from partition, and the Last opportunity to keep country together was during the Cabinet Mission Plan. But let us look at the face value of what Muslim League wanted, a Pakistan (specially not a moth eaten one). Congress (the Brahmin-Baniya Nexus) wanted a United India, partition was unacceptable at any cost. But both of them did opposite of what they were asking for.

Cabinet Mission Plan. It was a proposal for One United Indian State, with Three Tiers of Governance and Legislature, first Centre, second Groupings and third States. It proposed a weak Central Government Executive and Legislature looking after Foreign Affairs, Defence, Communications and Taxes required to meet such expenses. Following the Central Government would be Groupings Executive and Legislature, the groupings were clubbing of states. Followed by State Executive and Legislatures. The Groupings were as follows
Group A – NWFP, Punjab, Sindh and Baluchistan.
Group B – United Provinces, Madras, Bombay, Bihar, the Central Provinces and Orissa.
Group C – Assam and Bengal

Two points that really shows the treachery that the Brahmin-Baniya Nexus forced upon India are below. The Nexus’s main objection were two
1. The Nexus didn’t believe in the proposed Federal Structure. But it later it adopted a similar structure in the Indian Constitution, the only difference being the subjects under state control was a lengthier list in Constitution of India than one in Cabinet Mission Plan.
2. It could not accept the groupings on the basis of religion. A party that rejected keeping India together because State’s Groupings were based on religion, accepted to Partition India on the basis religion. Talk about hypocrisy!!! But the most amazing this is that States were not in a Binding Relationship forever, they were there only for a 10 year period, beyond that States could do whatever they liked.

Next, League accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan on 6th June 1946, and the Brahmin-Baniya Nexus accepted it on 26th June 1946, only to reject it later. The Nexus kept claiming that Partition is unacceptable at any cost. But they soon found it overbearing to share power with Muslims. Everybody knew that a partition would set out slaughter of innocents and civil war leading to death of Millions as it was mentioned in the plan and repeated by Cabinet Mission when they reported back in London. But slaughter of millions of Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs didn’t matter to Brahmin-Baniya Nexus, as most who would die would be lower castes or Muslims. Brahmin-Baniya Nexus wanted absolute control and did not want to share power with Muslims even if it meant Partitioning their Bharat Mata and causing a great slaughter.

Other Brahmin organisations like Hindu Mahasabha and Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh also rejected the Cabinet Mission Plan, saying at the same time that India can not be divided at any cost. But both knew that if India needed to stay together they needed to accept Cabinet Mission plan. Alas! Sharing power with Muslims was not a cost they were ready to bear either. Choosing a united India and saving million of lives did not even cross their mind, their enmity with Muslims was a much bigger preference than keeping India together.

Finally on 10th July Nehru, under pressure from the Right Wing Hindu Mahasabhaites that infested Congress made a statement that essentially rejected the Cabinet Mission Plan. Following this Jinnah tried to salvage the situation by chasing British and asking The Nexus to accept Cabinet Mission Plan. But neither Wavell nor Jinnah could not persuade Nehru or Brahmin-Baniya Nexus to withdraw the statement and accept Cabinet Mission Plan. Ultimately, after trying for several days to salvage the Cabinet Mission Plan, Muslim League on 29th July rejected the Plan as well, saying if Congress is not willing to agree the framework of the Plan, their is no reason for them to accept it as well.

Let me also clarify that in all my readings there was a sea change in the influence Mr. Gandhi had over Congress and what he could do by the time it was July 1947. In my readings I could not find him supporting partition, overtly or covertly. He was dead against partition and Khushwant Singh described him as helpless along with Mr. Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan. But Mr. Gandhi comes out as an exceptional case among Baniyas not rule.

Direct Action Day and Aftermath
The Nexus used Direct Action Day as a reason for partition, but during partition more than 300 people died for every single person killed during Direct Action Day. What kind of logic justifies that you should agree to slaughter of 300 people because 1 person was killed. The truth is that Direct Action Day was always the excuse by Brahmin-Baniya Nexus for partition, not the reason. The reason was for partition was that they were not ready to share power with Muslims, they alone wanted to rule India. The Brahmin-Baniya Nexus is the reason India was Partitioned, not Muslims.

Summary Review

B-B NexusMuslims
Knowledge that Partition will lead to Civil War, Millions Slaughtered, Millions of women raped, etcYesYes
Knowledge that this was THE LAST ATTEMPT for United IndiaYesYes
Who was the First to accept Cabinet Mission PlanFirst
Who was the First to reject Cabinet Mission PlanFirst
Reasonable Reason For RejectionNoYes
Preferred Partition over other ObjectivesYesNo

I can not find any good reason why The Cabinet Mission Plan would not have worked, except for the Brahmin-Baniya Nexus not wanting to share power with anyone, specially Indian Muslims. Muslim League dropped both of its Primary Demands to prevent partition,
1. Pakistan
2. Separate Electorate or Reservations for Muslims
This is verbatim implementation of Mr. Nishtar’s statement, that they had no plans to make Pakistan. And the excuses that Brahmin-Baniya Nexus gave for rejection of Cabinet Mission Plan were flimsy at best. And the excuse they gave for accepting Partition was even worse, they accepted civil war in exchange for a riot. It is a gross understatement that they did not realise the extent of violence, it is a lie, even Britishers understood the violence that would happen if India was divided, as it is stated here.

To revisit the illogicality of The Nexus’s excuse for justifying partition let us revisit the proportions at stake, The Brahmin-Baniya Nexus accepted to sacrifice 300 lives in a Civil War for every life lost during a riot. Has anyone ever said, because I had a fight with my brother where one child of mine died, I will sacrifice 300 more so that I don’t have to share this house with him. Also, let us not forget the contribution made by the Hindu Mahasabhaites within the Congress led by Patel who were the first people to accept Partition of India in Congress. Once again, it was the Brahmin-Baniya Nexus who was responsible for Partition of India, not Muslims.

Today, many accept that Muslim League alone was not responsible for Partition, be it Indians like Jaswant Singh (in Jinnah), Pakistanis like Ayesha Jalal (in The Sole Spokesman), Britishers like Patrick French (in Liberty or Death) or Americans like Stanley Wolpert (in several books). They accept that Congress (or The Nexus) was equally responsible for partition of India. This is a sea of change in the narrative of partition from around thirty-forty years ago, where it was clearly claimed that Muslim League created Pakistan and this suited Pakistan’s Generals and their narration of permanent enmity with India and their need to remain in power. And in India the Brahmin-Baniya Nexus blamed Muslims for partitioning India, vilifying them forever. But the truth is that Brahmin-Baniya Nexus was the ONLY reason India was divided. THE BRAHMIN-BANIYA NEXUS PARTITIONED INDIA NOT MUSLIMS.

How Muslims Lost Most in Partition
The human tragedy of Partition was great and Muslims lost out most. But Hindu Mahasabhaites 2.0, ie Sanghis in India are trying to prove that Hindus bore the brunt of Partition. While the loss to Hindus and Sikhs was great and I will never want/try to belittle that, but Sanghis must be replied for belittling Muslims losses, Muslims lost more than everyone else. Let us look at Punjab of 1947 which after partition was completely devoid of communities on other side making migration completely complete. Here is the table of Punjab in 1941, Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistani Punjab numbered around 4.2 million and Muslims in Indian Punjab Numbered around 5.4 million. This means 1.2 million more Muslims bore the brunt tragedy than Hindus and Sikhs. United Punjab which had a population of 34.3 million in 1941, 15.7% of its population went from India to Pakistan but only 12.2% of its population moved from Pakistan to India, what more proof is required to confirm that Muslims lost out more in the horror of partition than Hindus and Sikhs. I hate to state this fact, because it is suggesting that I am trying to belittling the horror that 4.2 Million of Sikhs and Hindus faced in Pakistani Punjab. But Sanghis need to replied with facts for they belittle the horror of partition that 5.4 million Muslims of Indian Punjab faced in India.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is punjab-1941.jpg

Finally, for anyone to say that Pakistan performed poorly during partition, India did much worse. Here are the districts on the Western Front alone and look at their Muslim population collapsing in Punjab and Delhi. Yes, the Muslims population collapsed from 31.3% in 1941 for Punjab to 1.4% in 1951. Delhi and Punjab are proofs that India handled Partition much worse than Pakistan, where the Hindu and Sikh Population also collapsed but from 22.8% to 3.4%.

Pitting this in simple ratios, Delhi before partition every 3rd person was Muslim, and after partition every 20th person was Muslim, and Delhi was capital of the country. In Indian Punjab previously every 3rd person was Muslim, after partition every 70th person was Muslims. Comparing this with Pakistan where every 4th person was a Sikh or a Hindu before partition, after partition every 30th person was a Hindu or Sikh. So clearly it was Muslims who suffered most.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is partition-india-muslim-collapse.jpg

It must be reinstated that that purpose of this last piece is not to belittle anyone’s horror, be it 4.2 million Hindus and Sikhs or 5.3 million Muslims. Their suffering can not be forgotten and we must learn from mistakes of previous generations and make sure not to repeat them, but Sanghi lies have to be set straight. The issue with Sanghis is that their intention is to demonise Pakistan and all Muslims by extension, hence the demonisation of Pakistan in India must be stopped to save Muslims of India.

Finally, here are the 1941 and 1951 Censuses to verify the figures. 2011 Figures are available online from the Census Website

Posted in History, Politics, Social Issues

A Parallel; Kashmiri Pandits & Tamil Muslims

Often the plight of Kashmiri Pandits is used as excuse by Hindu Right Wing and people like Anupam Kher to further their cause of polarising Hindus and Muslims of India. Of course what happened to Kashmiri Pandits was a grievous wrong. In no way I am trying to undermine the grievous wrong that happened to Kashmiri Pandit. The point I am trying to make that many crimes are committed during insurgencies by all groups that they regret later on. But Hindu Right Wing brings this as an example of characterlessness of Muslims, but they do not realise that their fellow Hindus have done the same, the same characterlessness that they accuse Muslims of was also committed by Hindus. Most people do not know that there is a parallel to story of Kashmiri Pandits, the story of Tamil Muslims. Today, both Hurriyat and JKLF both have acknowledged that it was wrong to throw Pandits out and they would protect Pandits should they choose to come back, same is the case with Tamil Hindus who are ready to welcome Muslims back.

The parallel is that like Kashmiri Pandits, Tamil Muslims were also thrown out of their homes in exactly similar circumstances. The crime was committed by Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). LTTE was a Tamilian outfit in Sri Lanka with goal of establishing a Tamil homeland in Northern & Eastern Sri Lanka, where Tamilians were in majority. Along with Tamil Hindus lived Tamil Muslims that formed around 20% of the region’s population. Tamil Muslims decided that they did not want Sri Lanka to be divided and hence refused to join LTTE in their insurgency. LTTE decided to throw Tamil Muslims out. This is exactly the case with Kashmiri Pandits, when Kashmiri Muslims started insurgency Kashmiri Pandits refused to join the insurgency. It was after this Kashmiri militants decided to thrown Kashmiri Pandits just as LTTE had done to Tamil Muslims. In fact LTTE was far more violent and killed far more Tamil Muslims than the number of Kashmiri Pandits killed by Muslim insurgents.

Both acts of ethnic cleansing were wrong and horrible; and should not have happened. Today, both Tamil Hindus and Kashmiri Muslims believe that ethnic cleansing carried by their brothers was a wrong thing to do. The only point I am making is that Hindu Hyper Nationalists that are currently ruling India do not see the that wrongs things happen during insurgencies, but to toe the line 30 years later with intentions of punishing not just the Kashmiri Muslims of today along with entire Muslim community of India is completely wrong.

Posted in History, Nationalism, Politics

Once upon a Time there was Hitler

Once upon a Time there was a Hitler

  1. Hitler created a public image as a celibate man without a domestic life, dedicated entirely to his political mission and the nation.
  2. Hitler was a strict vegetarian.
  3. Hitler’s followers thought of him as a man without vice.
  4. Hitler’s supporters could not tolerate any criticism of him.
  5. Hitler used to think that people of certain religion were enemies of the country.
  6. Hitler used to paint and sell colours in his childhood.
  7. All the means of publicity, newspapers, magazines were devoted to publicise Hitler.
  8. Hitler crushed all Labour movements.
  9. Hitler used to call his rivals anti-nationals/traitors.
  10. Hitler had joined the Nazi party as an ordinary worker and went to top finishing all his rivals and became leader of the party sidelining seniors in the party.
  11. Hitler had come to power campaigning that he would end all problems in a jiffy.
  12. After Hitler came to power he could not manage to end any problems, but he certainly managed to destroy Germany.
  13. Hitler came up with a slogan — Good Times will come!
  14. When Hitler went to the German Parliament for the first time after election victory he cried profusely.
  15. Hitler had come to power lying.
  16. Hitler used to love dressing up and look good.
  17. Hitler had the consummate art of making lies look like truth.
  18. Hitler always used to say, I, me, I, me, I, me.
  19. Hitler used to love giving speeches and monologues on Radio.
  20. Hitler in his speeches used to call audience “friends”.
  21. Hitler used to love getting photographed.
  22. Hitler was extremely business friendly, he had a history of giving subsidies to his crony capitalist buddies, land and amenities were available to them at fraction of price.
  23. Hitler’s used to depend on Heinrich Himmler to complete his dirty work like murders, killing, rioting, ethnic cleansing, etc. Himmler was a short and fat man who wore round glasses. Unlike Hitler, Himmler was married with kids and had better education than Hitler.
  24. Hitler’s party was called Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (normal English rules would abbreviate it as NDA not Nazi).

P.S: This post is just and just about Hitler. If this post feels like it has any resemblance to anybody else except Hitler, you can blame it on your own imagination.

Posted in History, Politics

Tragedy of Kashmiri Pandits: My Memories

I grew up in Kashmir, we were there from around 1983 to 1990. I spent my entire childhood in Kashmir, and if childhood is the best part of one’s life, than assuredly I grew up in the Heaven on Earth, Kashmir. Often people question what happened to Kashmiri Pandits specifically, how and why they were targetted. There are no simple answers to this. What happened to Kashmiri Pandits was extremely wrong and nothing in the world can justify it, but what happened to them is also very complicated and not simple as many think and believe. The following is my recollection of what happened in 1989-1990 in Kashmir, with some filling in by my parents. I was there when it happened and am aware of many other things most people are not.

Around 1988, My father posted in Governor House near Chashm-e-Shahi as in-charge of security and we used to visit him often as he was permanently posted in Governor House and we lived on the far end of the city in BSF Campus at Panthachowk. I remember going to Chashme-Shahi to chat up with foreigners and show off my English skills. We had been in Kashmir since I was in KG but in winter of 1989-90 I was in 6th class, and we went to give our half yearly exams in peace in December 1989 (exams used to finish by later part of December, followed by two months of Winter holidays (summer holidays used to be of two weeks). Till December of 1989 we could go anywhere without security in BSF vehicles, no problem, our school bus didn’t even have an escort, and I used to go to the local market in Panthachowk alone, and everybody knew that I am child of an officer in BSF. I remember playing with local kids just outside the back gate of campus that opened to a big playing field, often sipahis from BSF (we called them Bhaiyya) used to join the game as well.

The biggest thing to happen in December 1989 was kidnapping of Rubiya Saeed, I still remember watching it on news while having breakfast and running down to kitchen to tell my mother the explosive news. During those days My father was in Baramulla where his battalion was based and we were going to Baramulla after the exams. I remember that it was after Rubiya Saeed that an armed guard came on our school bus, before that a BSF bus, full of children of soldiers could ply through 9kms of Srinagar without any security. And what could one armed guard do even if two or three insurgents were to attack? Hardly anything, he was there for only one thing, prevent kidnapping by a small gang of insurgents (because they were small and did not have popular support), compare this to when we went in our school bus after winter vacation, we had two escort vehicles full of armed soldiers.

To imagine how peaceful Kashmir was, you really have to look at the way Rubiya Saeed was kidnapped. She was daughter of Home Minister of India (think of Raj Nath Singh’s daughter). She was pursuing her MBBS and was an intern in a Govt hospital in Srinagar. As usual she was traveling alone in the local mini buses that used to ply in Srinagar, can you imagine children of Rajnath Singh traveling in local DTC buses everyday? The idea is to tell that till December 1989 there was hardly any violence in public, it was a peaceful place. There was militancy but it was not a mass movement certainly not something that one would be scared of, that winter vacation changed how we travelled in Kashmir. After Rubiya Saeed incidence some blamed the then Governor Gen. KV Krishna Rao who was a moderate and recognised roots and extent of issues. He was blamed for being soft and the then Indian Government wanted to a hard man. Jagmohan was their choice. Jagmohan was a Sanghi and on 19th Jan he was sworn in Governor and since Farooq Abdullah had resigned it was Governor’s rule.

Jagmohan denies it but the common belief is that he ordered a huge search operation in Srinagar on 19 Jan 1989 and if security forces found any guns in any house they would arrest people and have them taken as terrorist, hundreds of Kashmiris were arrested, because there was an underground insurgency and not a mass movement this was akin to going to UP and checking hundreds of houses, and any house that has a gun being charged with terrorism charges. Not just this, there were widespread allegations of rape, theft and torture by the security forces during these searches.

It is also the night where the grapevine was that Jagmohan had told Kashmiri Pandits to leave Kashmir as he would not provide them any security. It is openly alleged that he told Kashmiri Pandits that Muslims will come after them after what was to happen to Muslims.

19th Morning a Sanghi with reputation of being hawkish is appointed governor. On the night of 19th searches happen, with Muslims alleging rape, torture, beating and general injustice. The grapevine on the same night is the Governor had asked Kashmiri Pandits to leave the Valley. And Pandits left valley on 19th and 20th January in hoardes and on 21st January Gawkadal massacare happens, that transformers a low level independence movement into a full blown militancy. To me this looks like a far too improbable to be coincidence. And what I have described is also far too simplistic view of events that were happening during those days.

There were mistakes made by Government, Jagmohan, Farooq Abduallah, Insurgents, Kashmiri Muslims and Kashmiri Pandits as well…. JKLF the foremost militant organisation in Kashmir during those days denied killing of Pandits because of their religion but there were insurgents who blamed Pandits of being mukhbirs of security forces that needed to be routed out if battle of independence was to be won. Killings of Pandits did not happen before 19th January, i.e. appointment of Jagmohan. They happened exclusively after Gawkadal Massacre, militants swore that they were killing mukhbirs. And most unfortunately for most Kashmiri Pandits, they fitted the bill. Targeted by militants and they were also refused protection by government.

Jagmohan refused the state machinery to come to rescue of Pandits, in fact it was alleged that the government machinery was instructed not to act. Jagmohan allowed the Pandits to be trapped and killed by militants …. Jagmohan not only refused to protect Pandits and allowed them to be killed by militants but also encouraged Pandits to leave Kashmir to the extent of forcing Pandits to leave. Pandits leaders were forced to leave Kashmir, for example H.N. Jatto the Hindu Vice President of a reconciliation committee of Hindus and Muslims that were asking Pandits not to leave. Jagmohan sent a DSP to Jatto with an air ticket for Jammu, a jeep to take him to the airport, an offer of accommodation at Jammu and an advice to leave Kashmir immediately.

As described there were many Pandits who went because they were genuinely scared, many were forced to leave by Jagmohan and many left because Government refused to provide them security. However, today the most important thing is that everyone has realised their mistakes. That killings and sending off of Pandits was a huge mistake and great injustice. Contrary to what media says there is no life threatening scenario for Pandits for just being Pandits… although I won’t recommend BJP supporters and Pseudo Sympathisers like Anupam Kher to go and live in Kashmir.

Situation in Kashmir today is much better with Kashmiri Pandit Organisations coming out and telling the truth that Pandits are not being killed for being Pandits. Here is one such example. Jammu and Kashmir is a complicated problem that can only be solved by talks and not by Israeli type heavy handed approach that has ot brought peace to Israel anyway.

Posted in History

Lies of TrueIndology about Nehru

Yesterday, a twitter handle sent out a series of tweets about Nehru and how the Firstpost Article was wrong. He does this based on a book called Letters to Chief Minister Volume 4 these letter were written by Nehru between 1954 and 1957. Skipping his rhetoric and background in tweet 1,2 and 3, where he presents the case against Nehru and how the Frontline article is wrong and misleading. I will go straight to Tweet 4 where he says, “But just a month earlier,on August 2 1955, Nehru in his letter to Chief Ministers clearly mentions there was indeed an informal offer from US for a UNSC seat. Nehru denied it because he didn’t want to take the seat ‘because it would be unfair to a great country like China'” And he posts an excerpt from this book, with required underlines to prove his point.

So the first thing I did was to read the underlined sentence from the beginning. Reading from the beginning of the sentence we will realise that an informal suggestion was made by US to kick China out of UNSC and get India in its place. There is no offer being here. Let us understand this sentence further

  1. No Offer Was Made, this is crucial, because Nehru can accept or reject an offer only after an offer is made. TrueIndology is lying when he says that an informal offer was made. First US doesn’t own UN to make and offer, next they did not even make an offer, all they made was an informal suggestion. Guess TruIndology is so used to Untruths and intentional misleading interpretations that an informal suggestion is an offer to him.
  2. informal suggestion by US, again this needs to be explained to those who have no experience of either diplomacy or law. And let us remember Nehru was a lawyer and TrueIndology is not, an informal suggestion means nothing, specially the one which is proposed by country and opposed by everyone else (a similitude coming up later to explain why everyone opposed). But most importantly US was not UN to offer anything to India, if it has to be an offer it has to come from UN not US. Only those who know zilch about Diplomacy will argue otherwise.
  3. to throw out China from Security council this was because of US was backing capitalist Taiwan (Republic of China) as true representation of and opposing communist China (People’s Republic of China). Remember this is mid 1955, and the cold war is warming up. And this forms the background which I will explain later. Remember in 1955 China was a great friend of ours, it became a foe only after we gave refuge to Tibetans in 1959.
  4. get India in UNSC after throwing out China but US alone can not do this, it needs countries to back it UK, France and Russia have already said that do not support Taiwan and wanted Peking to take the seat. The informal suggestion is a non starter from the beginning as it does not have any backer and hence the suggestion dies its natural death.

To understand the background we have to read the whole letter specifically when this issue comes up in point 18 of page 235 of the book, (an extract is available here to read). I point 18 Nehru discusses that there two major world issues one is the situation in Germany and the other is in Formosa (now Taiwan). He says he is not worried about situation in Europe as the Western Block (ie Capitalists) is stronger, but the situation is opposite in Far East where Eastern Block (ie Communists) is stronger . The context is that after WW2 ended, China being one of the winners of WW2 got a seat in UNSC. But soon the Chinese Civil War restarted between Kamantek (Chinese Nationalist Party ) led by Chiang Kai-Shek and backed by Capitalists and Communists Party led by Mao Tse Tung and backed by Communists. By 1949 Chiang Kai-Shel has been defeated and routed from the mainland China and has been reduced to Taiwan and other small Islands in East China Sea. The crisis in 1955 was about two Islands of ‘Quemoy and Matsu’ that were being claimed by Taiwan as they were close to its territorial border. Apart from USA no one else was supporting Taiwanese claim. The only permanent member of UNSC backing USA was Taiwan itself. On the other hand this was frustrating USSR as it saw Taipie take China’s seat instead of Peking. US had not even recognised Peking as a legitimate government of China, and it wanted this controversy of Taiwan in China’s seat by giving it to India, but this would have never happened because Russia would have vetoed it, apart from everyone else objecting to it.

Clearly nobody was talking of regime change in China, and had no backing from anyone except USA. And without backing nothing would have happened, this was an informal suggestion from USA was nothing serious that could be explored. Any exciting reaction to an informal suggestion with no backing would have made India laughing stock of the world. Next even our excitement on this informal suggestion with no backing’ would not have been ignored by Chinese and would have spoilt relations with a friendly country whom we were first to recognise outside of Communist Block.

Coming to his 5th Tweet, he says, “This letter can be accessed online. It is available on Page 237 of Jawaharlal’s Nehru’s “Letters to the Chief ministers Volume 4 (1947-1964)”, Oxford university Press. Government of India 1988 Check for page 237 in this link “ Obviously I accessed it and found that no offer was made to Nehru it was a dirty trick US was playing by making an informal suggestion with no backing and TrueIndology lying that an offer was made.

His 6th Tweet says, “The propaganda @firstpost article quotes what Nehru said in Parliament, but carefully ignores what Nehru wrote to this chief ministers, as that would complete expose their Chacha Nehru” The reason it is ignored is that there was no offer of any kind, formal or informal the offer needs to come from United Nations, an informal suggestion from US does not qualify to be an Offer. Clearly TrueIndology is lying by saying that an offer was made, while in reality it was an informal suggestion with no backing.

His 7th Tweet is an attack on Congress, he says “To defend Nehru’s image, official congress handles @AICCMedia are making factually incorrect claims There HAS BEEN a change in UN composition. In 1950, PRC was blocked from taking Chinese seat at UN. In response Russia walked out. These events gave a scope for a new member “ Again misses the background, China was given a permanent seat in 1945, before Civil War tore the country in two countries, Republic of China (henceforth Taiwan) with capital Taipei and People’s Republic of China (henceforth China) with capital in Peking. In 1949 only Communist Bloc countries recognised China, the first country outside the Communist Bloc to recognise China was India in 1950. China was claiming the seat on UNSC that was then seated by Taiwan. Taiwan claiming to be original China and kept that seat till 1971. The 1950 protest was about giving seat to partitioned Communist China instead of Capitalist China. Since it was a matter of which Chinese republic is the correct inheritor of seat. So No, TrueIndology is lying by implying that that a Non Chinese was sitting on Chinese seat, or that it was empty.

The 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th Tweet need to be read together, He says, “It was not once, but twice that India was offered a seat at UNSC. Nehru rejected the seat both the times. The above mentioned excerpt of Nehru’s letter to Chief Ministers refers to the UNSC offer of 1955. There was another UNSC offer in 1950 which was also rejected by Nehru. In a letter to Nehru dated 24th August 1950, Indian Ambassador to US and Nehru’s sister Vijayalakshmi Pandit reveals that US State department made a proposal to India for UNSC seat. Those were the days of Cold War and US was looking at a potential ally in India. Nehru wrote a response to this letter on August 30 He unequivocally denied the offer. He said the UNSC seat would break “the impeccable relations between India and China”. He further said “it would be an affront to China” and he would “press for China’s admission in UNSC” You will see a lot of Nehru apologists arguing that the offer was “just a bait”. But the fact is that in those days US was indeed willing to concede India a fair deal because it was looking at potential allies in our region in the wake of Cold War “

The similitude of this is like a cunning Amriki Baniya comes to you and says “Look I don’t like your best friend and neighbour Bada Pehalwan. He is the real inheritor of this great job that I have given to his weak brother and his enemy Chhota Pehalwan. Chhota Pehalwan is occupying the job illegally and only because of my influence and my veto. Everyone else including you have said several times that Bada Pehalwan must get the job. But, since I have a veto I will not let Bada Pehalwan get the job. Obviously Bada Pehalwan is pissed with me, and so is everybody else. To take some heat off me I was thinking that if you should state your candidature instead of a country who should actually be there. Although you will never get the job because Commie Roosi Pehalwan also has a veto and will not let Commie Bada Pehalwan’s place go to someone who is not a Commie. Of course it would make you look like an idiot, but at least I will have some less accusations of being unfair and unjust. To conclude, you will not get the job and you will piss off Bada Pehalwan … say what???? Lastly I must warn you, you are best friends with Bada Pehalwan and because of this friendship he has ignored a border dispute with you, and this could spark fires and you might loose your state Arunachal Pradesh. But above all, this is all completely unethical because the job really belongs to Bada Pehalwan.”

Which kind of sparkling idiot would listen Amriki Baniya’s scheme, to back stab our friend, to go for a job that he can not get us, for which he does not have support, for which Roosi Pehalwan will undoubtedly veto and will permanently damage our relations with Bada Pehalwan with whom we have a border dispute about a whole state we have. But the bottomline still remains that no offer yet from UN, formal or informal.

The 12th Tweet is again a complete lie, He says, “Nehru got three foreign offers in total for a UNSC seat. Twice by US in 1950 and 1955. Once by Chinese rebels. It takes a bare faced liar like Nehru to deny such an offer ever took place” Again an informal suggestion is not an offer. Also what was being offered to India was stolen goods. TrueIndology does not have a problem subsiding ethics and morals or dealing with stolen goods, but rest of us have. Like most Indians, Nehru certainly did. How could India partake in an exercise of great injustice for which she had a no hope of being successful and involved back stabbing one of her best friends. Let their be no doubt the seat always belonged to China and not Taiwan. Taiwan was sitting on it only because of USA, and USA wanted to give this China’s seat to India.

His 13th, 14th, 15th and 16th Tweets are about an article published in the Wire discussing the above so called offers, so I am not going to repeat my arguments for them. He also brings a new so called offer of Russia, one which the Russians themselves withdrew saying that the time is not right. But the interesting things that the all these claims and Nehru’s decisions are very well defended in the Wire itself. Furthermore Sujit Nair’s video here also explains the Russian angle in the video.

To Conclude: United Nations Security Council Never made an offer to Nehru. The offer that is being allegedly made is actually an informal suggestion which has no support. Also, for sake of argument even if we take these ‘offers’ as genuine, they were offering us stolen goods, they would have made a friendly country an enemy forever and would have never materialised. Here are two other reputed journalists explaining things.

Sujit Nair Editor
Shekhar Gupta Explains UNSC Seat
Posted in History

Ungrateful Indians, Nehru and J&K

Often I call BJP/RSS as Ungrateful Indians because they are completely and utterly ungrateful to those who fought and gave India a government and constitution that has kept her from going into anarchy. India owes a great deal to these leaders for giving the country a solid start. And among all these leaders the biggest debt is owed to Nehru, even more than Gandhi.

Nehru was from a family who had settled in Delhi and UP for generations but was originally from Kashmir. Nehru loved Kashmir to the level of obsession. And because of his love for Kashmir he did something that was wrong and unjust and for which he is still blamed for by Pakistan and a lot of Indians do not even know his contribution, let alone acknowledge it.

So let us rewind to 1947 and and partition of India. The Indian Independence Act of 1947 in its schedules had provisionally allocated districts to each India and Pakistan, while agreeing that the final award will be through a Boundary Commission. In this Act the whole of Gurdaspur district had been marked for Pakistan (Wikipedia incorrectly mentions only one tehsil to Pakistan, the actual act can be check on British Government website here).

The Boundary Commission had to work out final boundary based on the finer details and rules of allocation on the lines of the Government of India Act. The Commission consisted of the Chairman Cyril Radcliffe and two judges of Muslim League and two judges of Congress. Whatever disputes would arise would be settled by Radcliffe. The Commission was supposed to work in utmost secrecy and there should have been no leaks about anything, but that was not the case and all the fingers usually point to Mountbatten. All the disputes of Boundary Commission apart from Chittagong Hill Tracts were in favour of India, and at great disadvantage of Pakistan. This again is usually credited to Mountbatten, because of his friendship Nehru. For example, Firozepur and Zira Tehsils with Muslim majority and continuous link to Pakistan were finally allocated to India after Raja of Bikaner found that his canals would go through Pakistan before coming back in India, obviously Mountabatten barely knew the Raja of Bikaner but both knew Nehru very well.

Another such contentious dispute was of Gurdaspur district, the northern most district of Punjab and the one touching the border of Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistani judges allege that originally Gurdaspur District was allocated to Pakistan, not only because it was a Muslim majority district but also because it was continuously Muslim inhabited. Of the four Tehsils in Gurdaspur, three had clear Muslim Majority. Only Pahtankot was the one with Non Muslim majority. But Pathankot could not be included in India because it was an isolated Non Muslim majority Tehsil. For Pathankot Tehsil to go to India, another larger Tehsil would have to go to India to allow for continuity purposes. Hence all four Tehsils were kept in Pakistan according to the schedule in Indian Independence Act.

When this reached Nehru he asked Mountbatten to allocate Gurdaspur and Batala Tehsils of Gurdaspur District to India and let Shakargarh remain in Pakistan. Like Firozepur and Zira the excuse that Mountbatten gave to Radcliffe and Radcliffe gave to others was that the water for Amrtisar district goes from these Tehsils, hence they should be allocated to India. But if you look at the map below, you would laugh at such an excuse because Amritsar was surrounded by Muslim majority areas on all sides, not just Gurdaspur, Sialkot, Sheikhpura and Lahore but also Kapurthala state was a Muslim majority state with around 60% Muslims. But Raja of Kapurthala had already signed to join India and unlike Nawab of Junagadh Indian Government forgot to ask him what his population wanted.

That was the reasoning that Radcliffe gave for award of Gurdaspur and Batala to India. But the real reason Mountbatten wanted Gurdaspur and Batala to be in India was because of his friend Jawaharlal Nehru, and Nehru’s love for Kashmir. What is coming next is controversial and is not common in history books, but does make appearances off record. I believe it because it is presented with an extremely solid logical argument, and story has been there since I was a kid in Kashmir. Hence it is not an invention to save Nehru from J&K because it dates back far before these illegitimate and ungrateful children of Hindu Mahasabha came and started demonising Nehru.

To reach Kashmir Valley and Srinagar, there was no road except the traditional route along Jhelum which was over a hundred kilometers away from the closest Non-Muslim majority district. While Jammu too was connected to Sialkot for both Railways and Roads, but there was a possibility to connect Pathankot with Kathu and Jammu by having a bridge over Ravi. Although there would still remain a need to connect Jammu with Kashmir Valley. The map below is from 1955 which shows the Jammu-Srinagar highway still under construction, hence the highway signs fade away giving way to a single lane road laid during 1948 war (and it comes with warning of being unsafe in winters and night).

Full Resolution Here

The only land link for Jammu and Kashmir was through larger Gurdaspur District, and not just Pathnkot Tehsil. Gurdaspur and Batala Tehsils were required as well. If these were not there, a land link to J&K would not be possible, meaning that even if the Raja of Jammu and Kashmir wanted to join India despite the Muslim majority nature of his state, he would not be able to because there was no land link to India.

It was this favour that Mountbatten gave to India because of Nehru that J&K is in India. Had it not been Nehru’s foresight and his friendship with Mountbatten this would not have been possible. Because the only border Kashmir and India would have been through a very very difficult Himalayas. Even today if the Gurdaspur District was not in India and we had constructed the Himachal Pradesh and Leh route (which is world’s highest altitude and is maintained by military rather than civil), coming to Jammu would be through Leh and Srinagar.

This is Nehru’s great favour to India. The only and only reason of J&K is in India is because of Nehru. He had foresight to include Pathankot, Gurdaspur and Batala Tehsils in India, without which J&K under no circumstances could be in India. So let us show respect to the man.

Coming to Patel, he was of the opinion that the partition happened on religious grounds, hence it was only right for Jammu and Kashmir to stay with Pakistan rather than India. He wanted Hyderabad to stay with India rather than join Pakistan and J&K to go to Pakistan, there are several reports publications and studies to confirm this, they can be accessed
here, here and here.