Transfer of Power from the British Raj & The South Asian Politicians

Let me make the point more explicit:
I would like all to forget the rhetoric and get down to a cost -benefit analyses:
Why is it that even after the death of 4000 Pakistanis in Kargil war the General smirks at the people and pontifies that the nation has gained? or is it that now the army has subsequently moved a proposal for Crores Ruppees worth of latest arms in which the favourite dealer has got the order? Who gains the most by establishing institutes based upon charities whose accounts cannot be audited by any one?
Why is it that the Generals talk ceaseleely about self-determination without giving the same opportunity to its own people??

We all suffer from collective amnesia bacause we remember some history called ``myth`` but forget our recent past.
There is an interesting pattern in this transfer of power by the military elites. It goes as below:
````Chris Smith of King`s College`s Centre for Defence Studies, points out, coups have been common in Pakistan. Planning for them forms part of the military`s ``institutional memory``.
It might be summarised in the following steps:

Seize the political leader you plan to depose

Take control of main government offices and other senior politicians

Seize control of public communications channels - television, radio, telephone networks and, now, the Internet

Shut down all ports, airport and land borders

Deploy troops on the streets

Close the banks
Capturing the political leader usually means surrounding his home with firepower and putting him under house arrest, says Mr Smith.

``Killing him might make a martyr of him and you don`t want to parade him though the streets and make a spectacle of him.``
Pakistani troops capture the TV station - a crucial move in conducting a coup
Taking control of the television output is not an act of supreme vanity on behalf of the incoming military ruler, rather an established tactic for stemming dissent.
The idea is to strip the opposition of any means of organising a counter-attack.
``There`s going to be opposition to the new regime, so you remove the opposition`s ability to communicate, which inevitably falls to the TV or radio, or telephone,`` says Charles Heyman, editor of Janes World Armies.
``It enables you to tell your story and means that no one else can tell theirs.``
In getting their message across, Pakistan`s military masters fell back on the classic ploy of casting themselves as a praetorian guard. Their aim - to portray themselves as sole defenders of the nation`s interests rather than power-crazed despots. ````
So every war, aggression is pushed down the throats the amnesiacs to justify their usurping of power.

# 136 and 137:
Marxist or not the point made by Ballukhan are relevant.

not another marxist...

SR ji. Well said!!!!!

Your words :
``````The ``transfer of Power from British to local politicians`` without fundamental structural reforms in the state machinery is the tragedy that South Asia still suffers from. ````

should be enough to make the heads of those gentlemen hang in shame who justify the un-justifiable blood sheds involved in the transfers of power to the new elites (Jinnah and co,). The same cycle of transfer of power (coups) is being enacted by propounders of variantsof theories based upon ``Islam in danger`` repeatedly (have we ever heard of some street boy usurping the power in pakistan???).
These are the theorists for the power elites in Pakistan who use the goebbelian techniques over and over again to justify their transfer of power to themselves.

Back to the topic though... I uncovered this interesting piece from a letter from Wavell to Pethick Lawrence:

``The strong reaction by Gandhi to my suggestion that Congress should make their assurance about the grouping categorical shows how well justified Jinnah was to doubt their previous assurances on the subject. It is to my mind convincing evidence that Congress always meant to use their position in the interim Government to break up the Muslim League and in the constituent assembly to destroy the grouping scheme which was the one effective safeguard for the muslims`

(Wavell to Pethick Lawrence, Mansergh, Transfer of power Page 323)


There is another interesting piece about the Viceroy`s own findings about the Calcutta Killings, which I will hold till P-Mishra starts with his lies against Jinnah again.

-Manto

Mantolives:
``With that said, I think Hindus have been unkind to Jinnah and Muslims have been unkind to Patel in their estimate of these two great men. ``
Yes, but can one blame them for thinking the way they do? However, historians have no such excuse.

Dost Mittar,

The mistake we make is assuming that Jinnah was born politically in 1937.

I am glad you mentioned the `Muslim League` phase of Jinnah. Your argument makes much sense and I accept it. Jinnah`s realism did mirror the realism of that leader of men and a brilliant politician Patel ... and they were indeed much like each other in background and in their political views in that era. However may I say that in the pre-1937 era, Jinnah was as idealistic, humanistic and progressive as Nehru if not more. I say this having read the man`s speeches in the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan ... and they make a terrific reading. It was Jinnah`s age... he was Nehru`s elder by 12 years I think... when Nehru reached that age even his idealism was waning.

With that said, I think Hindus have been unkind to Jinnah and Muslims have been unkind to Patel in their estimate of these two great men.

-Manto

SR,

If you protest, so do I in your usage of Jinnah`s and Patel`s name in the same line as savarkar`s... I suppose if you were to read more especially of Jinnah`s contribution in the Pre-Pakistan Movement you would change your mind.

Dear friend

Have you read Jinnah`s speech in defence of Bhagat Singh? He was the only leader to so forcefuly defend Bhagat Singh and that too in the very Assembly Bhagat Singh had thrown the bomb in ... There are many speeches of this sort he made... though I agree that he wanted to work with the British to come to some sort of an arrangement with respect to the Independence instead of taking to the streets. I suppose this was his style.

-Manto

``Yes and no one can deny that. Here, the credit largely, if not single handedly, should go to Pundit Nehru who took the bull by the horns.``(SR)

yes but let`s not forget -- who made it a reality -- not Nehru -- it was that (``noble``:-) Patel -- Patel was the ENFORCER -- the great Sanitizer Patel single-handedly disinfected India of the Pricey Princely Parasites...

trinity #125 ``Why are these Pakis still debating about Constitution, Partition, Lahore Declaration, Two nation Theory?``
I see the last 17 posts being exclusively among Indian chowkies. So, you are hallucinating about Pakis. Contact your fellow hindutva Jay for some anti-hallucinogenic medicine.

Stuka
#124 was also addressed to you.

w.r.t. 122,
Are you not bordering on paranoia? Earlier you made grandiose claims of speaking on behalf of a complete generation. Now putting Gandhi and Pol pot in same group! Would you please be kind enough to compare the policies & actions of two and enlighten us on where you are getting these brain waves?

stuka Re: … clarify some confusion …

[“… JP was a… socialist. So was Nehru. Gandhi… his visions… suspiciously… Maoist. Gandhi`s economic vision shares a lot with Pol Pot`s… though without the violence. …

does not match...

Bharat… achieved… success not because of the socialist model, but in spite of it…”]

I should have elaborated further to tie up that loose end. Sorry about the confusion.

In the previous post I was touching upon two parallel themes without necessarily clarifying myself.

On the one hand I was talking about the purely political, social, cultural and ethical. And on the other hand I was also, in parallel, touching upon economics. Yes, we can argue that economics and culture-social-political cannot be separated, but it is customary to do independent analysis of any integrated system’s sub-components for the purpose of understanding complex issues. So please allow me this schism.

What I admire about Gandhi, JP and Nehru is their humanitarianism, their tolerance and their selfless sacrifices (his detractors may question Nehru’s selflessness but not that of the first two) and not necessarily their economic solutions. We must have peace before we can ever strive for prosperity. It was in that context only that I declared my preference for these leaders as opposed to Patel, Jinnah and Savarker.

I did hint upon the “ideological blind spot” of Nehru in the context of his economic policy. Maybe I should have added a similar comment about the other two also. But my mind was on the ethical and the moral. Like I said, no one is perfect. Gandhi’s critics redicule his toilet sweeping obsession, his daily soap water enema and his sleeping naked with the girls to test his bharamcharia, but they miss the big picture of his saintly vision of peace, harmony and tolerance. (I myself also intend one day to write a little iconoclastic criticism of Gandhi ji’s quirky personality.) To say that because his spinning wheel utopian economic model was unworkable in the 20th century is all well and good, but that does not take away from his greatness as the moral leader of over half a billion people at the time.

No matter what the similarities in their nutty ‘voodoo economics’ I strongly protest against even Gandhi ji’s name being mentioned in the same sentence as the cursed monsters like Mao and Pol Pot.

Hope this explains what I meant.

…SR

Stuka:
I am afraid you have misunderstood my comments. Some of it is unavoidable due to rapidity and intensity with which we exchange thoughts. Thanks to the computer technology!
I will take up comments in sequence.

#118: You mistook my ``for`` for ``of.`` What I meant was that Hindutva-BJP will cite you as an example of a Indian muslim as an agent of Pakistan.

#120: I quoted the Deccan News item to illustrate the statements that I made in response to your #107: ``Voting rights subsequent to Partition are irrelevant.``

Summary: The truth is that Indian Muslims have taken for granted the super status that they enjoy in India. Any other country would certainly have disenfranchised muslims if not expelled them following what happened in India in 1947. They particularly evince such solidarity with Pakistan in all fields except - hopefully in wars - that a neutral Hindu would have hard time distinguishing them from Pakistani agents. This is really true for the North Indian Muslims and definitely true for Punjabi Muslims. And really that is where the crucial importance of Nehru and Gandhi ji lies. Jinnah first and Sardar next, in petulance agreed to partition; for them the oneness of South Asians became clouded by the the political frustration and personal ambition. Gandhi ji was a Mahatma he never agreed to partition but Nehru was a practical politician and did not want to lose the opportunity to contribute in the historic occasion for which he had worked all life, namely, to establish the culture and decency of Indians in the World. So he compromised to develop one part of India first. He hoped that future will bring the two countries gradually closer to even reunion.

THE ONLY HONEST POSITION FOR A JUST PUNJABI - IRRESPECTIVE OF HINDU OR MUSLIM IS TO ADOPT SR`S POSITION.

No wonder you do not understand his postions.

Sorry for being appearing harsh but I did not want to hurt you. Nevertheless, we have to SEE THE TRUTH before we can modify our stances to correct the tragic and wrong situation of the partition.

#23 by Indian on August 17, 2003
Why are these Pakis still debating about Constitution, Partition, Lahore Declaration, Two nation Theory? We Indians should be thankful to Mr. Jinnah. He indeed was visionary statesman. He knew exactly what he was doing. He took out cancerous tumor from Ind ia.

---

Dear Indian,

You are right hatred of any form that is used to discriminate against people is like cancer. And in India the new mutation is called ``hindutava``. How do we get rid of that!

A Fellow Indian

Friend #103

Your apologies.are accepted.

Fact that people are misusing ``dharnas`` is not a fault attributable to Gandhi. Strikes and Dharnas were frequent even before arrival of Gandhi. Strikes happened after Bengal`s partition and Gandhi had no role to play. Strikes happened in US, Europs and other parts of world quite frequently in 18th, 19th and early 20th century with no contribution of Gandhi. Gandhi was able to mobilize people`s power in a constructive way. He never taught that a common man should be inconvenienced. His protest was against an unrepresentative government.

There were four main lines of thought during freedom struggle
1. Cooperate with British government and grow within British empire.
2. Cooperate with British government, and try to convince it to give more representation.
3. Do not cooperate with non-representative British government, rather oppose till it gives in.
4. Actively oppose British government - through any means, till it gives in.
Jinnah, Raja ji etc were of second line of thought. Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, Khan Abdul Gafar Khan followed third line. Bhagat Singh, Bose and Savarkar
followed fourth.
Do you have any example - before Indian independence where a country gained its freedom by first 3 means -( you may say Canada - but in that case both parties were of same decent, actual natives were already made non-consequential). An active violent act was only way for a country to gain freedom. Gandhi pioneered a new path - of getting action from unwilling representative governments by non-violent methods.
I bet you will not be able to show any examples before 1948 where people could get freedom by first two means.

To re-iterate, lawlessness in strikes were a common feature even before Gandhi. Gandhi was able to use that concept constructively. After Gandhi, very few leaders have been able to use that concept properly. I am able to name only Jayprakash Narayan and M L King.
It is wrong for you to blame Gandhi if some people are using concepts of non-cooperation in improper way.
Regards