Truth about Partition of India

Status
Not open for further replies.

rkumar

Active member
Here is an interesting insight into the partition of India;

http://www.centralchronicle.com/viewnews.asp?articleID=12398

..............................................................................................
History of Independence & partition of India
Category » Editorial Posted On Saturday, August 15, 2009
PK Nigam



Common impression in India and the world is that Atlee and Labour Party were good and wanted to give independence to India after WW-II, but due to differences among Indian leaders, they had to divide the country. This belief is based on British version and is totally false. History books written in Britain, US, and even in India are based on this version. The truth is England did NOT want their raj to end in India. Atlee, Cripps, Labour Party and Churchill wanted British raj to continue in India. The British propagated this version to hide their guilt. One million Indians were killed and 12 million were forced to migrate leaving their homes, where they had lived for centuries due to British plan to partition India. This false version of Indian history is very injurious to India. It is high time that we learn our true history, so that we can defend ourselves and will not repeat old mistakes. Independence was not due to goodwill of England but due to balance of military force.

To understand the history of 1946-1948 period, it is necessary to know a few ideas. Mao said that political power comes from the barrel of a gun. This has been always true in the past, and will remain so in future. Idealism has no place in politics which concerns with power – how to get it and how to use it after getting it. Imperialism used the principle of “divide and rule”. As this became unpopular, imperialism changed its form into neo-imperialism. Divide and rule became “divide and dominate.” The US developed this method of neo-imperialism in the 19th century in South America. Gandhiji used to describe the British policy of divide and rule as monkey justice from an Aesop’s fable. Nehru had written in 1934 in “Glimpses of World History, “it is quite possible that Britain’s visible hold over India might go before long, and yet the economic control might remain as an invisible empire.”

On December 21, 1945 Viceroy Wavell met Bevin and Alexander in London. He writes that Bevin like everyone else hated the idea of leaving India, but Bevin had no alternative to suggest. Bevin said that America was very much worried about India and did not want England to leave India, because of its commercial interests. All this proves that the British and even US did not want the raj to end in India. Many examples can be cited to prove the same point.

There were many reasons put together why Britain had to give India independence. Gandhiji’s Satyagrah movements in 1920s and 1930s, the widespread Quit India movement in 1942, formation of Indian National Army by Subhas Chandra Bose in South East Asia, trial of INA officers, then mutiny of Indian navy and air force, expansion of Indian army to 2.5 lakh to fight expected Japanese invasion of India made Wavell realize that he could not trust the loyalty of Indian army and England could not rule India militarily. To control India militarily, British policy had been to have one British soldier to two Indians in the Indian Army. This changed due to wartime expansion from 210,000 troops to 2.5 million, making Indian army preponderantly Hindu with number of British troops remaining at 70,000. Moreover England had become very weak economically and militarily after war ended. Only one year after it’s declaration of war against Germany in September 1939, it found it had spent most of its gold and dollar reserves. It had to depend on the US for money and arms to carry on the war. Britain’s worldwide empire was based on naval supremacy. After the war the British Navy was not the strongest. Atom bomb appeared as a weapon of war, but Britain did not have atom bombs. Naval ships could be destroyed by aeroplanes.

Hence Wavell made a blueprint of Pakistan in December 1945 and sent it to Secretary of State for India in a most secret letter. This letter has been now made public. The letter reveals that partition was necessary to protect British interests in Asia and NOT Muslim interests as believed in India and Pakistan. Aim was to protect Near East from Soviet expansion to Indian Ocean and oil wells there. The English had been working on creation of Pakistan since1888.

The Cabinet Delegation was sent to India in March 1946 ostensibly to help Indians to become free but really to make Indians agree to Partition. To further this aim, the English made Jinnah start communal riots to prove that Hindus and Muslims cannot live together and the country had to be divided. One million lives were lost in communal riots during 1946 – 1947. Though the British were powerless to control India, they had enough power to create trouble before leaving. Indian navy was much weaker than Royal Navy, which could blockade India and prevent import of many necessary items. To defeat Congress demand for a free united India, they threatened Congress that they would leave India in more than 500 pieces. Sardar Patel had become in charge of Home in provisional national government in September 1946. He read all secret government papers and found how the British were intriguing to make India very weak before departure. He decided that it was better to accept India in two parts rather than many in December 1946. He made VP Menon make a blueprint of partition, which was different from Wavell’s partition plan. It was this plan, which was ultimately adopted in August 1947. Gandhiji had realized the harm to India from partition and declared that partition would take place over his dead body. After hearing Patel’s arguments, Gandhiji agreed to partition on condition that it would be a partition between two brothers. The wily English defeated Gandhiji’s wish by creating Kashmir problem so that the two nations would keep fighting. Patel explained later in November 1947 the logic for acceptance of partition. He said that with Partition 80% of India would be free. India would develop economically and militarily and then take the other 20%.

Partition took place on August 14 and 15, 1947. All top civil and military officers were British in Pakistan. They made a plan for Pakistan to attack Kashmir with some tribesmen and Pakistan Army men in mufti to invade Kashmir on October 20. This made Maharaja and National Conference of Shiekh Abdullah ask for India’s help. After accepting accession, Indian army was sent to prevent the Pak invaders from occupation of Kashmir. As the fighting was going on, Mountbatten asked Congress leaders not to attack Pakistan but to complain to UN. Gandhiji, Nehru and Patel were against Mountbatten’s suggestion, but Nehru had to agree as Britain reduced supply of arms and petrol to India to put pressure to agree to go to UN. As expected, UN, dominated by US and England did not declare Pakistan as an aggressor, but appointed a mediator (i.e. justice monkey). Pakistan was never declared an aggressor and it continues to occupy parts of Kashmir.

To say that Jinnah created Pakistan is a joke. Jinnah had no gun to get political power. Jinnah was ignorant and it allowed the British to use him as a stooge to divide the country. Later Jinnah himself realized his mistake and wanted India and Pakistan to unite just before his death. Jinnah may be called second Mir Jafar.
.............................................................................................

RK^2
 
Very interesting!!

Here is an interesting insight into the partition of India;

http://www.centralchronicle.com/viewnews.asp?articleID=12398

..............................................................................................
History of Independence & partition of India
Category » Editorial Posted On Saturday, August 15, 2009
PK Nigam



Common impression in India and the world is that Atlee and Labour Party were good and wanted to give independence to India after WW-II, but due to differences among Indian leaders, they had to divide the country. This belief is based on British version and is totally false. History books written in Britain, US, and even in India are based on this version. The truth is England did NOT want their raj to end in India. Atlee, Cripps, Labour Party and Churchill wanted British raj to continue in India. The British propagated this version to hide their guilt. One million Indians were killed and 12 million were forced to migrate leaving their homes, where they had lived for centuries due to British plan to partition India. This false version of Indian history is very injurious to India. It is high time that we learn our true history, so that we can defend ourselves and will not repeat old mistakes. Independence was not due to goodwill of England but due to balance of military force.

To understand the history of 1946-1948 period, it is necessary to know a few ideas. Mao said that political power comes from the barrel of a gun. This has been always true in the past, and will remain so in future. Idealism has no place in politics which concerns with power – how to get it and how to use it after getting it. Imperialism used the principle of “divide and rule”. As this became unpopular, imperialism changed its form into neo-imperialism. Divide and rule became “divide and dominate.” The US developed this method of neo-imperialism in the 19th century in South America. Gandhiji used to describe the British policy of divide and rule as monkey justice from an Aesop’s fable. Nehru had written in 1934 in “Glimpses of World History, “it is quite possible that Britain’s visible hold over India might go before long, and yet the economic control might remain as an invisible empire.”

On December 21, 1945 Viceroy Wavell met Bevin and Alexander in London. He writes that Bevin like everyone else hated the idea of leaving India, but Bevin had no alternative to suggest. Bevin said that America was very much worried about India and did not want England to leave India, because of its commercial interests. All this proves that the British and even US did not want the raj to end in India. Many examples can be cited to prove the same point.

There were many reasons put together why Britain had to give India independence. Gandhiji’s Satyagrah movements in 1920s and 1930s, the widespread Quit India movement in 1942, formation of Indian National Army by Subhas Chandra Bose in South East Asia, trial of INA officers, then mutiny of Indian navy and air force, expansion of Indian army to 2.5 lakh to fight expected Japanese invasion of India made Wavell realize that he could not trust the loyalty of Indian army and England could not rule India militarily. To control India militarily, British policy had been to have one British soldier to two Indians in the Indian Army. This changed due to wartime expansion from 210,000 troops to 2.5 million, making Indian army preponderantly Hindu with number of British troops remaining at 70,000. Moreover England had become very weak economically and militarily after war ended. Only one year after it’s declaration of war against Germany in September 1939, it found it had spent most of its gold and dollar reserves. It had to depend on the US for money and arms to carry on the war. Britain’s worldwide empire was based on naval supremacy. After the war the British Navy was not the strongest. Atom bomb appeared as a weapon of war, but Britain did not have atom bombs. Naval ships could be destroyed by aeroplanes.

Hence Wavell made a blueprint of Pakistan in December 1945 and sent it to Secretary of State for India in a most secret letter. This letter has been now made public. The letter reveals that partition was necessary to protect British interests in Asia and NOT Muslim interests as believed in India and Pakistan. Aim was to protect Near East from Soviet expansion to Indian Ocean and oil wells there. The English had been working on creation of Pakistan since1888.

The Cabinet Delegation was sent to India in March 1946 ostensibly to help Indians to become free but really to make Indians agree to Partition. To further this aim, the English made Jinnah start communal riots to prove that Hindus and Muslims cannot live together and the country had to be divided. One million lives were lost in communal riots during 1946 – 1947. Though the British were powerless to control India, they had enough power to create trouble before leaving. Indian navy was much weaker than Royal Navy, which could blockade India and prevent import of many necessary items. To defeat Congress demand for a free united India, they threatened Congress that they would leave India in more than 500 pieces. Sardar Patel had become in charge of Home in provisional national government in September 1946. He read all secret government papers and found how the British were intriguing to make India very weak before departure. He decided that it was better to accept India in two parts rather than many in December 1946. He made VP Menon make a blueprint of partition, which was different from Wavell’s partition plan. It was this plan, which was ultimately adopted in August 1947. Gandhiji had realized the harm to India from partition and declared that partition would take place over his dead body. After hearing Patel’s arguments, Gandhiji agreed to partition on condition that it would be a partition between two brothers. The wily English defeated Gandhiji’s wish by creating Kashmir problem so that the two nations would keep fighting. Patel explained later in November 1947 the logic for acceptance of partition. He said that with Partition 80% of India would be free. India would develop economically and militarily and then take the other 20%.

Partition took place on August 14 and 15, 1947. All top civil and military officers were British in Pakistan. They made a plan for Pakistan to attack Kashmir with some tribesmen and Pakistan Army men in mufti to invade Kashmir on October 20. This made Maharaja and National Conference of Shiekh Abdullah ask for India’s help. After accepting accession, Indian army was sent to prevent the Pak invaders from occupation of Kashmir. As the fighting was going on, Mountbatten asked Congress leaders not to attack Pakistan but to complain to UN. Gandhiji, Nehru and Patel were against Mountbatten’s suggestion, but Nehru had to agree as Britain reduced supply of arms and petrol to India to put pressure to agree to go to UN. As expected, UN, dominated by US and England did not declare Pakistan as an aggressor, but appointed a mediator (i.e. justice monkey). Pakistan was never declared an aggressor and it continues to occupy parts of Kashmir.

To say that Jinnah created Pakistan is a joke. Jinnah had no gun to get political power. Jinnah was ignorant and it allowed the British to use him as a stooge to divide the country. Later Jinnah himself realized his mistake and wanted India and Pakistan to unite just before his death. Jinnah may be called second Mir Jafar.
.............................................................................................

RK^2
 
How long are we going to continue blaming the British?

India's destiny was in it's own hands at midnight of August 15th, 1947. Shame on India, Pakistand and their respective leaders, if what is written above is infact true. India and Pakistan should have realized the game plan long time ago and should have worked out their differences.

I think India is headed in the right direction. With markets opening up, entrepreneurs are creating wealth and job economic opportunities within India and for Indians.

Pakistan is totally opposite. I wish them well. But, why would they trust me, or for that matter any Indian?

I foresee a bright future for India and doom for Pakistan unless it changes it's ways.
 
How long are we going to continue blaming the British?

India's destiny was in it's own hands at midnight of August 15th, 1947. Shame on India, Pakistand and their respective leaders, if what is written above is infact true. India and Pakistan should have realized the game plan long time ago and should have worked out their differences.

I think India is headed in the right direction. With markets opening up, entrepreneurs are creating wealth and job economic opportunities within India and for Indians.

Pakistan is totally opposite. I wish them well. But, why would they trust me, or for that matter any Indian?

I foresee a bright future for India and doom for Pakistan unless it changes it's ways.
I agree to this.

Khalkhande ji ... there is no doubt Britishers punked us.
Japan also got banged up really bad at the end of WW2 - but obviously they did quite well for themselves.
 
Looks like we always need somebody to blame for our problems.

Here is an interesting insight into the partition of India;

http://www.centralchronicle.com/viewnews.asp?articleID=12398

..............................................................................................
History of Independence & partition of India
Category » Editorial Posted On Saturday, August 15, 2009
PK Nigam



Common impression in India and the world is that Atlee and Labour Party were good and wanted to give independence to India after WW-II, but due to differences among Indian leaders, they had to divide the country. This belief is based on British version and is totally false. History books written in Britain, US, and even in India are based on this version. The truth is England did NOT want their raj to end in India. Atlee, Cripps, Labour Party and Churchill wanted British raj to continue in India. The British propagated this version to hide their guilt. One million Indians were killed and 12 million were forced to migrate leaving their homes, where they had lived for centuries due to British plan to partition India. This false version of Indian history is very injurious to India. It is high time that we learn our true history, so that we can defend ourselves and will not repeat old mistakes. Independence was not due to goodwill of England but due to balance of military force.

To understand the history of 1946-1948 period, it is necessary to know a few ideas. Mao said that political power comes from the barrel of a gun. This has been always true in the past, and will remain so in future. Idealism has no place in politics which concerns with power – how to get it and how to use it after getting it. Imperialism used the principle of “divide and rule”. As this became unpopular, imperialism changed its form into neo-imperialism. Divide and rule became “divide and dominate.” The US developed this method of neo-imperialism in the 19th century in South America. Gandhiji used to describe the British policy of divide and rule as monkey justice from an Aesop’s fable. Nehru had written in 1934 in “Glimpses of World History, “it is quite possible that Britain’s visible hold over India might go before long, and yet the economic control might remain as an invisible empire.”

On December 21, 1945 Viceroy Wavell met Bevin and Alexander in London. He writes that Bevin like everyone else hated the idea of leaving India, but Bevin had no alternative to suggest. Bevin said that America was very much worried about India and did not want England to leave India, because of its commercial interests. All this proves that the British and even US did not want the raj to end in India. Many examples can be cited to prove the same point.

There were many reasons put together why Britain had to give India independence. Gandhiji’s Satyagrah movements in 1920s and 1930s, the widespread Quit India movement in 1942, formation of Indian National Army by Subhas Chandra Bose in South East Asia, trial of INA officers, then mutiny of Indian navy and air force, expansion of Indian army to 2.5 lakh to fight expected Japanese invasion of India made Wavell realize that he could not trust the loyalty of Indian army and England could not rule India militarily. To control India militarily, British policy had been to have one British soldier to two Indians in the Indian Army. This changed due to wartime expansion from 210,000 troops to 2.5 million, making Indian army preponderantly Hindu with number of British troops remaining at 70,000. Moreover England had become very weak economically and militarily after war ended. Only one year after it’s declaration of war against Germany in September 1939, it found it had spent most of its gold and dollar reserves. It had to depend on the US for money and arms to carry on the war. Britain’s worldwide empire was based on naval supremacy. After the war the British Navy was not the strongest. Atom bomb appeared as a weapon of war, but Britain did not have atom bombs. Naval ships could be destroyed by aeroplanes.

Hence Wavell made a blueprint of Pakistan in December 1945 and sent it to Secretary of State for India in a most secret letter. This letter has been now made public. The letter reveals that partition was necessary to protect British interests in Asia and NOT Muslim interests as believed in India and Pakistan. Aim was to protect Near East from Soviet expansion to Indian Ocean and oil wells there. The English had been working on creation of Pakistan since1888.

The Cabinet Delegation was sent to India in March 1946 ostensibly to help Indians to become free but really to make Indians agree to Partition. To further this aim, the English made Jinnah start communal riots to prove that Hindus and Muslims cannot live together and the country had to be divided. One million lives were lost in communal riots during 1946 – 1947. Though the British were powerless to control India, they had enough power to create trouble before leaving. Indian navy was much weaker than Royal Navy, which could blockade India and prevent import of many necessary items. To defeat Congress demand for a free united India, they threatened Congress that they would leave India in more than 500 pieces. Sardar Patel had become in charge of Home in provisional national government in September 1946. He read all secret government papers and found how the British were intriguing to make India very weak before departure. He decided that it was better to accept India in two parts rather than many in December 1946. He made VP Menon make a blueprint of partition, which was different from Wavell’s partition plan. It was this plan, which was ultimately adopted in August 1947. Gandhiji had realized the harm to India from partition and declared that partition would take place over his dead body. After hearing Patel’s arguments, Gandhiji agreed to partition on condition that it would be a partition between two brothers. The wily English defeated Gandhiji’s wish by creating Kashmir problem so that the two nations would keep fighting. Patel explained later in November 1947 the logic for acceptance of partition. He said that with Partition 80% of India would be free. India would develop economically and militarily and then take the other 20%.

Partition took place on August 14 and 15, 1947. All top civil and military officers were British in Pakistan. They made a plan for Pakistan to attack Kashmir with some tribesmen and Pakistan Army men in mufti to invade Kashmir on October 20. This made Maharaja and National Conference of Shiekh Abdullah ask for India’s help. After accepting accession, Indian army was sent to prevent the Pak invaders from occupation of Kashmir. As the fighting was going on, Mountbatten asked Congress leaders not to attack Pakistan but to complain to UN. Gandhiji, Nehru and Patel were against Mountbatten’s suggestion, but Nehru had to agree as Britain reduced supply of arms and petrol to India to put pressure to agree to go to UN. As expected, UN, dominated by US and England did not declare Pakistan as an aggressor, but appointed a mediator (i.e. justice monkey). Pakistan was never declared an aggressor and it continues to occupy parts of Kashmir.

To say that Jinnah created Pakistan is a joke. Jinnah had no gun to get political power. Jinnah was ignorant and it allowed the British to use him as a stooge to divide the country. Later Jinnah himself realized his mistake and wanted India and Pakistan to unite just before his death. Jinnah may be called second Mir Jafar.
.............................................................................................

RK^2
 
saanp nikal jane ke baad lathi pitne ka kya fayda.... Sardar Patel wanted that 80% of India should grow economically and militarily and then take the other 20%, but after 62 years of independence, we are still a soft target....Still 20 % of India is out of our reach... and we can see, there is no political will to do that. Jo hua, so hua.. instead of blaming Britishers, we should develop ourselves and we need to learn some lessons from Japan, who after WWII was a destroyed nation and now after 64 years, they have the fastest train in world....
 
Pakistan and India can be mutually beneficial to each other. If the hardcore fanatics retract their violent actions to crazy opinions, and Pakistani Government is willing to give more fredom to enterprise, India and Pakistan can do really well by trading freely with each other by having free-trade, open borders and free-flow of goods, services, capital, people and ideas.

But thats just wishful thinking. I feel bad for the people of Pakistan for the way they are being screwed from every imaginable angle. I am sure the elite class is well cocooned from all the s**t happening in Pakistan. They are stacking up their overseas bank accounts with Foreign Aid dollars. The poor cannot feed or educate their children who are left at the mercy of the fanatic Madarsas. These kids grow up to be terrorists.

Seems like Pakistan has fallen in a vicious cycle of its own creation. The Terrorist factories (a.k.a Madarsas) it allowed to be opened across the country to teach India a lesson, are now eatng up the country from within.

Indians need to be concerned about whats happening across the border. The firecrackers that we sometimes enjoy can come back to burn our own homes. When there wont be anything left in Pakistan to feed off, the crazy Madarsas are come to a neighborhood near you. The power-hungry fanatics who run these indoctrination factories will not just disappear in the widlerness. They will just move on to their next future-victim. And that will be the Muslim poppulation of India.

From what I have read about, its already happening!
 
saanp nikal jane ke baad lathi pitne ka kya fayda.... Sardar Patel wanted that 80% of India should grow economically and militarily and then take the other 20%, but after 62 years of independence, we are still a soft target....Still 20 % of India is out of our reach... and we can see, there is no political will to do that. Jo hua, so hua.. instead of blaming Britishers, we should develop ourselves and we need to learn some lessons from Japan, who after WWII was a destroyed nation and now after 64 years, they have the fastest train in world....

After 64 years all they could come up with was the world's fastest train? LOL! Just kidding!

Japan has its own very serious problems. Their economy is not growing up fast enough to take care of its population. South Korea has emerged as a major economic threat to Japanese interests.

Japanese shot themselves in their foot when they started centralizing corporate decision making in giant conglomerates. The government got too involved in their banking and money supply. All this has led to a recession that has lasted for over two decades now.
 
Mein uss desh ka waasi hoon jahaan
baniyee aur bahman ka raj hae
unse pehle muslmannon ka raaj tha
inn sabke chakee
mein piss gaya hae
ek aam aadmi
uski mehnet se khayee
inn zalimoon ne
mufaat ki kamaai
zalim aate haeen
zalim jaate haeen
zalimoon ko replace
karke dusre zalim
phir se shuree
ho jaate haeen
ram teri ganga maili
aam aadmi zalimoon
ka naukar ban ke
rah gaya
ram ram
woh karte gaye
aam aadmi ko
pisstee gayee
sadiyoon se
yeh hua hae
bhagwan ek
supersition hae
false prophet
uska naam le kar
aam insaan ko
dhoke mein rakhte gaye
 
After 64 years all they could come up with was the world's fastest train? LOL! Just kidding!

Japan has its own very serious problems. Their economy is not growing up fast enough to take care of its population. South Korea has emerged as a major economic threat to Japanese interests.

Japanese shot themselves in their foot when they started centralizing corporate decision making in giant conglomerates. The government got too involved in their banking and money supply. All this has led to a recession that has lasted for over two decades now.

Kia aur Hyundai ... rojh naye model kadh de se. Same with Samsung. But they have something in common ... they are all crap ... yes Samsung included !! But crap sells ... look at China.
Also, I am happy to see that most people here don't think we can continue to blame British for our ills because a society of whiners will never get anywhere.
 
Whats the point???

Thanks sir, for such wonderful information. But I think whosoever is little intersted in History knows these facts.

But the problem here is whats the use of this now? Whatever had happened during that time cant be recalled. But the main thing is what we are doing now? We are still not taking any solid steps against our enemies. and what have we achieved economically?? Looking at the price of Pakistani Ruppee and Indian Ruppee, its almost identical. Once I was in someother site and a pakistani wrote something that seriously took me aback:

1. He wrote that both Pakistan and India have nuclear missiles. But look at the size and economic conditions of Pakistan and India. As we always boast that India is way ahead of Pakistan still they are nuclear power.

2. He wrote that compare India with the size of countries that were/are equal to India. What it has achived and then compare Pakistan with other countries like Nepal, Srilanka, etc.. its way ahead of them.

3. He wrote some more points but I dont remember them.

But the main discussion is why we are happy? Is it because Pakistan is behind us and that too in what terms? Please remember Pakistan is not going to destroy themselves. They will channelise all these terrorists to India. Such a small country (what we always think) and always kills thousands of people in our own country every year. Such a small country (again what we always think) and for the past 60 years we are not able to take a small part of Kasmir from them.

I am proud to be Indian but dont want any more such leaders who just say everything but do nothing.

and I am not just saying it after 30 years of my life I'll take my first step to reform India by taking part in active politics until then I am happy with educating my locality's poor children.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top