Freedom at Midnight ~ Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre ~ 12/03
Marjorie
August 14, 2003 - 09:21 pm












The Events and characters leading up to India's becoming Independent of Great Britain and the events afterwards.

As all else about India this story is colorful and peopled with strong willed and forceful men and women. It is also the story of the birth of a new nation out of an old, old, country and culture. A country with thousands of stories of thousands of lives, many which will never be known but were part of the history of India.

Discussion Schedule
Week 1: Chapters 1-5
Week 2: Chapters 6-10
Week 3: Chapters 10-15
Week 4: Chapters 16 through the Epilogue





Discussion Leader: Tiger Tom


B&N Bookstore | Books Main Page | Suggest a Book for Discussion



We sometimes excerpt quotes from discussions to display on pages on SeniorNet's site or in print documents. If you do NOT wish your words quoted, please email books@seniornet.org



TigerTom
August 15, 2003 - 06:32 am
Welcome,

Welcome to all of you who want to join our discussion.

This book covers a good deal of time, territory, and the main characters in the transition from British rule to Independence and of the division of the Indian Subcontinent in to two sepearte countries based on Religion, India and Pakistan.

It was not an easy or bloodless division nor one wanted by everyone but one man, Jinnah.

You may be familiar with two of the main Characters in this drama: Ghandi and Mountbatten. There are others who play an important part in the story.

If you can, check the book out of your local Library if it has a copy or, go to Barnes and Noble and buy a copy, I think you will find that it is a keeper, and join our discussion.

Tiger Tom

Jonathan
August 15, 2003 - 10:30 am
Tiger Tom

What a great surprise to find this book proposed for discussion. Not long ago I thought I must read it a second time. Now I definitely will, and join you in the discussion.

Jonathan

Lou2
August 15, 2003 - 10:42 am
Interesting this title appeared here today... CNN just said, India gained it's independence for Britian in 1947, on this day!!! Talk about timing!!

Lou

TigerTom
August 15, 2003 - 11:45 am
Jonathan, Lou2,

Jonathan, welcome to the discussion when it starts.

Lou2, hope you will join in it too.

Tiger Tom

Ella Gibbons
August 15, 2003 - 05:58 pm
I'll be with you TIGER! I read a few pages of the book, just enough to whet my appetitite for more and I'll be here to read and discuss and learn!

What a good selection of books we have for the winter term.

TigerTom
August 15, 2003 - 06:36 pm
Ella,

Welcome aboard. Looking forward to this one and Ghandi to follow.

Tiger Tom

Harold Arnold
August 18, 2003 - 07:16 am
I plan to be with you Tiger. I am, however, having a bit of trouble getting the book that is not available from my rural library and is out of stock at B&N. Apparently B&N still expects to get it from their publisher per the following quoted reply to my inquiry letter:
Despite our efforts, we are unable to ship your order in the expected timeframe due to a delay with the publisher. Please accept our apology for this delay. We hope to receive the merchandise shortly, and we will ship it to you immediately thereafter. We will send you an e-mail notification when the merchandise actually has been shipped.


The book should be available at used book stores and I will check out this source.

TigerTom
August 18, 2003 - 07:37 am
Harold,

Not to worry, lost of time until November.

Hopefully you will find a copy somewhere.

Tiger tom

Lou2
August 25, 2003 - 09:21 am
Could hardly believe our small rural library had this book!!! But I'm as glad as surprised. I'm also amazed at how easy it is to read... my only concern is being able to finish, given library policies on renewing. I've been hestiant to commit to this discussion for fear I won't be able to find my own copy or be able to finish the library's copy, but this morning I decided to charge on... read what I can and enjoy the discussion even if I don't get through the book completely. I'm just in the first fourth and I've learned so much. By November the publisher will wonder what in the world happened that generated so much interest in this book!@!

Lou

Ginny
August 25, 2003 - 03:36 pm
Me, too! Me, too, Lou! I'm definitely in, this discussion is not a prequel but is really necessary to fully appreciate Gandhi's autobiography, which we will read in December. When you understand all the forces and the tremendous sheer numbers at work, then you really can be blown away by what Gandhi accomplished, and why he did it, when you have the framework.

I'm very much looking forward to reading this with Tom who was attached to the Embassy in India and Pakistan for 7 years: it's not often you encounter somebody with his background and experience, and I'm very excited to have this experience for all of us, we'll all learn so much, (possibly from each other: I do hope so), and I look forward to this, very much.

I'm taking a course, myself, in India, actually, starting in September where I used to teach in their Learning in Retirement program. It's taught by 4 PhD's, one of whom is Indian and another Indian and I hope to hear some insights, because there are a LOT of questions I have, especially on General Dyer, and his infamous massacre of Punjab (if you saw the movie Gandhi you know which one I mean)....one thing I do know: I envy those of you who understand history: there are simply SO MANY VOICES!! I never know whose is the right one, have no idea, in the face of a million opposing eye witness accounts you can ever choose, and so, am so glad to see so many people here, that hopefully means more opinions: won't we have an EXPERIENCE!!

ginny

TigerTom
August 25, 2003 - 07:22 pm
Ginny,

I must read the book Ghandi. This Book Freedom at Midnight certainly doesn't paint Ghandi as a plaster saint. It shows some of his warts. Which, to my mind, makes him much more interesting.

Tiger Tom

Persian
August 26, 2003 - 03:42 am
In anticipation of this discussion, I recently unpacked my books on India and the Northwest Frontier, and have enjoyed re-reading two texts, which will most certainly complement FREEDOM AT MIDNIGHT.

The first is M.M. Kaye's THE FAR PAVILIONS, a richly descriptive publication, written by the wife of a Guides Officer, who offers great detail in the history of the British Raj and the various tribal intrigues and ensuing battles at the time.

The second is Eknath Easwaran's A MAN TO MATCH HIS MOUNTAINS: Badshah Khan, Nonviolent Soldier of Islam, which depicts the deep friendship, affection and respect between the dimunitive Ghandi and a huge Pathan tribal leader (Badshah Khan), whose combined total dedication to peace was the foundation of their remarkable relationship. Here is only one of the intriguing comments from the book which caught my attention:

"When Mahatma Gandhi roused millions in peaceful civil disobedience to British rule, an unknown figure in the remotest corner of India raised history's first nonviolent "army": 100,000 men from the most violent people in the world, the Pathans of the Khyber Pass. Ghandi's life and his dedication touched many people, none more unusual than Badshah Khan and his tribesmen."

TigerTom
August 26, 2003 - 06:44 am
Persian,

Hope you join the Discussion.

Khan is in the book.

Tiger Tom

Harold Arnold
August 29, 2003 - 02:11 pm
I just received an E-mail from B&N saying my "Freedpm AT Midnight" order finally had been shipped. I was a bit afraid it was not gong to be available after three weeks of waiting after finding it was out of stokd.

TigerTom
August 29, 2003 - 08:37 pm
Harold,

Great, glad that you can join in the discussion.

Tiger Tom

TigerTom
August 29, 2003 - 08:39 pm
Harold,

One more thing. I wonder if this edition is new and if it has been updated from the first edition.

Tiger Tom

Harold Arnold
August 30, 2003 - 07:04 am
TigerTom. I will answer your question concerning the edition next week when I receive it. For now I will say that I don't think it is a new edition. The delay probably was simply being out of stock on an old title and the need to get new stock from the Publisher. It is a paperback that I think is the same edition as the previous stock, but I will let you know for sure next week.

kiwi lady
September 2, 2003 - 12:42 pm
Tom how much was the paper back? I will check with out bookshops here and compare prices however I don't think we will have it here if its out of print. I will have to see if they still have the book next month at B&N. I will try our second hand bookshops too sometimes they surprise me! I think it would be a good book to read before Ghandi.

Carolyn

TigerTom
September 2, 2003 - 06:41 pm
Kiwi,

Have no idea of the cost of the Paperback.

The copy I have was bought when the book first came out although it is not the Original book I had. Lent that to someone (actually lent the guy two books) and of course, I never saw them or him again. My first copy was a book store edition and the second a book club edition. The difference and you probably know is that the Book Store edition had better paper stock and the pages were trimmed the book club edition had a lower grade paper stock and the pages were not trimmed.

Tiger Tom

kiwi lady
September 2, 2003 - 06:59 pm
Tom I found the book at B&N and put it on my wish list-2 weeks and they will tell me when its in. It will cost me about $34 NZ for paperback version plus postage so I will be paying about $47 NZ for it. The postage and exchange rates make buying books we can't get here very expensive so they are a luxury but I feel I cannot miss out on this one with Ghandi to follow. In the meantime I will check with Whitcoulls here to see if I can save any more money.

TigerTom
September 3, 2003 - 06:45 am
Kiwi Lady,

Sorry to hear that things costs so much for you. surprised that B&N have not opened an oulet in NZ and/or Australia.

Tiger Tom

Lou2
September 16, 2003 - 04:58 am
Finished this morning!!! What a great read! Now, just have to hope the notes are good enough for the discussion!!

Lou

TigerTom
September 16, 2003 - 07:25 am
Lou2,

I hope that you remember the discussion as it doesn't roll around until December. Holidays could get in the way.

Keep those notes in a handy place.

Tiger Tom

kiwi lady
September 17, 2003 - 03:22 pm
Yesterday I got a parcel from a bookie pal and in it was two books Gandhi and Freedom at Midnight so I am all set for our exciting and educational November and December. I hope to see the movie Gandhi too before the discussion starts. I will enquire from our video outlet if they have it. I have not actually seen it on the shelves.

Carolyn

Éloïse De Pelteau
October 2, 2003 - 09:09 am
Hi! Carolyn I got Freedom at Midnight too yesterday from our local Library and even if it is in French, it won't prevent me from posting in English. It is called Cette Nuit La Liberté.

Tom, Reading the Prologue, the Annex and Bibliography I believe that this book was written in French then translated in English. Am I right?

Is there a film too on Freedom at Midnight? Was it made in America?

I believe I will have read it by the time December rolls in. At least I plan to.

Eloïse

TigerTom
October 3, 2003 - 07:21 am
Eloise,

Haven't the foggiest.

Tiger Tom

Harold Arnold
November 4, 2003 - 09:44 pm
Eloise from what I have read in the book and on the Web, one of the authors is French and the other American. They have collaborated in the writing of a number of other popular titles including one I particularly remember, “Is Paris Burning?” I have seen nothing on the Web that would indicate the original 1975 edition was in French although I did not look deep enough to determine if their was perhaps a simultaneous French release. Click Here for information on Dominique Lapierre and his collaboration with the American Larry Collins.

Éloïse De Pelteau
November 18, 2003 - 11:33 am
Thank you Harold for the link. I read it and I can't determine from this if he writes in English or French, but I will read at least part of the book before Dec. fist.

Gandhi is not a remarkable writer as hs autobiography indicates, but it is interesting to know the man behind the scene.

I am looking forward to this discussion.

Eloïse

Ella Gibbons
November 22, 2003 - 02:55 pm
No one will be disappointed in reading this book or in discussing it. It reads as if it is fiction, but decidedly not. The chapter "A Race Destined to Govern and Subdue" - which the English believed themselves to be, is absolutely right out of a movie! Just listen to this:

"The parties and receptions in imperial India's principal cities - Bombay, CAlcutta, Lahore, Delhi, Simla - were lavish affairs. Everyone with any standing had a ballroom and a drawing room at least 80 feel long, and in those days, there were none of those horrible buffets where people go to a table with a plate and stand around eating with whomsoever they choose. The average private dinner was for 35 or 40 with a servant for each guest.

There were the little traditions. Two jokes greeted every visitor: 'Everything in India smells except the roses' and 'The government of India is a despotism of dispatch boxes made bearable by the regular loss of their keys.' One never gave in to the climate. No right-thinking Englishman would be found without a coat and tie even in the most torrid weather. Mad dogs and Englishmen went out in the noonday sun."


Noel Coward wrote a little ditty about "Mad Dogs and Englishman" - I'm going to try to find it.

Ella Gibbons
November 22, 2003 - 03:02 pm
Although Noel Coward wrote about 500 songs, this remained the favorite and was requested over and over again by the English in the 1930's or thereabouts:

In tropical climes there are certain times of day  
When all the citizens retire to tear their clothes off and perspire.  
It's one of the rules that the greatest fools obey,  
Because the sun is much too sultry  
And one must avoid its ultry-violet ray.  
The natives grieve when the white men leave their huts,  
Because they're obviously, definitely nuts! 



Mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun, The Japanese don´t care to, the Chinese wouldn´t dare to, Hindus and Argentines sleep firmly from twelve to one But Englishmen detest-a siesta. In the Philippines they have lovely screens to protect you from the glare. In the Malay States, there are hats like plates which the Britishers won't wear. At twelve noon the natives swoon and no further work is done, But mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun.


It's such a surprise for the Eastern eyes to see, that though the English are effete, they're quite impervious to heat, When the white man rides every native hides in glee, Because the simple creatures hope he will impale his solar topee on a tree. It seems such a shame when the English claim the earth, They give rise to such hilarity and mirth. Ha ha ha ha hoo hoo hoo hoo hee hee hee hee ......


Mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun. The toughest Burmese bandit can never understand it. In Rangoon the heat of noon is just what the natives shun, They put their Scotch or Rye down, and lie down. In a jungle town where the sun beats down to the rage of man and beast The English garb of the English sahib merely gets a bit more creased. In Bangkok at twelve o'clock they foam at the mouth and run, But mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun.


Mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun. The smallest Malay rabbit deplores this foolish habit. In Hong Kong they strike a gong and fire off a noonday gun, To reprimand each inmate who's in late. In the mangrove swamps where the python romps there is peace from twelve till two. Even caribous lie around and snooze, for there's nothing else to do. In Bengal to move at all is seldom ever done, But mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun.

JoanK
November 22, 2003 - 05:44 pm
I 'm looking forward to this discussion. Don't know if I'll have the book finished by December 1, I just started it.

ELOISE: The author bio in my edition says that one of the authors wrote in English and the other in French, and it was published simultaneously in the two languages. So presumably, half of your French edition is a translation, and the other half of my English edition is a translation. Do you think we can which is which?

Ella Gibbons
November 23, 2003 - 05:01 pm
JOAN, YOU DON'T YOU HAVE TO FINISH THE BOOK BEFORE THE DISCUSSION - NO, NO!

Tom hasn't put up the DISCUSSION SCHEDULE YET! BUT HE WILL - HE WILL DIVIDE THE BOOK INTO FOUR SECTIONS - and we will be just reading one section at a time.

I haven't read too far either, but it looks so interesting! We discussed Noel Coward's autobiography a couple of years ago and as soon as I read "Mad Dogs and Englishmen" I remembered his little song - Churchill, particularly, kept requesting it.

TigerTom
November 30, 2003 - 08:35 am
Good Morning,

Welcome to our Discussion.

I am, at the moment, battling a new Computer and a New version of Windows (Windows XP Home) Haven't quite got it tamed yet but am working on it. I am using my old computer to compose and send this.

One of the things that will come out of this discussion and this book is the question of how badly this whole situation was handled by the British and how it was complicated by the competing factions of the Indians. This "Freedom" began with a tragedy.

In the first chapters we will meet the main characters involved: Mountbatten, Gandhi, Jinnah and others and learn something of their backgrounds.

Tiger Tom

kiwi lady
November 30, 2003 - 11:01 am
Ha Tom - Join the club- I have been battling with a new PC and windows XP for a fortnight! My one touch keys don't work any more and I think my Guru I had to call in may have deleted some HP software by mistake. I am not worried about the keys not working as its not an essential but will find out why when someone gets time to have a good look at the programs in the hard drive!

Looking forward to freedom at midnight. Never did Indian History at school but lots of British History which was very one sided when it came to mentioning India. "The Black hole of Calcutta" sticks in my mind!

Carolyn

TigerTom
November 30, 2003 - 09:45 pm
Kiwi,

The "Black Hole" was actually a very small room where a large number of people were crowded in. Many died.

Tiger Tom

Éloïse De Pelteau
December 1, 2003 - 06:37 am
Joan, I have been reading the acknowledgments and it seems that great care was taken in making this work a complete collaboration and nothing is indicating to me, so far, what section Lapierre writes and what section Collins writes. Lapierre definitely writes his part in French I gather and Collins in English. At least I know that they are writing in their own language. They are thanking the translators profusely who were authors themselves. I have read only a few pages and I won't be looking for a translation as such, because I want to get into the story itself.

Elle, This book is great and I will try and keep up with all of you.

Eloïse

Lou2
December 1, 2003 - 07:56 am
Tom and All, Freedom certainly is a different "read" than Gandhi's auto-biography, isn't it?? I'm trying to finish a couple of biographies on Gandhi, so that I can feel better about the time when Gandhi's book finished and this one began. This morning I'm read into the 30's and am finding several of G's followers becoming "dis-enchanted" with him... there was a bomb thrown at a car he was thought to be in... Nehru has felt the snapping of the cords that bound him to G... Gandhi resigned from the Congress where there was a need to find a "new" method for resisting the English... Am anxious to finish setting the stage for Freedom... in my own mind.

Lou

Ann Alden
December 1, 2003 - 08:22 am
Tiger Tom, I found a wonderful link to Freedom at Midnight where the links to other freedom stories abound. So far, this morning, I have listened to Nehru speaking to the throngs when he was sworn in as Prime Minister of India. Also, some wonderful photos by Mathat?? Well, here's the link:

Freedom Page

Ann Alden
December 1, 2003 - 08:26 am
I am awaiting my book from the library and I probably won't comment much since I have reopened Religion Related Books-When Religion Becomes Evil on this first day of December. I will, at least, be reading along with everyone and reading the many posts. Like Ginny, I have become fascinated with India and her history!

Ginny
December 1, 2003 - 08:32 am
Wonderful link, Ann, thank you so much@@ Yes I too have to make a trek to the Library as my own copy is hopelessly delayed apparently in the mail, I have thus far given two of them away and I can see why they are so hard to come by but never fear, I would not miss this one for a million dollars!

ginny

TigerTom
December 1, 2003 - 09:04 am
Anne,

Thanks for the link. It will keep me occupied for some time.

I believe that after the Gandhi discussion some of you might find a Ghandi in this book who is a bit different and you might find a few things that might suprise you about him.

However, we must meet the main Characters: Lord Mountbatten, his assignment and what his feelings were about taking the Assignment.

Tiger Tom

JoanK
December 1, 2003 - 10:03 am
Thanks for that great post, Anne.

The beginning of the book is very much the story told from Lord Mountbatten's point of view. This is good, in that it gives us a view different from that in Gandhi's autobiography, but it may also be somewhat one sided.

When a tragedy occurs, we naturally want to find someone to blame. There may be a subtext in whatever we read of "Who's fault was it?" I hope we can avoid simplistic finger pointing. Events are rarely that simple. There seem to have been a lot going on that pushed events toward partition and the tragedy that followed.

Harold Arnold
December 1, 2003 - 12:06 pm
Hello Tiger Tom and all; I too have a new Dell that has just turned 1-month old. It has been no real problem with the set-up and the installation of my application programs and DOC, XLS, HTM, JPG, and etc work files. I am, however still learning and getting use to it and trying to decide if I want to abandon my long term ISP, texasnet for earthlink. At this point the only advantage indicated by earthlink is their spam E-mail filter that seems much better than Texasnet. At any rate I have yet to receive a single scam mail through earthlink.

I have read the first 200 pages of the book and found it most interesting. Though I am quite ignorant of pre WW II India history, the reading brought back memories of the characters such as Gandi, Mountbatten and Wavell from WW II news reports.

As a teenager during the War I don’t think I really understood Gandhi and the purpose behind his hunger strikes and passive resistance to British rule. I understood Wavell and Mountbatten much better. Wavell as the first allied general to experience battlefield success when in the fall of 1941 his command stopped an Italian offensive into Egypt and in December 1941 routed the Italian army with a dash through Libya almost to the Tunisian boarder. Of course this is what sparked Hitler to send the German Africa Corp that soon reversed the situation.

During the War we in America also got much news about Mountbatten beginning in May 1941 when the destroyer he commended, HMS Kelly, was sunk in the Mediterranean. This story became a Hollywood movie that I remember very well.

Mountbatten remained a favorite subject of American News throughout the War and afterwards during his India Independence assignment . Later after his retirement Life Magazine published his life Memoirs. From my recollection of his past career and particularly from this week’s assigned reading I judge him a very well organized and competent administration in both military and civil matters. He seems to be to have been capable of assimilating the necessary factual information, analyzing the situation, and coming to a quick conclusion. This certainly appears to have been the case in his quick decision that the division of India was necessary. Hopefully we will now have further debate on this decision which to me is the most crucial decision he made during this week’s assignment and perhaps the most crucial decision of the entire Independence assignment.

JoanK
December 1, 2003 - 01:20 pm
is discussed at length. To me, the discussion starts in the middle. Mountbatten had to take as a given the hostility that was breaking out everywhere: people who had lived together peacefully for years are suddenly massacring each other. Can we take it back a little. Why did this hostility become so bad and so open at this time? Was it always this bad, and the fact that the British were going to leave meant the people were no longer afraid of them? Did it affect the leaders too? We know that Gandhi was trying to stop it. What of other leaders? Was someone fanning it? Later, Jinnah (a Moslem leader) will be blamed for partition. What is he doing at this point? What are his followers doing? Is he leading, or following? The book focusses on Mountbatten, but Mountbatten isn't the story. India is.

kiwi lady
December 1, 2003 - 01:41 pm
It is fact that you can suppress a people for so long and then the worm will turn. The worm had begun to turn long before the British decided to give India their independance and to partition India making Pakistan a Muslim State. Kashmir was the big stumbling block and is still the same today. When you think about it, how did so few control so many for so long?

TigerTom
December 1, 2003 - 02:56 pm
Partition,

We will come to the Partition in the middle of the Book.

It is one of the ironies that while under the British rule, Muslims and Hindu's could tolerate one another and even work together for certain goals and in the military serve under commanders who were of a different Religion and become very close to them.

I have witnessed the ability of the people on the Sub-continent to suddenly start killing one another over some kind of Religious matter. It could and did become very cruel and deliberate. No one was spared not even young children. Then, after the Army and Police regained control the people calmly went back to living next to one another. Also, a good deal of old scores were settled during that time as no one would know how a person died or who it was that killed that person.

Gandi, knew his people and knew what would happen once the partition was made and the British no longer ruled India. He was one who was not surprised by the size or the ferocity of the killing on both sides. He saw it coming and was willing to do anything to stop it but in the end was powerless to do so.

Tiger Tom

TigerTom
December 1, 2003 - 03:03 pm
JoanK,

Whose Fault was it?

A lot of things came together: Jinnah insisting on a Pakistan was probably the basis for the drive to partition India.

Mounbatten was pressed for time. He had given a date when power would be handed over to the Indians.

All of this was compounded by Mountbatten insistence that the man who would draw the Partition lines on the map would have absolutely no knowledge on India at all or of the Indian people. This was man was figuratively blindfolded. He did the best he could but ended up creating the one problem that still haunts the Sub-Continet today, Kashmir.

Tiger Tom

TigerTom
December 1, 2003 - 03:06 pm
Mountbattens,

The Mountbattens were an interesting couple. Both intelligent and hard charging.

Lady Mountbatten, although in the background, helped a good deal during this time by doing and organizing and being around when needed.

Tiger Tom

Harold Arnold
December 1, 2003 - 04:59 pm
Tiger Tom, I got the idea after reading this weeks assignment that included Chapter 5 that Mountbatten effectively made the decision that partition was the only practical solution early-on in April 1947 (about pages 131 –132). This was after individual one-on-one discussions between Mountbatten and Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, and Jinnah. On page 132 the authors discuss the question, did Mountbatten make the partition decision too soon? In my opinion this is certainly a fair question to ask with there being ample room for different people to conclude differently.

In defense of Mountbatten’s decision only Gandhi was firmly adamant against partition. The other Congress Party leaders Nehru and Patel seemed inclined to compromise, particularly the politician Patel, while the leader of the Moslem League, Jinnah was adamant against the acceptance of a unified India. Also the departing Viceroy, General Wavell had told Mountbatten that he considered the problem an insoluble one and the English Government under Clement Atlee had instructed Mountbatten to conclude the process quickly. This was absolutely necessary in the Government’s view because of the dour post war economic condition of the U.K. Under these conditions following the path of least resistance Mountbattan seems to have made the quick decision favoring partition. Thereafter the negotiations no longer concern question of one or two new nations, but shifted to questions of how the sub continent would be divided between the two.

I want to say at Thanksgiving, my brother’s family and I made plans to reschedule a previously canceled trip to New Mexico to include the Xmas, New Years period. If these plans hold, I will break away Dec 22nd. I hope to be an active participant until that departure date.

kiwi lady
December 1, 2003 - 05:02 pm
It is ironical Tom that we see parallels today. Ruled with an iron fist the Balkans had peace for about 45yrs. (under Tito) The iron curtain falls and the ethnic fighting begins.

I think unfortunately we will see the same in Iraq when the secular Iraqis and the two Muslim sects will be at each others throats. It has started already. Just an observation!

Ella Gibbons
December 1, 2003 - 07:01 pm
I've read past our first assignment, TOM, and I'm absolutely fascinated by all the history in this book; much of which I have been ignorant of - I was a teenager in WWII and did not have my mind on the various fronts of the war. For instance, I didn't know all of this about Mountbatten - that he was Supreme Commander of Southeast Asia, second only to General Eisenhower! That he had dealt with Ho Chi Minh (golly, remember him in Viet Nam later!!), Indonesia, Burma, Malaya, Singapore.

That part of the world is entirely foreign to me. The European theatre and the Pacific theatre of WWII is much more familiar because, no doubt, that is the area where most Americans were during the war or so I think????

This Mountbatten is such a handsome man, tall, well-built and he exuded confidence so we are told. He looks so British! And clothed, hahaha! And clothed so handsomely in uniform, and, although I don't care for the pomp and circumstance of the British with their royal crowns and ribbons, etc. he and his wife, Edwina, seem such a wonderful, loving couple, so suited to each other. That picture of them on page 144 with Nehru laughing is just priceless.

The British passport - our book tells us it could guarantee passage to almost a quarter of the earth's surface before WWII and they had laid claim to India for THREE CENTURIES!!! A LONG, LONG TIME!

Did they mistreat the Indians? They used them, of course, as servants - were they paid? Did the people of India resent them - with their polo (which had been an Indian game), their cricket, their teas, their garden parties, etc? I would think so!

Why did it take three centuries for the people to wake up and desire independence? What happened to make it a possible reality?

We talked briefly in the Gandhi discussion about the necessity of Britain letting her empire dissolve after WWII, it being impossible for them to continue to afford governing them.

TOM, I believe you said, and possibly the book will say, that independence would have come about without Gandhi's passive resistance.

Did Gandhi make it worse or better for the India people?

What surprised me right at the very beginning of the book is that Mountbatten entirely endorsed the idea that the time had come for Britain to leave India!

He didn't need a Gandhi to persuade him? How many others "in the know" so to speak, thought that? We know Churchill didn't or at least wouldn't admit to it!

What would be an interesting speculation is which religion do you favor - the Hindu or the Moslem? If you had no religion whatsoever, and knew of the two predominant in India, which would you choose? Does either one make more sense to you?

And being Americans it is hard to understand why they cannot live together, why they could not share the same wells, or their children go to the same schools, they couldn't even agree on music!

TOM, before we go much further (as you see, I can go on and on here), what years did you spend in India? Was it the worst embassy you were ever in and by that, I suppose I mean, the people that you encountered in the country?

TigerTom
December 1, 2003 - 07:01 pm
Kiwi,

You are right in boht cases.

It seems that if someone is calling the shots people will at least try to live in harmony but when left rudderless they revert to their are old hatreds.

Tiger Tom

TigerTom
December 1, 2003 - 07:04 pm
Harold,

That was one of the problems the Mountbatten faced: he was pressed for time. When he was given the assignment he was told to conclude it as quickly as possible. He set a date and announced it and was stuck with it. Events overtook that date and Mountbatten made the best of a bad situation.

Of course, the British were leaving so they didn't have to take care of the tragedy nor clean up afterwards.

Tiger Tom

kiwi lady
December 1, 2003 - 07:28 pm
Independance would have come about without Gandhi but I believe that it would have come about by bloodshed. When you read the books about the Raj the seeds were already sown for a revolution against the British some time before the British came to the realisation they must get out. The British did treat the Indians badly. They treated them as lesser mortals only to be tolerated as servants. The upper crust began to lose their their servants in the UK - after the first world war many in domestic service realised there was more to life than serving the aristocracy to offer in this new world. Many never went back into domestic service after the Great War. They could live in the style to which they were accustomed in India. There was a strict class system in the Raj.

Carolyn

Ella Gibbons
December 1, 2003 - 07:37 pm
Carolyn, independence with or without Gandhi came about in terrible bloodshed as we will see further in the book. Gandhi did not prevent bloodshed - in fact, I read somewhere that non-violence begets violence. I can understand that.

Harold Arnold
December 1, 2003 - 09:02 pm
I am preplexed at the Indian propensity for violence. Even intra-religous violence between hindus seems common. Was it not fellow hindus who killed Gandhi, and later Prime Ministers Indira Gandhi and her son Rajiv Gandhi. Their political assasination record is worse than in the U.S. But maybe one or more of these assassins were Sikhs?

Tom, regarding Mrs Gandhi, I have yet to hear the answer to Joan Baez's musical question, "How did she get that name?"

I understand she was Nehru's daughter and not related to the Mahatma? Was it a married name and if so was the husband related to him?

Malryn (Mal)
December 1, 2003 - 09:23 pm
"When Indira Gandhi was 17 her mother died of cancer. Devastated by her loss, Gandhi began five years of studying in Europe and India seemingly without direction. Although Gandhi had vowed to remain single, she decided to marry Feroze Gandhi, a family friend. He was a Parsee, a member of a small cultural group that had fled from Persia centuries earlier to escape Muslim persecution. Since the Nehrus were of the Brahmin or priestly class of India, Gandhi was criticized for her choice of a husband not only by her father but also from the public. Despite these protests the couple were married in 1942."

Source:

Indira Gandhi

kiwi lady
December 1, 2003 - 09:33 pm
From what I have read over the years there is a lot of corruption in the election of Indian politicians the story of Indira Gandhi does not surprise me. It surprises me how she chose to ignore the courts decision which then causes me to wonder if indeed the court was corrupt.

Carolyn

kiwi lady
December 1, 2003 - 09:36 pm
Ella I am aware of the infighting in India between the different religions. I believe however that the British would have been slaughtered unless they had given India their independance when they did. It's hard for me to understand the slaughter that goes on in India even today. Also the killing of daughters in law in order to obtain a second dowry when the son marries again. This practice still goes on in remote country areas. Its chills my blood and I will never understand the mindset of those who committ these murders.

Ginny
December 2, 2003 - 05:07 am
Going out today to the library to get the book again but just wanted to mention two answers to two of the questions asked here from my last class in India.

The question was asked one of the 5 professors in the class why on earth these people are so violent, seems that they just all run around killing each other at the drop of the hat and he said extremists are extremists in any part of the world, but India has a billion people, if only a very small part of the country were extremist fanatics, that's still a couple of million people, so it seems the whole, but it's NOT, it's a faction, just like we have elsewhere in the world. He said on the whole they are just as peaceloving as we are.

Harold asks a very important question also, could we deal with another aspect of Mountbatten's hasty decision (which will be debated for centuries)? And that is that he wanted the ....what's the title? Tom and Harold will know? He wanted, badly, to assume the title of Admiral or Vice Admiral of the Ocean Seas which his own father had had to give up in WWII because of his German background.

The Mountbattens were German, their real name was Battenburg, and you know of course George,....was it George VI's own problems in that area, he was outwardly accused of being German and said he was sick of it, that's where the house of Windsor got ITS name and...I think George was actually Saxe Gotha, wasn't he? Or Coburg? Anyway they were all related, and he was tired of being portrayed as Pro German. And it's very rarely written but his wife, Queen Mary, mother to Edward VIII, the Duke of Windsor, and Albert, Queen Elizabeth's father, spoke German almost exculsively, almost no English, of course that changed, too.

So of course Mountbatten's father was relieved of his command, and Mountbatten, like other sons of famous dynasties, desired to redeem that (after all, he WAS the King's cousin) for the family. THAT was his greatest personal goal, charming as he was? Charming, even his detractors point to his great charm, and truly in several books, especially after the death of Gandhi he proved himself a real man and a good one, but how much did his own decision rest on his own simple and ambitious need to get out, to get it over with, to get back home and have that high spot?

Depending on who you talk to Mountbatten was either a hero or (sideways glance, don't quote me type of thing) in a hurry for personal gain.

A taxi driver in London a couple of months ago earnestly told me that it had to be done that quickly, and they knew there would be killing, and they thought the best thing to do was just to be quick about it, like all painful things, and get it over with.

and we see the result.

Tiger Tom mentions Jinnah, how much of this I wonder IS Jinnah's fault? A man who insists that the first democratic elections in the country be overthrown just so his own party can have 1/3 is not exactly a man who is interested in the principles of democracy.

But let's not tar these men with a superficial brush, but let's look deeper into their motivations and behavior, if we can.

Tom pointed out that Gandhi was the only one against partitioning, I think maybe they should have listened to him and not carved out TWO countries, East and West Pakistan, and the horrendous bloodbath which followed.

There are Indians today who will swear that NO Indian moved to Pakistan, and of course there's the Kashmir bit.

I liked what Joan K said, it's not about Mountbatten but depending on whose book you read it's going to take a slant in some direction.

I thought Carolyn raised an important point, I did not get beyond India in my studies of the British Empire, but despite the problems Britain had after WWII, and they were severe, especially economically, I'm not sure Britain dumped every one of her colonies and protectorates, and I don't think she would have dumped India had there not been a demand and foment, they would have sailed proudly on, reaping the revenues to the Crown. And we all know where the human rights foment came from, Gandhi.

A fascinating topic, so enjoying talking about it and hearing all the various perspectives.

ginny

TigerTom
December 2, 2003 - 08:08 am
Ginny,

The Title that Mountbatten coveted was "First Lord of the Admiralty" or some such title like that.

Oddly, the whole British Royal family were of German Background until Elizabeth (mother of present Queen) married into the family. She was of British blood.

Victoria populated a good deal of the Thrones in Europe and she was German to the core.

Britain, after WWII could not afford it's Empire so it decided to get rid of the largest and most costly part of it: India.

Britain put in far more than it got out of India. India was a drain on the British Government economically but (as usual) was great for British Business.

Tiger Tom

TigerTom
December 2, 2003 - 08:18 am
Ending British Rule,

The British would not have been slaughtered if they had refused to leave India. The Indians were still awed by the British aura of superiority.

Even when I was in on the Indian Sub-Continent the British were well liked and respected and there was much of the British legacy still around in India such as the Yearly Tattoo and the costumes the Military Bands wore.

Story told on the Sub-Continent (which probably is untrue) of a riot going on in Calcutta, a British Memshahib: was out shopping, she was walking down the street and the rioters opened up around her and let her pass and then closed again and continued killing one another. She was untouched and seemed to be unaware of what was going on around her.

A bit of Trivia: before partition all of the Taxi drivers in Calcutta were Muslim (most owned their own Cab) after partition all of the Taxi drivers were Sikh. The Sikh's simply murdered the Muslim Taxi Drivers and took their cabs as they knew that Calcutta would be in the Indian portion and that there would be no punishment for killing a Muslim there.

Tiger Tom

Ginny
December 2, 2003 - 08:20 am
Tom talk more about the Sikhs, this is the ONLY religion of India we never got to, something about ceremonial swords, tell us something about them, they sound quite fierce. What you say here is chilling but the stats of the partitioning are more so, I have some modern photos of English festivals and they clearly show British influence, will post them tomorrow.

ginny

Harold Arnold
December 2, 2003 - 09:30 am
English government titles are sometimes difficult for Americans to understand. As I understand it, the Cabinet Officer, ie, the member of the Parliament’s majority party who heads the Navy is titled The First Lord of the Admiralty. Winston Churchill as a Member of Parliament was given this post on Sept 3, 1939 when the PM Neville Chamberlain reorganized the government when war was declared. This is a political post analogous in the U.S. to the Secretary of Navy position.

In England the top naval Command held by a professional naval officer is “First Sea Lord.” This position is analogous in the U.S. to Chief of Naval Operations, ie Chief of staff of the Navy. It was the First Sea Lord Post that Mountbatten desired and which he achieved after the India assignment was over.

I would agree with Tom’s comment that “Victoria populated most of the thrones of Europe. It is quite true that most of her daughters were married off to German Royals including her eldest daughter who was the mother of Kiser Wilhelm of WW I Germany. But this does not mean that there was any degree of unity among the several family kingdoms. Each of these ruling lines first and foremost were looking after number one, which was their own particular bailiwick. Hence in England the WWI king George V (not VI Ginny) changed the family name to the English Windsor and First Sea Lord Battenberg anglicized his name with Mountbatten.

Harold Arnold
December 2, 2003 - 09:35 am
I am inclined to note the departing Wavell’s comments to Mountbatten that the mission was an impossible one. Wavell envisioned a situation requiring the planned evacuation of English from India, Women & Children first followed by other civilians and last the military. After that all was up to the Indians.

I think that with all the bloodshed that developed it turned out better than it might have been. If England had had spent the preceding 50 years devoting the required economic resources, and if more time had been available perhaps a unified India could have been possible. But this had not happened and considering the dour economic position of post war U.K. it simply lacked the economic resources and the time necessary to do things differently. Under these conditions in my judgment an independent unified India would have quickly disintegrated in civil war resulting in even greater bloodshed than what occurred.

Ginny
December 2, 2003 - 09:53 am
Absolutely right, Harold, on the GeorgeVI and George V, George VI was Queen Elizabeth's father, I think of him as Albert I guess...

Oh what an interesting point: As I understand it, the Cabinet Officer, ie, the member of the Parliament’s majority party who heads the Navy is titled The First Lord of the Admiralty. Winston Churchill as a Member of Parliament was given this post on Sept 3, 1939 when the PM Neville Chamberlain reorganized the government when war was declared. This is a political post analogous in the U.S. to the Secretary of Navy position. I think I'm going to stick to the Battenberg losing the Admiralty because of his German background, let's look further into it, have a pretty good source on that one. Let's look farther and see what we can see, you may be (and often are) totally right, I am going to look further, there's ALWAYS a "reason" why things are done and the stated reasons are not always the real ones, isn't this fun? (EVEN IF, as so often happens to me in history, I end up chasing a shadow, I sure was wrong on Nehru and Gandhi and Mountbatten there in Gandhi's last years, and THAT story is worth repeating when we get to it, it causes lots of misunderstandings!)

Super discussion, am enjoying it no end!

ginny

Ella Gibbons
December 2, 2003 - 10:38 am
In our paper this morning there is an article suggesting that a divided Iraq might be the only solution, as there will be bloodshed when they gain full independence.

Further, the author gives an example of splitting up a country that has worked well: Slovenia, Croatia and Macedonia, three of the six ethnic regions of Yugoslavia, were able to quickly excape from Belgrade's choking embrace and declare independence. They are all doing extremely well and are on the way to joining the European Union and NATO as separate, independent nations.

In contrast, Bosnia-Herzegovina, the region of the former Yugoslavia hardest hit by Serbian atrocities, have suffered greatly because of the American and European insistence that Bosnians, Serbs and Croats live together - and like it.

Food for thought on keeping ethnic groups together. Gandhi had it wrong and his plan for unity would not have worked. This author (G.A. Geyer) states that Americans cannot grasp the power of ethnic and religious passions in other parts of the world.

I am enjoying this discussion so much, thanks to all!

Ella Gibbons
December 2, 2003 - 10:39 am
TOM, I still would like to know what years you spent in India?

Ginny
December 2, 2003 - 03:02 pm
Well I got my book and ONLY for you would I even touch it it's the nastiest library book I ever saw, not kidding so well read it's falling apart you feel as if you need to wear gloves, (as we can see I personally prefer nice crisp clean new books) but they would not let me renew my book on Indian Festivals so I will quickly copy over the photos for our use later here, so by tomorrow this time I fully expect to be....gloved in Pauline and thru the first 5 chapters, again!

ginny

TigerTom
December 2, 2003 - 07:33 pm
Ella,

1962-1965, East Pakistan (Now Bangladesh)

1981-1983 Pakistan

1983-1986 India

Tiger Tom

Ella Gibbons
December 2, 2003 - 09:25 pm
Thanks, TOM! Heavens, you do know the area pretty well, you must tell us of some of your experiences - I know you told some of them in the Gandhi discussion and I wanted to say thanks for answering some of my questions there, particularly the medical situation for the embassy staff.

If I am reading page 39 (at the bottom) correctly, the cow became sacred in ancient India to save them for times of famine and it grew to be a habit!!! Is that what all of you understand? People are starving there and cows are roaming free? How then did they become sacred to the Hindus? Simply because they do not believe in killing animals to eat - they are God's creation and man should protect them!

What sinners we are in America - we eat beef at least 2 or 3 times a week!

Ginny and Harold, Mountbatten's lineage is all explained on pgs. 46-47 - didn't those royals lead idyllic lives? And the Duke of Windsow, later Edward VIII, was his best friend, his best man at his wedding. I wonder if after David abdicated the throne they remained best friends.

Harold Arnold
December 3, 2003 - 08:54 am
What sinners we are in America - we eat beef at least 2 or 3 times a week!


2 or 3 times a week? More likely 2 or 3 times a day. Sorry about that Ella!

Regarding Mountbatten’s continuing relation with the Duke of Windsor after the abdication, I remember no mention of it in the Life Magazine, Mountbatten Memoirs or similar writings by the Duke. I have the impression that Edward grossly underestimated the effect his abdications would have on his future. The writings indicate that he expected to marry Mrs Simpson in a formal ceremony in England attended by the other Royals including his Mother and the continuation of an active Royal Family career. But nothing like that occurred. I’m not sure he ever saw his mother again and the only official post he held was a short term as Governor in the West Indies. The only reason he got that assignment was to get him out of the way (and out of England) during the war. Mountbatten was too busy with his wartime and post war career to have continued the active friendship and of course to do so would not have been politically correct.

Regarding Mountbatten's lineage, I remember from his memoirs in Life Magazine his description of a pre WWI vacation trip to Russia to visit his cousins the czar and his family. He accompanied the Royal family on a beach vacation on the Black Sea. The pictures showed the royals relaxed on the beach in most un-royal beach play activities. One of the pictures impressed me because they appeared so similar to some 1913 pictures of my family on a gulf beach vacation. The two vacations about the same time were some 6000 miles apart, yet with out explanative text, one would have trouble distinguishing the royal group from the middle class Texas family as they were so similar in setting, dress, and pose.

Lou2
December 3, 2003 - 09:32 am
My favorite mental image from these first chapters is that of Edwina, Mrs.??? Lady??? Mountbattan eating the chicken breast brought for her dogs while hiding... Wonder how long it had been since she'd seen a chicken breast with the war time rationing in England??? I can just see her... lifting the silver cover and discovering that golden breast... for the dogs!!! carrying it away, so servants wouldn't see her eating it... and relishing every bite!!!

Wonderful memories, Harold... people are more alike than different, aren't they???

Lou

Ginny
December 3, 2003 - 11:05 am
In one of the many books I have read about the Duke and Duchess of Winsdor, I think it was the next to last one written on her, I can go find out, a great deal was made of Mountbatten's pestering the Duchess of Windsor for the return to the Crown of certain pieces he thought should be retained by England, I know she referred to it and I think that continued for some time, I'll look it up. Fascinating couple, both of them, the whole bunch seem larger than life.

Just a note for you Gandhi fans, I note that the new issue of Vanity Fair has an interview with Omar Sharif who says the historical figure he is most like is Gandhi! Nice try!

ginny

Jonathan
December 3, 2003 - 11:56 am
Which couple, Ginny? The Windsors or the Mountbattens? He of the first was the Best Man of the second, I believe. She of the first couple was fatal for her husband, while she of the second brought a good measure of sucess for hers. Including the large fortune she inherited, the lions share of an 7.5 million English Pounds estate. To his annual 600 Pounds. He was poor and dependent on relatives. But what a pair! She also came with intellect, elegance and vitality. Great couple to know. Except perhaps for Jinnah. For him they were two thorns!

It was very unsettling to be reminded that Mountbatten has to bear most of the blame for the Dieppe disaster, in 1942, in which so many Canadian soldiers lost their lives in a hopeless adventure.

Jonathan, still in a Gandhian daze.

Lou2
December 3, 2003 - 12:29 pm
Jonathan, still in a Gandhian daze.


Exactly, Johnathan... I just finished reading the chapter on the assassination in a biography... I'm mourning...again...

Lou

Ginny
December 3, 2003 - 06:37 pm
Both, Jonathanji!! I find this book to be excellent, it's not the same book that I had in London, it's a different edition, gone is the photo of General Dyer, and many more have been supplied in its place. I like the way the authors introduce us to all the main players: visiting Mountbatten, and then describe their backgrounds, rich and varied.

Lou, friends of Gandhi will find much here to enjoy and fans of Churchill will have to retract a bit, he really had a blind spot where India was concerned. I also admired the straightforward explanation of Gandhi and his experiements with ceilbacy in his later years and many aspects of his courageous life which HE did not take up in his own book, love it.

Also Mountbatten is very sympathetically portrayed here, and much is made over the partitioning with Jinnah as the culprit.

Also I am very pleased to see confirmation of Mountbatten's father being relieved of his command because of his German heritage, but in WWI not WWII, so I'm half right. ahahahaha But it's true Mountbatten wanted it back.

I really have a new appreciation for Mountbatten after reading the first five chapters, now what issues should we be focusing on at this time?

ginny

Ella Gibbons
December 3, 2003 - 07:22 pm
"For years, the final sign that a man had been accepted in his company came when the Mahatma himself offered to give him a salt-and-water enema." (p.51)

Aren't you glad you never met the man? hahaha

JONATHAN - "Except perhaps for Jinnah. For him they were two thorns!

That was a funny story!

Yes, Ginny, I agree that Churchill was on the wrong side of progress when it came to India - or the whole British Empire for that matter. We hope to discuss a biography of Churchill next year sometime, hope you all can join in. As Churchill's own secretary of state said "Churchill understood India about as well as George III understood the American colonies."

He, Churchill, remains a fascinating figure to me - right or wrong, the man was a leader.

In the movie, and perhaps in this book somewhere, we are told that Gandhi was put in the Aga Khan's former home as a prisoner. It must have been a magnificent palace at one time - is this the Aga Khan that Rita Hayworth married? Who is this person and is he an Indian and if so, a Hindu or Moslem? Anyone know?

Amidst all the turmoil of the country when Mountbatten arrived, I was a bit astounded that he refused any security measures and he and his wife took morning horseback rides and all of India was shocked when he visited the homes of Indians.

If you were sitting where Mountbatten was at the time, which of the four men he interviewed would you most liked to have met?

I think we should take the time to discuss each of these men, so important to the future of India, their strengths and weaknesses, don't you?

Persian
December 3, 2003 - 09:04 pm
ELLA - a point of clarification. Rita Hayworth was married briefly to Prince Aly Khan (who died in 1960), son of Sultan Mohamed Shah, known widely as the Aga Khan III. The Agha Khan was the leader of the Ismaili branch of Shia Muslims. His family's heritage is directly descended from the Prophet Mohamed.

TigerTom
December 4, 2003 - 07:12 am
Things,

Ever have one of those weeks where everything decides to either go wrong, breakdown, or both?

I am having one of those weeks right now.

I do NOT want to tempt fate by asking what else because I am sure I will be shown "what else"

Tiger Tom

TigerTom
December 4, 2003 - 07:36 am
Sikhs,

I believe someone asked about Sikh's:

The Sikh religion is a created one. Made up of Muslim, Hindu (and I think a little Chrisianity too but am not sure.) All males last name is Singh (Which means Lion.) Males must not shave or cut their hair. Males must wear a Turban. Males must always carry a weapon on their person so them generally have a knife hidden somewhere in their clothing (sometimes in their Turban.) All males are warriors. Once (May still be,) all males owned a Sikh Sword or was given one by their father.

Women are NOT part of the religion (this is why the Sikh's in India dislike the American Sikh's who come over to India as the American Women are part of the religion wear a turban and other things that set the Indian Sikh's teeth on edge.)

The Sikh's are known as the "Jews" of India: They are very hard working, idustrious and ambitious people. As an example: A Hindu and a Sikh will walk by a site where a new building is going to be erected (there will be a sign saying such and such a building will be built on this site) the Hindu will wonder if he can get a job when the construction starts. The Sikh will go to the Main Contractor that is building and ask if there is any subcontract work to be had. If there is the Sikh will ask what subcontract work. After finding out the Sikh will contact other Sikh's who know the type of work that is called for in the subcontract and find out what he will need. The Sikh will then submit a bid for the subcontract work. If his bid is successful and he wins the subcontract he will take the contract to a bank and get a loan against it, he will then go out and hire workers and a foreman (a Supervisor if needed) and then he is in business.

Tiger Tom

TigerTom
December 4, 2003 - 07:47 am
Ella,

As there are many languages in India there are also many different tribes of people. Not surprisingly there are animosities between these tribes.

When I was first on the Subcontinet I lived in what is now known as Bangladesh (old East Bengal) the people there were Bengalhi, a short dark people. The people living in what is now known as Pakistan (but then West Pakistan) were mostly Pathan's (with some other tribes including Sikh's) the West Pakistani's were tall, light skinned people. The West Pakistani's disliked the Bengalhi's very much and called them "Little Black Monkey's" the Bengalhi's returned the Dislike. Whenever there was problems in the East Wing of Pakistan the head of the Pakistan Government would send the light skinned Pathan troops over to Bengal to knock heads which the Pathans did with great vigor and cheer.

Even today in India and Pakistan you will find prejudice between the tribes on one side of India towards tribes on the other side of India. Or even between tirbes living near one another. Religious bigotry is rampart in much of India and Pakistan. The more successful a tribe or Religion is the more they are disliked. The two most successful and most disliked are the Sikh's and the Parsi's who live around Bombay.

Tiger Tom

Ella Gibbons
December 4, 2003 - 10:07 am
Thanks, MAHLIA, for that info about the Aga Khan - is there a descendant still living, other than Rita Hayworth's daughter, who wrote a book about her mother's Altzeimer's disease. I haven't read it, has anyone else?

If there is a descendant does he/she live in India still?

Sorry for your troubles, TOM, but I love hearing your stories. You said "Even today in India and Pakistan you will find prejudice between the tribes on one side of India towards tribes on the other side of India," but prejudice, it seems to me, is based largely on color of skin, or am I correct? The Untouchables were the very dark-skinned people I believe.

Lou2
December 4, 2003 - 10:14 am
In Dec 1928, Congress considered a draft constitution for a federal Dominion of India. Motilal Nehru had drawn it up in consultation with members of all parties. Muslims accused the Mahatma of trying to set up a Hindu Raj. Jinnah had demanded some modifications in the report, but received no encouragement from the Congress leaders, and for him this was ‘the parting of the ways’.


Jinnah was six feet tall and exceedingly thin. Dress in Savile Row suits, coupled with his style of living, he gave the impression of being a highly Westernized cosmopolitan aristocrat. His clothes remained European until the last years of his life, when he adopted the sherwani and shelwar of a Muslim. English had become his principal language, for he never mastered Urdu, and he was both fluent and colloquial in the tongue.


A highly successful lawyer, Jinnah’s intense ego sustained his emaciated body. Suave and ruthless, he could be arrogantly and infuriatingly wrong, but his honesty of purpose was unquestionable and he was ‘incorruptible by any outside agency’. He looked with disdain upon any minds less intricate than his own. Quick, clever and sarcastic, his greatest delight was know to be to confound the opposing lawyer with confidential asides and to outwit the presiding judge in repartee.


Born to a family of moderate means in Karachi, Mohamed Ali Jinnah attended schools in his native province before going to England at the age of sixteen to study law. He arrived in England in 1982 just as the first Indian, Dadabhai Naoroji was elected to British Parliament. Jinnah was a secretary to Naoroji for fourteen years.


Jinnah returned to Bombay as a qualified barrister, he spoke, thought and had his being in politics. A colleague of Gokhale in the old Imperial Legislative Council, his efforts to bring about harmonious cooperation between Hindus and Muslims were widely recognized.


When Congress launched the noncooperation movement under Gandhi’s guidance Jinnah left the Congress, since he was essentially a constitutionalist and a parliamentarian. In the 1920 Congress his was the solitary voice raised in opposition.


Indian Muslims refused to follow Jinnah so in 1931 he settled in London and practiced law. He loved India but felt helpless. He had no intention of returning to India… Liaquat Ali Khan, the Muslim leader, repeated to him that Nehru had indiscreetly said at a private dinner party that ‘Jinnah is finished’. An infuriated Jinnah packed up and sailed back to India just to ‘show Nehru…’. His self imposed exile had lasted about three years.


This information is from Gandhi, a Life by Yogesh Chadha . I hope it's not more than 'anyone ever wanted to know... I found the contrasts with Gandhi very interesting.

Lou

Harold Arnold
December 4, 2003 - 10:22 am
Click the following Web links with information on the Sikh religion and culture:

The Sikh Home Page

Sikh History

Sikhnet.com

Jonathan
December 4, 2003 - 03:04 pm
Lou...'I hope it's not more than anyone ever wanted to know...'

Thanks for your post. On the contrary, the deeper one gets into this subject, and the personalities involved, the more one would like to know. Jinnah is perhaps even more puzzling than Gandhi. If that's possible. But he, Jinnah, just can't be made to look good. Perhaps if he had gone native like Gandhi, he might have had more appeal. That doesn't sound right, because he did have great appeal for many, didn't he? For many Muslims he was the great defender of the faith.

I'm getting the impression that much of the violence in all this was a matter of settling old scores. Jinnah wanted to avoid bloodshed. Gandhi, as we know, or have been led to believe, was dedicated to non-violence. Couldn't they have recognized this in each other? Between the two of them, with their immense influence, they might be expected to have devised a peaceful course of events.

Harold...thanks for the links. What I wouldn't have given for them twenty years ago, when Sikhs moved in next door, seemed friendly enough, but still left me wondering about my new neighbors. All I knew, like many others, was that they made exceptionally good soldiers, carried a dagger somewhere on their persons, and were definitely not to be fooled with. They've turned out to be very good citizens, while still having to live with their political heritage. Part of which was being denied THEIR land, after Indian independence. Their numbers in the subcontinent aren't that great, but they've contributed more than their share in the history. Can't know enough about them either.

Jonathan

Persian
December 4, 2003 - 05:25 pm
JONATHAN - I live in an area of Metropolitan Washington DC where we are also fortunate to have many Sikh neighbors in the community. IT has been a pleasure over the years to visit and get to know several families, include them in our own family gatherings and share some of our holiday celebrations. I admire the solid family relations, the truthfulness and dependability about the families whom I know - and these traits seem to have passed seamlessly down to the youth - and the helpfulness which we have experienced personally.

Several years ago, we had a major snow storm. In the morning all the neighbors were out on the streets shoveling out their driveways. Since I was alone at the time, I also went out prepared for several hours of shoveling. Quickly, I was surrounded by a friendly group of Sikh men who assured me that if I would prepare chai, they would gladly shovel the snow in my driveway and walkways. I'm smart enough to recognize a good opportunity, so I prepared the chai and some fresh bread, called several of the wives, who came over with their children (slipping and sliding along in oversize boots) and we cheered the men on from the warmth of the kitchen. When the work was done, the men gathered in our garage, divested themselves of shovels, wet jackets and boots and we all gathered in the living room for much deserved refreshment, while the men warmed up a bit. They were wonderful neighbors.

mfido
December 4, 2003 - 10:13 pm
Freedom at midnight came to India by the middle of 20th century. Yes, then the Raj was to be abandoned...UK was after rebuilding its own economy as the 2nd WW was ended and had produced a new equilibrium of world order. Now it was a bi-polar world...the US and SU...two newly emerged powers balancing each other on all fronts...ideological, armaments, scientific invensions...and this brought to India the theory and practice of democracy and emancipation...Those occuring on the side of rulling groups expected that English while leaving India will restore their Traditional Mugual Sovereignty over India...No, no democracy was to decide on the future rulers...English would recall all their lessons to the native Indian...And that is where the statistical numbers made Muslims worried...How dare we stay in minority? And then the rioting, civil war...errupted...Gandhiji and Mr.Jinnah had alot common with them. Both hailed from the same Gujrat state where their ancestoral homes were hardly 40 miles apart. Both belonged to middle class...Both were educated in the same English Institution at London and both were Lawyers by profession...However, one interesting thing is that of Gandhiji becoming native and giving up the traditional westernized ways. On the other side Mr.Jinnah, resisted such calls and persuations from various religious fundamentalists groups and continued insisted for progress and development via democracy...Had Gandhiji stayed the same way what he was trained and educated for the Freedom at mid night would have not resulted into an untold miseries, murders, and mass exodus of muslims from India...Ganhiji becoming an ancient Sadduh had aroused a huge doubt amongst Muslims that now either they be sent back to Arabia or be converted. In fact such demands were repeatedly made by certian circles upon the Muslims because these circles wanted to make past history straightened amid a newly emerged scenario...Freedom at midnight brought alot unforgetable hard facts and that is why today after 55 years both Paksitan and India have become atomic...But this does not mean that during the Raj era colonial English rulers did not try to defuse the tension. They had been doing alot via education, desciplining the society, organizing the growth of economy...and had been alot successful. Had there been no colonial era today's India be alot similar likie present day Afghanistan...Jihad, continued warfare, conquers, defeats, slaughters...They brought India into a civilized era and both side were done justice with. However, the partition history is too sad particularly for Muslims who were uprooted from the soil that belonged to them from generation to generation. To me it was a kind of hollocast that when ended in Germany against Jews was errupted in India...against Muslims...Surprisingly people living and sharing the same villages towns and cities became each others enemy...we have seen it happen in Bosnia with muslims recently...all his means that power of orthodoxy or religions is still that much powerful.Unlike Gandhiji, Mr.Jinnah amid that critical scenario was never jailed. He never violated the law for a single time. During all his campaign earlier for united India's freedom and later for the partition Mr. Jinnah was preaching the rule of Law and Democracy to all sides...Freedom at midnight successfully introduced two gaint leaders who had all rights to be recogonized as Political leaders of the 20 century...Both were opposed to each other but with out one the other would be meaningless...They proved to be two sides of the same coin and that is what means co-existence, multi culturalism, peace and progress...

Persian
December 5, 2003 - 06:10 am
". . .had aroused a huge doubt amongst Muslims that now either they be sent back to Arabia . . ."

MFIDO - I wonder if you could clarify your comment (above). Why would non-Arab Muslims in India be concerned about being sent to Arabia?

Ginny
December 5, 2003 - 06:40 am
mfido, Welcome to our Books! I saw you yesterday in the PBS POV discussion and it was all I could do not to say outright, that due to your Pakistan roots, you'd LOVE our discussion here of Freedom at Midnight and here you are! Welcome!

You have raised many interesting points of view and I think we will enjoy the debate.

What did you think about the way Mr. Jinnah is portrayed in this book?

It's hard to find anybody who does speak well of him, what is your own perception of him?

ginny

Ginny
December 5, 2003 - 06:54 am
Harold thank you for that fabulous site on Sikhs, it's wonderful, those SWORDS!!

I enjoyed reading it, very much. I'm confused on where the Skihs fit in the old caste system, IF they do? Or would they? That was Hindu, they would not have been in it at all? I know there WAS a warrior caste, near the top, was that where they were?

Jonathan, I thought about you and your sikh neighbors (and Malhia, too) all day, I am sorry to say I've never met a sikh, (have you met any, Tom? I must go to India!

Tom what wonderful invaluable experiences, they add so much to our all over understanding, what a rich offering this one is!

Lou, thank you for that marvelous quote, didn't you love the one Gandhi gave in Freedom? "If they answer not your call, walk alone. Walk alone." OH boy that's my new mantra.

Ella, wonderful idea to contrast all the leaders, I think the authors of this book were very skillful at bringing them all together in Mountbatten's room, that's a great take off point to introduce us to the leaders and learn about their backgrounds.

Didn't you love the contrast?

I was surprised to learn that both Nehru and Jinnah apparently hated (is that too strong a word?) the common masses, the book is pretty clear on it, so it does look like the only person who did care about them was Gandhi.

And they made up the majority of India.

It would seem each man had a different agenda.

What do you think the primary agenda of each man WAS as depicted in this book?

ginny

Harold Arnold
December 5, 2003 - 08:15 am
Mfido: thank you for joining the discussion. Your presence here adds a new dimension that was previous lacking. Please continue to add your thoughts as the discussion continues. Perhaps you might comment briefly about Jinnah’s post independence career in Pakistan?

Harold Arnold
December 5, 2003 - 08:34 am
I too thought the author’s technique of introducing us the Gandhi, Nerhu, Patel, Jannah was very well done. Through the description of the separate one-on-one meetings of each of the Indian leaders with Mountbatten we readers not only got to know them, but we also came to understand the complex facts and circumstances surrounding Mountbatten’s task. Of course Mountbattan’s was and still is frequently criticized for his apparent quick decision to abandon the idea of a unified India in favor of partition, but under the existing facts and circumstances as detailed in Chapter 5, it is hard for me to see how he could have done otherwise.

kiwi lady
December 5, 2003 - 11:16 am
Louis Mountbatten really was between a rock and a hard place. He would be damned if he did and damned if he didn't. I too do not see what else he could have done. If India and Pakistan really wanted it they could have peace in Kashmir. In issues like this and the Palestinian question its like two kids fighting over a toy and neither will give in or come to any sort of compromise. I get so frustrated about these issues!

Ella Gibbons
December 5, 2003 - 03:11 pm
WELCOME MFIDO! WE ARE SO HAPPY TO HAVE YOUR COMMENTS!


Harold, thanks for those sites on the WEb! I was startled when I clicked on them with music or chants, I had for some reason turned up the volume on my speakers, and WOW! I was transported into another land for brief moments!

And I found on the back page of the book the "land of five rivers" - the Punjab, described in our book, and it is described on one of those sites: "Punjab civilization is one of the oldest on earth, with its distinguished language, culture, food, attire, script, folklore, people, etc. Punjabi langauge has its originating source in Sanskrit (not Hindi or Urdu as many young Indian pakistanis believe)"

What history there is in India, so rich in its diversity of languages, peoples, culture.

JINNAH - was he the stubborn man! The argument presented by both Jinnah and Mountbatten on page 119 proves how his lack of compromise was rigid indeed. Mountbatten describes him as the "evil genius in the whole thing."

And he didn't know at the time just how ill Jinnah was and that he was dying; otherwise, it is possible that India would not have been partitioned. AMAZING THAT! Jinnah urged SPEED due to his physical condition, he wanted the partition agreed upon before he died.

Patel knew - he was giving him injections, why did he not inform Mountbatten? He was an Indian through and through and certainly was not for partition. A brilliant man, he could have done more I would have thought - what do you think?

Had I read this book before I had a bit of heart fibrillation early in the year, I would have asked the heart doctor recommended to me by the name of Dr. Patel if his history was connected to this same doctor? I'm sure he was an Indian, a very good, well respected heart specialist.

kiwi lady
December 5, 2003 - 03:25 pm
Patel is as common a name in India as Smith is in England, Australia and NZ.

Jonathan
December 5, 2003 - 03:39 pm
mfido, your post (#88) is a very interesting summary and analysis of the most serious issues which led to the havoc after the arrival of freedom and independence.

Much of what you say has been running through my mind, and the more I hear the more I am inclined to see the dark side of Gandhi's mixing politics and religion. Perhaps he should have stayed in South Africa.

No doubt he was a very moral and well-meaning man, with a very commendable desire to be holy and to see God; but it remains a good question whether or not his political activities didn't eventually lead to just as much antagonisms as love.

There are many good observations in your post, such as the 'lot of unforgettable hard facts', which led to the fears and suspicions on all sides. The past is always with us. And there certainly was too much at stake to allow democracy to happen in a community riddled with strife. Many, as you suggest, must have feared the time when the Raj authority would no longer be there.

Mountbatten certainly plays a curious role in all this. Did he panic? He was given a year longer to get out. It must have seemed too hopeless. Did the Brits lose their will? Someone has suggested that seeing good statesmanship in Britian's withdrawal from India, would be like seeing good generalship in Napoleon's retreat from Moscow.

Ginny, how can you see Gandhi loving the masses? They disgusted him. We have his word for it at Hardiwar. But he seems to have needed them nevertheless. He couldn't stand being alone either, by the looks of it.

Jonathan

Ginny
December 5, 2003 - 03:46 pm
Jonathan, I think I say that because he chose to live among them, to try to educate them in the ways of sanitation and cleanliness, to dress like and live in the most simple form possible, to travel always third class like they did; because he willingly associated with people, invited them into his own home and table, and ate with people who other people felt they had to take a million baths to wash off the taint if they touched; because he elevated the position of women, another minority; and because he, singlehandedly, caused the Indian to be proud of BEING an Indian and his own heritage. I don't see that in Jinnah or in Nehru, Gandhi despised the lack of cleanliness of the masses, just like they did, but HE set out personally to do something about it, including, but not limited to, cleaning their latrines.

Like he said, "If they answer not your call, walk alone. Walk alone." What else does any man of conscience do?

Harold, the $64,000 question!!! I would say they should have listened to Gandhi, but desire for their own power caused them not to see how his precepts could be adapted in a new India.

ginny

TigerTom
December 5, 2003 - 09:17 pm
Gandhi,

Read the foot night on page 105. I believe you will find it interesting and amusing. It surpised me a bit but on reflection I could see the logic in it.

It would seem that the Congress Party knew the vaule of Gandhi and wanted to protect him and the value he represented to the party.

Tiger Tom

TigerTom
December 5, 2003 - 09:21 pm
Mountbatten,

When Mountbatten called in each leader for a face to face discusssion he wanted to assess how he might use each one to further his assignment.

Each one was also assessing how they could use Mountbatten to further their aims.

It was interesting the conclusions the Mountbatten came to about each man and the conclusions each man came to about Mountbatten.

A good deal of the future of India depended on those conclusions and how each man used them.

Tiger Tom

TigerTom
December 5, 2003 - 09:24 pm
The week,

I will be very happy to see the back of this week.

It has been one miserable week. Nothing has gone right and everything that could has gone wrong, broke down or came apart.

I am sorry I have not been able to contribute more to this conversation but I have been to involved trying to get things fixed and sorted out to be able to devote much time to the discussion.

Hopefully next week will be better for me and the discussion.

I will say that what all of you have posted so far has been thoughtful and interesting.

Tiger Tom

kiwi lady
December 5, 2003 - 09:48 pm
Tom it seems that these things come in threes. If something I own breaks down two others will give up the ghost shortly after! Hope you got it all sorted.

mfido
December 6, 2003 - 01:52 am
Hi every body and thanks for leting me in. I am so excited finding this site where I can express myself. Actually for 12 years (1988-2000)I was busy as a journalist in Peshawar Pakistan during what time I could developed a peculiar view point of my own to the very issue of partition. On his board we are having a very serious discusion on an important issue. To me it is more important because after the fall of Soviet Union we have entered into a new phase. The bi-polar world order is successfully over and now a new world order is in making. This is a transitional period and sooner the new order is gone to define itself. I was born in Peshawar Pakistan after partition. Here on this board I was amaze to find the name of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan who hailed from my province and had lived a long life (1894-1988) full of political activism.To know about the facts and fictions of freedom better I mention first about the legendary KAG who followed Gandhiji in toto till his last breath.

On January 18,1988 the demise of Abdul Ghaffar Khan had plunged the entire Pathan community in Pakistan, Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world into grief and misery. The observers then said that due to the loss of great warrior for peace in the world the future of the Pathans has come to a new end. Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan ex Red Shirt leader of the North Western Province in the former Indian colony that is presently included in Pakistan as result of a referendum held in 1947, was cherished and adored by his people for initiating the liberation movement during the British Raj in India. Though in the beginning he started with the socio-political reformation so his backward people could feel the fruits of post industrial revolutions. Hence launching in the third decade of the 20th century Khudai Kidmatgar (Servants of God) movements Abdul Ghaffar Khan was exposed around the world as a crusader of peace and progress. But as the colonial ruler did not approve the red flag and red shirts raised and worn by the Pathans he was soon confronted with ruthless decrees blaming him to be a possible pro-moscowith national communist. This forced the great Khan to look around for help and the Indian National Congress extended to him a rescuing hand that he kept till his death.

The life and struggle of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan is said to be comprised of three distinct phases:

Socio-political leader. Loyal Congressite after he merged his group with the Indian National Congress and Anti-partitions in the period after independence till his death. He had his own reasons for such a political role and those reasons were basically democracy and secularism that he could champion amid the warrior tribes of Pathans so that his people may adopt to the need of the day.

According to his critics Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan had great expectations from his people who had had bestowed upon him the titles of Bacha Khan(The respected Khan) and Fakhre Afghan (Pride of the Afghans). In the first phase of his struggle he succeeded in preparing an army of non-violence that joined the struggle for independence under the Indian National Congress. And finally after partition and establishment of Pakistan Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan being the member national assembly continued his services for the cause of civil rights in Pakistan. During this phase of his life he was targeted to cruel and inhuman state behavior for being anti-Pakistan. And when he felt that living in Pakistan was no more possible for him he went to Afghanistan and stayed there for longer time. Being a known political leader the Afghan government extended him full support and as such a new move started to brew in the political life of the subcontinent of India where under the concept of greater Afghanistan was aired from Kabul and New Delhi. The Pathans or Pukhtoons living in Pakistan were said to be separated wrongly by the English rulers who erected the historical deurand line in 1896 between Afghanistan and the then colonial India. Hence the new slogan of unity of all the afghans was tossed by the Indo-Soviet lobbies via Kabul that meant two Pakistani provinces of NWFP and Baluchistan be united with Afghanistan.

Pakistan resisted such a conspiracy for it was directed to abolish its very existence. And hence a great game continued to brew in the region that watched the invasion of Soviets into Afghanistan wherefore Pakistan was targeted to a severe move of terrorism from Afghanistan. During all this era Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan continued his campaign for practicing non-violence in politics and despite his hectic efforts the ugly face of terrorism continued to dwell in the region. During the anti soviet moves when huge mercenaries were raised in the area Abdul Ghaffar Khan had time and again cautioned the concerned quarters of the consequences of such move.Being an anti Pakistan politician while staying abroad for longer years Khan continued to persue his Gandhji phiolosphy on non-violence but with a change of direction. Now his mecca was no more new Dehli but Kabul which was closer to Soviet Union. The great Pathan Khan passed away in 1987 and as per his wish was buried in Afghanistan.He was owned and nominated by various circles around the world for different awards and prizes. The Indian lobbies even nominated him in 1985 for the award of Nobel Peace Prize. Truely he was one of Gandhiji's great followers and as such was called Frontier Gandhi. Remembering AGK now better we mention about the two big players i.e Gandhiji and Mr.Jinnah. The later completing his education in England returned to India (1896) and succeeded as a lawyer while involving actively in indian politics. He brought returned to India with a vision that was based on the demands of 20th century. He joined Indian National Congress in 1905 as his political approaches and progressive mannerism had introduced him to be an ambassador of peace between hindus and muslims. In 1909 he was became unopposed member of the central legislative council. It was here in the parliament that Mr. Jinnah had raised his concern over the situation in NWFP and the plight of Abdul Ghaffar Khans followers. He had challenged the British policies in south africa particularly on Indian immigrants. He being a parliamentarian played his role in the organization of municpal governance in India...On the other side Gandhji returned to India(1919) after spending 23 years in south africa...On his return he was presented welcome by the Gujrat social welfare organization to which Mr. Jinnah was the president. On this ocassion he had expressed his appriciations of the said organization but a in a confusing style saying that it was alot pleasing finding a mohammadan to be President of this oganization. His critics translated his words as if he meant mohammadans were not natives...Later the same year he joined Indian National Congress and sooner the secular polical senario was transformed into a know thayself yoga shool...dressed like the poorist of poor indians he would stay on the river bank meditating and sometimes talking to the visitors to his ashram. Soon he became popular with Indians who named him to be Mahatma (Supreme soul)...and many more ashrams were established around India. One such was opened by AGK near Peshawar where people used to gather and preach non violence and freedom...But to Mr. Jinnah this was not a progressive way of doing things. He was for a westminister type of democracy and political activism. So dejected he decided to return to England thus leaving political field behind but not politics as he continued meeting delegates from India.Participating in 1930-32 round table conference held in London between the British govt and Indians Mr. Jinnah returned to India and took part in 1937 elelctions. These elections were overwhelmingly won by congress that resulted into congress rule in most of the Indian provinces. However once in office the congress policies attracted alot criti

Jonathan
December 6, 2003 - 01:50 pm
Tiger Tom, the discussion is going along very well. I believe there is a Law governing human endeavors that applies to your situation, but I can't think of it at the moment. Hang in there. There will still be plenty to say about the book and its theme, when you're up and running again. Good luck.

Ginny, a very fair reply regarding Gandhi's feelings about the people, especially the disadvantaged and the outcasts. You're right. Reform and clean-up were close to his heart, starting with the most elementary. It almost seems to me that he chose that because the bigger problems were too much for him. I'm beginning to look at him as a tragic figure, with a character flaw in there somewhere, that would lend itself to a dramatization even greater than the one in the film. It will take an Indian Shakespeare or Sophocles.

mfido, again you've given us so much to think about. I don't know where to begin in replying to some of your interesting ideas. Mahlia drew our attention to Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan. He sounds like a very attractive character. With an army behind him, even if a 'peaceful' one, he must have kept 'the powers that be' on edge. The 'big game' is still being played isn't it?

What an idea! That Gandhi transformed the Indian National Congress 'into a know-thyself yoga school.' It is a fact that he did give Congress a turn into a new direction. Maybe you're right in suggesting that Jinnah represented an alternative, orderly, constitutional solution in a more gradual development of Indian independence. And, by and large, a more peaceful solution, as opposed to Ganddhi's civil disobedience and non-cooperation policies, of the kind that invite confrontation with expectation of over-reaction from the authorities. Civil disobedience in a politically mature society is one thing. Trying it in the sub-continent atmosphere was risky as Gandhi found out.

Jonathan

Ella Gibbons
December 6, 2003 - 03:10 pm
MFIDO! That is so fascinating and a bit overwhelming to get so much history all at once, WOW!

I hope it will be all right to ask you just a few questions to enable us to understand your point of view.

Are you in Pakistan now? Are you still a journalist there or what are you working at now?

You stated - "The bi-polar world order is successfully over and now a new world order is in making." What do you believe is happening in the world that can take the place of the old order? Is the United States viewed as the only super power in the world? What a burden that is to most of us living here.

You stated:

"Pakistan resisted such a conspiracy for it was directed to abolish its very existence. And hence a great game continued to brew in the region that watched the invasion of Soviets into Afghanistan wherefore Pakistan was targeted to a severe move of terrorism from Afghanistan"


How is the situation between Pakistan and Afghanistan now?

You said that "Remembering AGK now better we mention about the two big players i.e Gandhiji and Mr.Jinnah." Are they comparable heroes in Pakistan?

Is Gandhi, who opposed partition, thought of in a favorable light?

later, ella

kiwi lady
December 6, 2003 - 03:37 pm
Ella as a furriner its a bit of a burden to us too having only one super power!

Ella Gibbons
December 6, 2003 - 03:41 pm
Carolyn, who shall we ask to partner with? I don't like being thrust upon a throne of super power but I don't want the old Soviet Union back again with a Cold War. Maybe the new Russia? Someday? Who?

mfido
December 6, 2003 - 04:47 pm
Hi friends! I am so pleased with your response. My last message #113 did not came out in full. I don't know why but here I am going to inservt the rest of it. No doubt the entire story took a new turn as I named it " Midnight Freedom...and the credit goes to Miss.Fathima Jinnah". Hope you will like it.

....#113 on ward: ...iticism particularly from the non hindo faction...Hence after 29 months in office congress party decided to quit government but in protest against the British India's joining of WW2. Now the ball had reached Mr.Jinnah's side and as such Muslim league took great advantage out of Congress failures while in office. On March 23, 1940 Muslim League passed its Pakistan resolution and now the train was ready to leave in a committed direction. In 946 after the end of WW2 new elections were held in India that predominantly returned league candidates. Later an interiem govt was formed with both Cogress and League but it did not worked that forced London to announce on Feb 1947 to be leaving India soon. Lord Mountbetten emerged on scene to expidite the process and as such on 3 June 1947 the partition of India scheme was presented that resulted into the division of the central indian legislature. Hence those hailing from muslim majority povinces on a division on the floor of the house became the new members of Pakistani legislature while the remaining continued as Indian members of Parliament.Pakistn was born which was a charisma of Mr.Jinnah who was now called Quaide Azam (The GreatLeader) by his people. Mr. Jinnah passed away on Sept 11, 1947. On his sad demise Lord MountBetten observed that had he knew that Mr. Jinnah would pass away that soon he would have delayed the partition scheme say for a year of time...Yes, then Pakistan would never ever be possible...but credit to undoing such a possiblity goes to Miss Fathima Jinnah sister of Mr.Jinnah... Rarely in the history of the sub-continent a lady statesperson and politician has been so praised and adored by the masses as Miss. Fatima Jinnah. She was the sister of the father of nation but that was not the only reason for her popularity as Quaid-i-Azam has had four brothers and three sisters besides her. In fact it was her own dedication and love the very cause that her brother was fighting for realizing the dream of the Indian Muslims.

In the book by the Quaid-i-Azam Academy Islamabad, " He was My Brother", Fatima Jinnah did narrate the story of her brother's last days while she was constantly besides him till his death. The personal services she rendered to the Father of the Nation did earn her a distinction yet it would not be out of reason that the Quaid himself opted for her assistance. As the accounts of the Quid's last physician Dr. Illahi Bux confirm the Quaid was sick for long time since 1945 and as the last words of the last Viceroy of India Lord Mount batten state: "had he (Mount batten) known about the health of Mr. Jinnah and he (Quaid-i-Azam) will be passing away that soon, he would have delayed the partition of India, say for a year", speak about the very role and character of Miss. Jinnah in keeping the personal secrets of the Father of Nations in tact to the last degree, in the mere interests of the Pakistan movement.

Probably Quaid-i-Azam knew about the outcome of such at a situation that is why he entrusted his personal assistance and secretarial office to the person of Miss. Jinnah who happened to be of the equal strength and courage in doing her job and honestly she did wonder in her capacity as a sister, friend, companion, secretary and a nurse to the Quaid till his death. And to this effect she had to give up her professional practice of a Medical Doctor (Dentistry). On every occasion of the Quid's engagements, official or private, she was always available to see the smooth executions of the affairs as per the satisfaction of the Quaid. Thus going through her biography one can see her constantly busy by the side of the Quaid while he would be conducting higher meetings, or laying in rest at Ziarat, or in the PAF Falcon on his last journey back to Karachi.

After the death of the Quaid, she did prefer to retire to a private life but still was constantly watching the happenings over the national scene. Thus she intervened twice in the national politics. Firstly, in 1954 when the situation in East Pakistan was getting un-Pakistan like and secondly in 1964 when she was nominated by the combined opposition parties of Pakistan to run against the then President Ayub Khan. On that very occasion the country was under a controlled democracy wherein 80,000 member of the Electoral College were to vote for the President. Accordingly she knew the powers of such a government and the very dim chances of her winning but still she did prefer to come forward and e4xtend an open challenge to the then dictatorial regime under its own defined bureaucratic rules. Miss Jinnah stood for the integrity and solidarity of the nation with and under the available rule of law prevailing in the then Pakistan. She voiced for the democracy for the people and by the people. In the end she did loose as it was expected of the then prevailing system but still she helped the masses to have faith in their own destinies and moral character to say 'NO' to any dictatorship.

The 1965 elections under the B.D., system electrified the masses that were later to be exploited by the government with the emergence of defense situation at Runn of Kuch area bordering India and the September war. During all this time she remained silent and was watching developments accepting her defeat as a democratic process amid an undemocratic system was being made available. This was the proof of her being a gentle politician who would go to any extreme but within the available legal limits. A year later after the said election on 9 July 1966 miss Jinnah died while in sleep and was buried in the Mazare Quaid-i-Azam area besides Quaid-i-Millat Liaqat Ali Khan and Sardar Nishtar, two other trusted lieutenants of the Father of Nation.... Yes, credit goes but to Miss. Fathima Jinnah for the mid night freedom!!

kiwi lady
December 6, 2003 - 04:59 pm
Ella my idea is not to have any super power, to have a partnership. The bigger countries working together with the little countries. That is supposed to be the idea of the UN but the current US admin has little regard for the UN. However this is not an issue to bring up in this forum.

kiwi lady
December 6, 2003 - 05:02 pm
I think women, contrary to popular belief make level headed politicians - they don't have all that testosterone raging in their bodies! LOL. I had never heard of Ms Jinnah except in this forum.

Persian
December 6, 2003 - 05:45 pm
MFIDO - thanks for your email today and for printing the remainder of your information about Fathima Jinnah. You've provided a glimpse into a world basically unknown to the West (except for area specialists). Perhaps you'd like to post the link in this discusion to the web site you provided for me so that other readers could view the photos of Abdul Ghaffar Khan. He was a truly remarkable individual not only for his stature, and not only to/and on behalf of his own tribesmen, but also in the overall work he shared with Gandhi. Convincing the Paktun to work in a non-violent manner was truly a miracle!

CAROL - indeed, women have a lot to offer in the realm of government service (and in other sectors for that matter). However, traditional cultures are not always cooperative in electing and supporting a female leader. But as we see globally, some women have been able to head up governments (and often with a tight hand), work successfully with the military element, as well as the civilian sectors. So there is a precedence. And, hopefully, other women will come to the forefront and be recognized and elected. Now if we could just clone Margaret Thatcher and adjust her nationality to fit the norm in other countries!

kiwi lady
December 6, 2003 - 07:05 pm
No Mahlia not the iron lady! Maggie was too rigid!

Persian
December 6, 2003 - 10:57 pm
I think with the adjustment of nationality there would also have to be some cultural adjustments which, hopefully, would rid the incumbent of the rigidity we saw in Thatcher.

Lou2
December 7, 2003 - 07:50 am
Finally got FatM from the library again... after reading MFIDO's messages... and going back through the book, I hope someone can help me figure this out...

"The only thing Muslim about Mohammad Ali Jinnah was the fact that his parents happened to be Muslim." page 106


Did Jinnah decieve the Muslims in the Muslim League about his beliefs? Was it not important to the Muslims what he believed as long as they got Pakistian? Were the Muslims as set on Pakistian as Jinnah was? On page 108 our authors tell us others in the Muslim League would have worked with Mountbatten, but Jinnah was a dictator and as long as he was alive no one would speak a word. I don't have access to anything here at home that will help me from the Muslim point of view... Anyone????

Lou

Ginny
December 7, 2003 - 08:21 am
Thank you for all the fascinating information on Fatima Jinnah, she's not mentioned, only briefly in these chapters, and I hope to revisit her story, I have copied it out, when we get to that.

I am thinking it might be useful to get up a chart of comparison between the major players here who made the decision to partition, as Tom suggested, to look at each of them from various standpoints, let's do it, which criteria would we want to use, then we can look up the answers, love this discussion.

Jonathanji, do you really see Gandhi that way? Are you saying then, that idealism has no place in a government?

Was it that Gandhi took it TOO far? It's been said that Nehru never understood him but he knew that turning everything back to the people, that is reliance on home spun stuff and home made things would not work in the greater economy?

And that's why he rejected Mountbattens wanting to appoint Gandhi head of all India, we've not gotten there, yet.

But it was not jealousy on Nehru's part, he simply did not think it would work.

I wonder, I wonder if it would have. It seemed they were content to let Gandhi be Bapu, the Father of his country, the Guru, the spritual head while Nehru was the governmental head, but to me, when you do things for the right reason, the whole benefits, and that was what Gandhi was talking about. SURELY there is no person on earth who thinks the partitioning was a great idea. Gandhi shunned the celebration saying what was there to celebrate, was he SO far wrong then? OFF in the clouds with his goat curds?

Mfido, we are so glad to have you here, what is the current state of relations between Pakistan and India? Why the struggle over Kashmir? And why did Bengladesh become Bengladesh from West Pakistan, if you don't mind answering?

ginny

Ella Gibbons
December 7, 2003 - 11:48 am
MFIDO!!! Can you answer some of the questions we have posted? We would very much like to understand what you are telling us, please try to.

GINNY, I only have a few minutes today but when you stated "SURELY there is no person on earth who thinks the partitioning was a great idea" what other solution was there? Do you believe that without the stability of the English presence, that the Muslims and the Hindus could have established harmony in India?

As previously mentioned, Iraq will be a good proving ground as the Shiites, the Sunnis and the Kurds, with all their differences, will attempt to write a constitution that will/may make a democracy, or some form of government, and bring peace to the region.

Ella Gibbons
December 7, 2003 - 11:49 am
Oh, forgot, yes, Ginny, let's get a chart if the heading if possible and each of us contribute to the personalities of the four leaders that Mountbatten interviewed and add to it as we go through the book.

kiwi lady
December 7, 2003 - 12:02 pm
I have just been listening to a very interesting interview on the political future of Iraq. The person being interviewed who is a Middle Eastern expert says he cannot see a harmonious partnership between the four main factions. They all want to rule over the other three! It does not bode well for the future. I have always said the removal of Saddam will open a can of worms. The situation in Iraq reminds me so much of the Balkans. The old name for Iraq was Mesopotamia. (hope the spelling is right)

mfido
December 7, 2003 - 12:37 pm
Hi! Mahila ,Ella Gibbons, Jonaithan... thanks for your comments. It is really an interesting scenario. I presented what I knew my best...The post partition generations on both sides have't seen those difficult days and nights but history will always keep them up to date and that is how the Midnight Freedom and our discusion are meaningful. Frankly the term non-violence in itself sounds a negative attitude ... to counter and correct such feelings Muslim League during the partition period used to air"...what to do with non-violence, our greetings (Salam alykum) mean peace, we are for peace..." and that is how Mr.Jinnah during the decades of 20-and early 30s used to be called an ambassador of peace for holdig joint meetings of both the congress and Muslim league parties to develop consensus on freedom....Personally to me non violence and non-cooperation of Gandhiji was successfully challenged and corrected by peace and progress attitude of Mr.Jinnah who NEVER EXPERIENCED A SINGLE DAY IN JAIL. He made possible what was an impossible mission and to this he himself has said "I made it with my typewriter and my secretary.." This was a positive attitude, a patriortic and law abiding one...

Mahila: Thanks for your e-mail. The web site on Pathans that I have included pictures of AGK can be visited via http://groups.msn.com/ThePathansClub Also you may visit http://groups.msn.com/GaintPoliticalThinkersof20thCentury

Jonathan
December 7, 2003 - 12:39 pm
A very good idea. Let's think of them as the Big Five. Mountbatten, Gandhi, Nehru, Jinnah, and Patel. What a duel among strong personalities. Big egos? Power struggle?

Gandhi was the only one who did not have a very strong, influential woman guiding and advising him. On the other hand Gandhi was more female-obsessed than the other four. Six pages in the book on his hangups, at the age of 77! I'm afraid that for me Gandhi has become a bit of a caricature by this time, more or less ignored by the others to the extent that they dared to do that.

Patel is my hero. After that Jinnah. Those two should have been given a bigger chance to work something out. But it was these two that Mountbatten couldn't work with, even using the schoolyard threat of taking up his marbles and going home. Patel was in a position to pull many levers. Jinnah exercised a lot of control. Mountbatten wasted precious time with his Seduction Strategy, when he should have been listening and getting strong men into place.

Two more or less level-headed men, and three big egos, very unsure of themselves.

Jonathan, who is always prepared for, even subject to a change of mind when it comes to India/Pakistan. Beware of bamboozlement in India. I got that from Martel's Life of Pi. What meaning DOES Pi have in India? I always meant to ask you that Ginny.

Harold Arnold
December 7, 2003 - 12:45 pm
Mfido I agree with the comment previously expressed here that Westerners, particularly Americans myself included, known little on the history and culture of Pakistan both before and after Independence. We thank you for your effort to help us with the information you have provided.

Previously I had not known about the role of Abdul Ghaffar Khan whose role in the pre independence days in Islamic India seems to have closely paralleled that of Gandhi. Abdul Ghaffar Khan is mentioned in our book on pages 144 and 145 in connection with Mountbatten’s May 1947 visit to the North West Frontier Province. Ghaffar Khan was an Islamic populist and pacifist. He seems to have been an associate and ally of Gandhi in the Congress party. He (according to our book on Page 145) remained a supporter of a unified India in opposition to Jinnah as leader of the Moslem League.

When Mountbatten arrived in the NWFP on his visit he was greeted by a 100,000 person crown many armed with rifles. Our authors seem to imply that the great crowd was assembled by the Moslem League to support partition and a separate Pakistan. The results were in the words of our author on page 145:
The huge hollowing crowd greeting Mountbatten, his wife, and 17-year old daughter Pamela was meant to give final proof that it was the Moslem League (Jinnah) and not the Frontier Gandhi (Ghaffar Kahn) which now commanded the Providence’s support.


This incident might well have ended in in the assassination of Mountbattten and his family. The authors of our text say that the situation was saved by Mountbatten’s decision to directly face the crowd and by the fortuitous chance that he worn a green bush jacket that he had used in Burma during the war. Though the Green, color of Islam jacket is thought to have pacified the initially hostile crowd whose chants changed to “long live Mountbatten,” it did nothing to promote the concept of a unified India. On the contrary, it reaffirmed the necessity for partition.

I think here we have another firm grounds for criticizing Mountbatten in coming to his quick April 1947 decision favoring partition. During the course of his April one-on-one meetings with Indian leaders he heard the views of three Hindu’s and one Moslem. Based on the material we now have on Ghaffar Khan why was he too not called for an Interview? Such an interview with this Moslem leader who remained true to the unity concept would seem desirable to complete the decision process though in my judgment because of the growing power of Jinnah and the Moslem League who were demanding partition, it seems unlikely that the final decision could have been altered.

Click Here for a short page summary of the career of this Islamic Pacificist this includes 5 short text pages that can be read in about 15 minutes even by a slow reader like me.

Jonathan
December 7, 2003 - 01:03 pm
And then going right back to The Pathan Club link. In fact I was in the middle of registering for membership. Being asked to compare the relative advantages of feudal eras over tribal eras, or visa versa, took my breath away.

Thanks for the most interesting link, mfido

Jonathan

mfido
December 7, 2003 - 02:37 pm
Hi! Checking the back pages I found alot many questions waiting to be replied. They recalled me my mom who used to be very anxious about me when I came to Canada. She would write letters that used to ge questioneers with her istructions "please answer all of these questions...so I know that you are well and good...where you live? How much rent you pay? What you eat? Who cook for you?....One of her letter was comprised to 50 questions. So, I wrote back saying that mom our school teacher used to let us attempt 5 questions out of 10...on every examination ...but sweet mom why wouldn't you give me a give me any choice...Well this was her love and she knew how hard it was to be parenting! Her family was red shirt followers of Abdul Ghaffar Khan and she remembered how the English police on horse back used to invade the village and make the red shirt people burn their red dresses...But later she realized that Mr.Jinnah was the best answer to the then prevailing situation. Actually English wanted peace and progress in the entire world and as such when they unleashed reforms provided facilities like hospitals, railways,clean drinking water schemes and irrigation schemes....people become richer and healthier and enlightented...so they wanted for new era...but to have a say too...In this respect the missionaries contributed alot and truely they championed the ordinary folks criticising the company rule which ultimatly resulted into India becoming a colony ...ruled under the english law and not the company laws... Mahila: You (#89) asked about the concerns of Muslims for being sent back to arabia...and I will recall the famouse Shudi movement that wanted to convert all non hindus back to their forefathers' ways....and when Gandhji emerged on the political scene with a Dhouti and goat behind him they thought if Gandhji returning back from abroad was re-purified which they did not like to be done with... Ginny #90 Many critics have found the book as being shy of Mr.Jinnah... Ella Gibbons: #105 I was working Journalist in Pakistn (1988-2000)and presently am living in Canada. Wish to practice Law but here they don't recognize Pak/India common Law degrees and want me to attend law school for two years... On the ending of bi-polar era I wrote that now is a transitional era and sooner the golbal village concept of new world order will be defined. Well, you may call it survival of the fittest...but this is true. The contemporary logic is based on yes or no.Either you are able to lead or not...If not follow the leader...There is hardly any escape from it. To me in the same family one kid would be more intelligent than the other. Similar is with the nations...it (IQ) can be measured...The new world order means rule of law both in homes,and business---individually and collectively that occurs on each street of our village world... Janathan #97,103 Thanks for your comments. Pakistan and Afghanistan scenario has been more a psychological cum economic than on principles. They exported warriors into India who ruled and established great dynasties like Muguls...but then Afghanistan used to be a province of such governments. After partition the rulers in kabul wanted to go back on their durand line agreement that they had concluded with the British india saying that the bordering provinces of NWFP and Baluchistan were belogned to them...But Pakistan responded to this stunt via introuducing huge developments and mass awareness...And sooner afghans used to come into Paksitn for education and work.During the Soviet occupation some thre millions came to Pakistan and retuned with alot of learnigs. Now they can speak urdu and reports said that pakistani currency was in ciculation with the business community. They are presently in the tribal era and have not experience the feudal period as those in Paksitan or India had been through...So, making the society move from one period into another and then into democracy is a hell of a job which will need alot of time... Yet there was a question on Pak-India relations...so, thanks goodness they have now decided to come to terms. Both have atomic weapons and both are horizontally and vertically polarized against each other and against the rest of the world too. This is a confusing scenario but I think the West know about it. India want to prevail upon Pakistan as being a big power and as such wants to be the police man of the entire souh East Asian zone...but Pakistn would not agree. Actually Pakistan since its birth has been a loyal pro- west allied. During the cold war against the soviets pakistan remained actively involved along side USA and as such used to be condemned by the Indo-Soviet govt and their so-called non allied partners. Afghanistan was also included in this group. But once the soviet Union was gone all of them came crowding White House to say that it is Pakistan a terrorist state...? well, politics has never been a bed of roses particularly for the depending countries. In the entire third world every nation is after receiving blessings of the richer nations but themselves would not rise to work and themselves become givers...Again this is the IQ issue...hope we will continue...

Jonathan
December 8, 2003 - 01:15 pm
mfido

I can't begin to tell you how much I enjoy reading your posts.

Only a mother could think of asking 50 questions. I wonder if she ever heard of that other mother who wrote from the Old World to her daughter in the New World, deploring the fact that she never got to hear any news. Her daughter replied that there was no news, nothing to write home about. And her mother answered that she was happy to hear it.

How did the red shirt people react, when the English demanded that they burn their red garments? What year would that have been?

It appears that the community in which you grew up, was not unhappy to have the British running things, since you list many of the benefits that came with the British Raj...like hospitals, railways, irrigation schemes, clean drinking water. It seems like the missionaries did much more than just trying to convert. As you say, 'they championed the ordinary folks.'

How did the 'English law' differ from the 'company law'? Did it, for example, make the people more aware of 'justice', and civil rights, to be had in court?

Being 'sent back to arabia' I took to mean, go back to where you came from. Is it in fact true, that many Muslims were converted Hindus, many of them untouchables, whose status was obviously vastly improved within Islam? I've heard that Christian missionaries were also most successful among untouchables. Perhaps Gandhi was afraid of losing them. Are you familiar with the old saying, East is east, and west is west, and never the two shall meet? Was there a similiar barrier between Muslim and Hindu?

Did Jinnah hold out a promise of a 'new era', of which you talk?

It is interesting that you should mention that Hindus had to undergo purification when they returned home after crossing the oceans. It wasn't too much of a problem for Gandhi, as he tells us in his autobiography. Have you read it? That too was a benefit of British rule...the encouragement to cross the ocean for an education, to broaden their horizons, learn the laws, and acquire civil service capabilities. Gandhi was fortunate. Others came back, but reamaind ostracised. I know of one who was prevented from attending his mother's funeral.

How does Pak/India common law differ from British common law? Woud your legal knowledge and accreditation benefit your compatriots in Canada?

How do you think Gandhi would have felt about 'rule of law' in the 'new world order' that you talk about? Do you think he could ever be law-abiding? The last time I looked, there was still a tax on salt.

Democracy, you say, will take a hell of a lot of time. And in the meantime? Has the time come for a strong man to reverse the trend of millenia, and using Pakistan as a base, continue the big game, take Afghanistan and all those former Soviet Islamic republics to the north in mid-Asia, establish a new Caliphate...was Partition good for Islam, after all the bloodshed...over Gandhi's dead body, as he said? What historic times!

Jonathan

Lou2
December 8, 2003 - 04:04 pm
Thanks for the discussion... this book was a great read and I enjoyed it very much.

Lou

Ella Gibbons
December 8, 2003 - 06:58 pm
LOU! Don't go away, we have so much yet to talk about - we have just barely begun. What did you think of the chapter - A PRECIOUS LITTLE PLACE - Simla - where the British upheld all the traditions of the ruling class in their summer retreat and lived the good life. Wouldn't it be a great place for a vacation?

I was surprised to read that all the coolies of Simla suffered from tuberculosis and I'm not sure why they did? Poor nutrition? It used to be such a dreadful disease here in the U.S.A. also, I remember the "old folks" talking about prevention and cures. As I remember, you were supposed to sleep outside as much as possible and I was told that is why so many older houses have sun porches upstairs, so the ill could sleep in all weather with windows open.

India was certainly in those days a nation of contrast, perhaps it still is? In Chapter 7 we read of the 565 maharajas - OH, the wealth and the display of wealth that these princes represented! It seems unbelievable that it ever existed.

"...the maharajas had been for almost two centuries the surest pillar of British rule in India. It was in their relations with the states that the British had applied to greatest effect the 'Divide and Rule' doctrine with which they were accused of governing India. In theory, the British could remove a ruler from his throne for misrule. In fact, a ruler could get away with almost any kind of outrageous behavior down to and including a few discreet murders without the British disturbing him - provided that his loyalty had remained intact."


They could do anything they liked, even murder, as long as they were loyal to the British!

If I am ever reincarnated I'm coming back as a Maharaja, riding on those elephants all bejeweled and decked out in their regal finery! What a sight that would have been! It's a fairy tale - no it's for real!!

JONATHAN, I am still laughing at you joining the Pathans!

MFIDO! Thanks for all those answers to our questions. We'll be very interested in the answers to Jonathan's questions - are you keeping warm in Canada?

Why Canada? If you had come to the United States, you still would have had to go back to law school I'm afraid as we do not recognize either law degrees or medical degrees from other countries. Each to his own!

Good luck in getting through the university and finding work. Do you have relatives in Canada? Do you keep in touch with family at home by email?

TigerTom
December 8, 2003 - 08:03 pm
Ella,

Besides the Maharaja's the group that prospered the most under the British rule were the Sikhs.

They were the backbone of the British Indian Army, were heavily represented in the ministries and were the first to welcome the British in to India and hitched their wagon to the British Star.

Tiger Tom

TigerTom
December 8, 2003 - 08:09 pm
Ella,

It was a two way street with the Maharaja's and the British: The Maharaja's lived their lives of luxury and gained more wealth under the British and helped the British to rule.

In return the British assumed ALL responsibiliy for anything that happened like famine's. The Maharaja's could misrule, tax the people to death, and generally make their subjects life miserable. They would then point to the British and say: "it is their fault." and the people would believe it.

The Maharaja's and the very wealthy were quite sad to see the British give up rule in India because it meant that they would be held accountable for things that happened and their happy, carefree, life was over.

Tiger Tom

Harold Arnold
December 8, 2003 - 08:56 pm
The British Indian Army made a good showing fighting in Europe during WW II, Indian units made one of the assaults up Mt Casino in Italy. I don't remember if their assault was the final successful one but if it wasn't it was an essential step in the final allied break through to Rome.

Regarding the Maharajas I remember in the immediate post war years, I think even for several years after independence the movie news reels would ever year show one at a ceremony in which his subjects gave him his weights in gold (or was it diamonds). The guys were quite heavy and the film show him on a balance type scale while his subjects added the gold to the other until a balance was obtained. I think Nehru abolished the royal privilege of the Maharajas a few years after independence. Is that right Tiger Tom?

mfido
December 9, 2003 - 01:27 am
Hi friends! AGK had launched Red Shirt move in 1921 and within next ten years it was found evey where around the province. The police action etc against AGK started as early as in 1921 when he was put behind the bar for three years. Later he said it was a difficult jail at a hoter city of Dera Ismail Khan and he lost 45 lbs there. However he continued his observations and thinking there and observed that Sikhs were so closedly related to each other because their religious book was in their own Punjabi language...He was set free in 1924 and on return to his village was given a warm welcome by his followers offering him a medal of independance and bestowing upon him the title of Fakhre Afghan (Pride of the Afghans).As to with respect to police action no one was happy and they say that while receiving beating in public his workers used to sing " we don't scare of your gun...then why would you take a chance ". However during all this movement people were observing the non violence in toto and they did not resorted to any action against the police. But still it was not a situation of 100 % pathans move. There were others who would think that it all futile while many others were pro english thinking that they took over and brought blessing to the people and the area as earlier under the Sikh's rule they were in alot difficulties. Had to pay huge taxes to non-believers while english were still people of the book. They were looking clean, wiser, intelligent ...so many were influenced of the British ways...By then the area was introuduced with civic amenities and those big land lords were recognized by the govt and given various titles and municipal powers. Nawabs, Khan Bahadur, KhanSahib etc were the titles that English offered to landed gentry that cooperated with them. While AGK having a huge holding in his area and some others did not cooperate. Still English did not resort to unlawful tactics save as under the then prevailing laws. I have read many biographies and books written by those officers who served in the Pathan lands and they give an impression that English officers had a good heart for the Pathans. They liked them for their hospitality, loyality, pride, revenge and other characters. Hope it is enough for now...will answer next guestion later...Take care bye!

Harold Arnold
December 10, 2003 - 11:33 am
We are now in the second week of Tiger Tom’s schedule. We hope he is not ill but pending his return we should move on to the chapter 6 through 10 assignment that he has previously given us. It is in these chapters during the summer of 1947 that Mountbatten’s Independence plan is finalized with an effective date set. The process was not without its uncertainties including the effect of Mountbattaan’s fine print inclusion of Bengal as a separate independent state in addition to India and Pakistan The plan was before the London Cabinet when Mountbatten realized he had better call Nerhu’s attention to it. Wow, Nehru was furious, in no way would he accept it!

Why did Mountbatten think Nehru would accept this? It apparently was intended to favor minorities in Bengal perhaps the Sikhs. Tiger Tom was it to accommodate the Sikhs; were there large Sikh populations in Bengal?

Again I cannot help but like the way Mountbatten acted to salvage the Independence plan. When he saw that the Bengal Independence provision had to go, it was quickly eliminated.. Also when in the last minute Jinnah and Gandhi threatened final approval, again his personal pleas, threats, and charm brought the final ok’s. Did you notice how Gandhi rationalized his reluctant acceptance of participation by advising his followers not to blame Mountbatten, but to blame themselves? Is this not a reluctant admission by Gandhi that the diverse religious passions of the multi-cultural population being what they were, made the participation inevitable?.

Harold Arnold
December 10, 2003 - 12:06 pm
The Corfield Bonfires- I almost wrote "Cornpone Bonfires" since somehow the names suggests to me an Al Capp Dog Patch type satire. (Do you remember General Cornpone?).

But it wasn’t that at all, it was the burning of tons of intelligence information that the British had been collecting for five generations on the numerous Maharajas and other heads of the princely states. The documents included the lurid details of the immoral indiscretions innocent and criminal of five generations of Indian royals. The burning was ordered by Sir Conrad Corfield in order to prevent future blackmail of the Maharajas etc by the newly independent India and Pakistan, “a purpose not entirely unforeseen by the British themselves when the decision was made to accumulate them” (page 190)

We got some six pages of detail that lead me to the conclusions that our modern European Royals have a lot of make-up work to do if they hope to equal the moral indiscretion record set by these early predecessors.

Ella Gibbons
December 10, 2003 - 06:55 pm
Hi Harold, that was an interesting tale of the burning of old scandalous material - what books they would have made! I can't help but admire Mountbatten, what a personality he must have had, even to win over Churchill.

We must admit that Churchill was a racist. The book I just acquired - CHURCHILL: A STUDY IN GREATNESS by Geoffrey Best - has a chapter on India and quoting from it "he (Churchill) believed they (Indians) were less civilised or less advanced than whites....he hardly ever met non-white men and women except at the highest-class sporting or diplomatic occasions. Never very fond of new faces even if they were white, he absolutely disliked, and tried so far as possible to avoid, colored ones, justifying this as a matter of choice, not prejudice."

Here again, we see Mountbatten at his best, he needed Churchill's approval of independence and partition of India in order to get the bill passed through Parliament. How clever he was to approach the subject with the promise of India remaining in the Commonwealth.

Didn't you find the story on p. 184 of the ideas several of them, including Churchill, had on Hitler defeating Russia fascinating? Little did they know, and here again Mountbatten proved to have good foresight, possibly because of his family's position there and the subsequent civil war.

Has anyone ever read a book about Mountbatten? I must look him up in the Library.

What an historic meeting between the members of Congress, the Moslem League, Baldev Singh, and Mountbatten and his advisors, a meeting which was to have a profound effect on 400 million human beings. WOW!

No Gandhi there; later he was to mutter that everyone was eager for his photos and statues but nobody wants to follow his advice.

JONATHAN - are you still with us?

TIGER TOM, are you around?

Lou - did you leave us for good? It's such a good book, we are hardly half way through.

TigerTom
December 10, 2003 - 07:36 pm
Harold, Ella,

I am around. Been tied up for the past three days or more with my wife's Computer. I have learned a good deal about that computer. Mostly that when I get one thing fixed another thing goes wrong. It is finally working for the most part. Funny how little things can foul up a computer no end: A jumper can keep something from being seen by the computer and can take days to find that one needs a jumper in the right place.

Whatever, Christmas: Did you know that the British celebrated 12 days of Christmas in India. Was a big deal at the height of the Raj.

Will be back in the swing of things tomorrow.

Tiger Tom

Jonathan
December 10, 2003 - 11:15 pm
I'm with you all the way, Ella. And we have a fine group here. But what a book; or rather what a subject. How can we ever hope to cover it all. I find my mind wandering off in all directions. Like stopping for a while to find out what will be expected of me as a Pathan. Pathans would probably be amazed at the notions I have about them. Their fierce fighting qualities being only one of them. You see I would like to offer you my services, to lead the elephant, I assume you would like to get up to Simla by elephant, and not in that two-horse tonga, whatever that is. Forty-two miles from the railhead; and the road is probably in disrepair!

Do you think anyone goes there now? Why? To look for ghosts? I wonder if Mrs Henry Penn Montague still sits up all night long, with her radio turned up even higher than it was years ago, since she is probably a little harder of hearing now. Does she still listen for the bells of Christ Church Cathedral, the ones cast with the bronze of the captured Sikh cannons. Do the tolling bells still carry an echo of the cannons' roar. It was interesting to hear from mfido that up in the North West Frontier the Sikhs were harsher overlords than the British.

And then there was that other distraction. There is no end to the number of lives snuffed out in so many violent ways. But what tweaks one's curiosity? Those 'discreet murders', mentioned in connection with the Maharajahs. No doubt there are a zillion stories about those 'royals'. As for the tons of documents, allegedly having to do with 'immoral indiscretions', one's first reaction is good riddance to all that for some tittalating stuff. But that reason for shredding them seems a little too pat, not to say slanderous. I like to think there were probably a lot of interesting records in there, conceivably just as embarrassing to the British as to the Maharajahs. A lot of historical evidence destroyed.

Collins and Lapierre wrote a very good book on an epic subject. There are many good reasons why it still shows up in every bibliography on the subject. It's so readable. And very clever in the way they mitigate their biases. As we all seem to agree: Mountbattin is just an outstanding individual. He has all that it takes. Even his hunches are good. So what can one make of the fact that any spare time he has he apends in looking for pedigree evidence to link him with Charlamagne? Getting to be the Viceroy finally gives the lie to Lady whatshername who told Edwina's aunt back in 1921 that Philip would have a difficult time landing a job. Which pleases him. Proving Lady ... wrong. For most of the twenties and thirties they were part of the jet set. Constantly talked about in the society pages. That must have been extremely awkward, with the Duchess of Windsor's refusing to return the Crown Jewels when her husband the King abdicated. Buckingham palace would, could have nothing more to do with her. So guess who is sent to ask her for them? What a scene that must have been. What an errand!

Of course he was very intelligent. With executive ability. A good commander. On the other hand he got to write the dispatches. And that is what I sense in the book. He gets royal treatment in the book. Compare that to the treatment Jinnah gets. Mountbatten is quoted that Jinnah is psychopathic. Jinnah thinks of him as a thorn. I refuse to believe that the 'rose between two thorns' was a slip of the tongue. Jinnah was far to clever for that. I believe he was making a statement. He could not have trusted Edwina, and her influence on her husband and her friendliness with Nehru. Mountbatten can't, or chooses not to get along with him. Nehru has only to open his mouth and Mountbatten jumps, and presto we get a plan more to Nehru's liking. I can't understand this atmosphere of inevitability put forward in the book, again, it seems to me, the influence of Mountbatten. The distressing outcome of partition must have, it did leave him feeling defensive about his role in it. I think the whole thing could have been handled differently. Where were all the bright British civil servants?

And Gandhi's role in the end? I believe it's pitiful. Edwina is given a very meaningful line in that regard, when she shows such concern for the freezing Gandhi: 'that poor old man.'

Jonathan

Ginny
December 11, 2003 - 07:32 am
Super post, Jonathan, I also agree on Mountbatten's role here and I think, with the hindsight that history affords us and the luxury of not having to BE there and make those decisions, that something other than partitioning was possible, but it would have taken time, lots of time, and Mountbatten and Britain (obviously from the text) had other things on his/ its agenda. CHARMING, every person on earth who ever met him thinks he was charming. His granddaughter, interviewed on the A&E Biography about him, is likewise charming.

Edwina called Gandhi a "poor old man," Nehru supposedly referred to him in likewise negative terms, but Mountbatten wanted to offer GANDHI the office of head of all India?

Edwina has not come off particularly well in history, either, has she?

What matters in the long run? What somebody calls you, or what you tried to do, and for what reason you tried? I can't think of too many historical figures who were not called names? Martin Luther King comes to mind? You could make a long long list, but I won't.

On the rose between two thorns remarks: I don't think Jinnah's mouth was disconnected to his brain? I am not seeeing any evidence that he was, once programmed to say "a rose between two thorns," when the line up was reversed, that he HAD to come out with that pre prepared statement, the man was brilliant and a lawyer, well spoken on all occasions, I believe that remark shows his arrogance, just as his demanding a 1/3 rd representation for the Muslim state after the FIRST DEMOCRATIC elections in the country EVER resulted in no place for him shows his total disdain and disgregard of the Democratic process. And arrogance.

These are large players on an important stage, I am enjoying learning more about each man (or woman) as we progress.

I won't make obvious historical comparisons, but the derision of others does not matter TO a person who is on a mission, and it should not matter to US except in remarking on the short sightedness and ignorance of the speaker.

ginny

Harold Arnold
December 11, 2003 - 10:10 am
I too want to say how much I appreciate this book. It certainly seems to be a definitive revelation of the rapid-fire events leading to India and Pakistani Independence and the immediate afterwards. It well deserves its inclusion in the bibliographies of professional writings on the subject. Thank you Tiger Tom for introducing us to it!

Here one thing is different concerning my participation. It is the first time I had not completed the reading of the book when the discussion began. So far I have managed to keep up. I appreciate the detail that the authors have included in what seems to me to be just the right amount. Though I will miss the last week of the discussion I will definitely complete the reading of the book.

TigerTom
December 11, 2003 - 11:33 am
The Die is cast,

Coming up to the event. The die is cast.

Mountbatten retreats to Simla and then has second thoughts so he shows his plan to Nehru, bad move? seems.

The one thing that saddened me in this section was in Chapter 10: The men in the British Indian Army, Hindu, Muslim and Sikh. They were bonded brothers in Khaki. They Played Polo, Hunted, Rode and went in to battle together. The religion of their commanders or their peers made no difference to them. So, at the end they felt that it would make no difference after partition. I deeply felt what was described in the book of their last nights together the gifts they gave one another, the promises to get together for pig sticking, hunting etc.

Pity that the Army was not used to ensure the peaceful transfer of the population BEFORE the partition and the transfer of power from the British to the Hindu and Muslim.

Tiger Tom

Harold Arnold
December 11, 2003 - 11:43 am
Tiger Tom, How have the Sikhs faired since Independence in modern India and Pakistan? Were they particularly numerous in Bengal and was the fine print provision granting of Bengal Independence in the early draft meant to accomondate them?

TigerTom
December 11, 2003 - 03:35 pm
Harold,

The Sikh's were in the Punjab. Rarely, if ever saw one in East Bengal but they were in Calcutta driving taxis.

The Sikhs are very good businessmen and have fared well in India and to a lesser degree in Pakistan.

They tend to irritate the Hindi's because they are such successful businessmen. The Sikhs are a minority of the population but control the majority of the wealth in India. This does not make them popular at all.

Indira Gandhi made a big mistake when she invaded the Golden Shrine of the Sikh's. She paid for it with her life. The Sikh's did not take kindly to that act. Even so, she trusted her Sikh guards because she felt the would honor their oath to her and the Country. Normally a Sikh would die before breaking an oath but in her case the circumstances were exceptional.

Tiger Tom

JoanK
December 11, 2003 - 05:24 pm
The whole thrust of what we have read is that it was a mistake to partition. This seems obvious, given the hundreds of thousands of deaths that followed. But is it? We will never know what would have happened if they hadn't partitioned, but it is possible to imagine that there would have been just as much bloodshed, and would have forced partition in the end. What do you all think?

I am intrigued by the scene where Gandhi confronts the Congress Party leaders, and tells them that they have a veto over partition. He seemed to think that they could have stopped it even then.

I'm also intrigued by the fact that it is taken for granted that Jinneh alone could speak for all Moslems. What do we know about the political awareness and feeling of the moslem people at that time? I am uneasy about putting so much blame on Jinneh without knowing more about the situation of the moslems.

I'm a little confused about where we are in the book. It seems to me that the process that was used to draw the boundary lines is important, and perhaps responsible for a lot of misery that followed. I don't know if anything else would have been practical. Again, what do you think?

Ella Gibbons
December 11, 2003 - 06:21 pm
Hi JOAN! We are on Week 2, chapters 6-10, and looking at my calendar here, we will begin Week 3 on December 15th.

I don't think anyone knows what would happened if the partition had not happened, but my guess would be Civil War with just as much bloodshed.

Isn't Jinnah a controversial figure in this discussion - we all seem to have questions about him. I have this slim volume of essays about India and there is a chapter on Jinnah which begins:

"What continues to baffle people is the conversion of Jinnah from a liberal, Anglicised, seemingly secular politician, whose proudest title was Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity and whose early political life was spent fighting for a united India, to the champion of an exclusive Muslim identity. It is one of the most intriguing yet least explored areas of modern South Asian history."


Although too long to type in here, the basic facts are that the political and cultural climate of India changed dramatically after WWI, a drawing in of the masses began to take shape rather than a few wealthy individuals engaged in politics. Hindu fundamentalist organizations came into being with a bias against minorities, especially Muslims.

To Muslims the National Congress was becoming arrogant, ignoring and dismissing their demands.

Jinnah withdrew for a time from his beloved India and lived a quiet, comfortable life and was at the age of 40, which Muslims believe is a turning point in life; his wife had died, and he undoubtedly thought he would never return. But Muslim leaders wrote and even visited him begging for his return and leadership.

The idea of the division of India into two nations, Hindu and Muslim, had been around, however ill-defined, for half a century.

An extract of Jinnah's presidential address to the Muslim League in March 1940 is in the book; a few sentences follow:

"It is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality, and this misconception of one Indian nation has gone far beyond the limits and is the cause of most of your troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, literatures."


TOM, how did the British celebrate the 12 days of Christmas and isn't this religious holiday in direct opposition to either the Hindu or the Muslim religion? That obviously didn't matter to the British, eh?

TigerTom
December 11, 2003 - 07:30 pm
Ella,

The English celebrated as they would have in England.

No, they didn't worry about the Hindu's or the Muslims because those were excluded. This was a Christian holiday.

However, since it was an English holiday India more or less shut down and after a while the Indian also began to look forward to them as days off. The Indians working for the English got caught up in the Twelve Days celebration and made it part of their calendar too.

Tiger Tom

TigerTom
December 11, 2003 - 07:34 pm
Jinna,

He is highly regarded in Pakistan as the "Father of the Nation" Once he embraced the idea of a Pakistan he became completely dedicated to it's creation and nothing would deter him from it.

He knew he was dying and was very happy that Mountbatten didn't know it and had set a firm date for turning over India from British Rule to Indian Rule. He was certain he would live long enough to see his dream of Pakistan realized.

He was a very complicated man.

Tiger Tom

kiwi lady
December 11, 2003 - 07:50 pm
Here we have a multicultural society and last night it was lovely to see people who were probably Hindu or Muslim or even Buddist buying Christmas trees for their kids. Out here where I live the Hindus share Diwali with us every year with a festival in the town community centre. Anyone can come to the feast. I think they all look forward to the holiday that comes with Christmas.

Ella, like you I think which ever way they had gone even if there was no partition there would have been bloodshed. We have to remember the British bought with them a whole new system. Prior to the British there were lots of little "kingdoms" all with different beliefs. To bring them all together was bound to cause conflict which persists to this day despite a so called democratic system. Maybe we should have left well alone ( I am of British descent)

If we look around the world there is always discontent where small countries have been gobbled up by conquering armies and lumped together into one large nation. The Balkans stands out as an example and also the old Soviet Union -when Communism fell the resentment which had been smouldering for many years raised its ugly head and the Russians are having big problems still.

Carolyn

Harold Arnold
December 11, 2003 - 09:31 pm
Of course Gandhi remained much saddened by the partition, but I think that in the end he too came most reluctantly to recognize that it had to be. It was on page 206 where the authors describe the final hectic hours before the plan was formally announced that Gandhi considered a call for his followers to continue passive resistance to the partition. On this page after a final meting with Mountbatten, Gandhi left to return to his prayer meeting with the viceroy thinking he would call for opposition. Instead at the prayer meeting with his followers Gandhi said "It is no use blaming the Viceroy for the partition. ---- Look to yourselves and your own hearts for an explanation of what has happened." I interpret this statement by Gandhi as his reluctant admission that partition was the only course.

I too believe that if the British had left India with a single Government the result would have been a bloody Civil war far worse than the carniage following the partition.

mfido
December 11, 2003 - 11:56 pm
Hi friends! Now we are heading to logical conclusions and particularly observations produced by Ella are alot interesting. Right now I got some problem with my computer. The poppon ads have invaded my system and had to start writing the same stuff for the third time. Well, this is when cyberspace is treated to be no-lawland...okay, yes here I found a website about the history of Pakistan which has dealt with the issue in detail.Please note it and visit for more information. www.historyofpakistan.com And now about xmas that in Pakistan is popularly called Bara din means great day while on the same day Mr. jinnah's birth day is celebrated too....!

mfido
December 12, 2003 - 12:12 am
Hi Harold: Yeh! you are right. Later Gandhiji agreed and even he pressed the Nehru govt that Pakistan be given its assets and shares of funds...that was probablly his last instructions where after he was killed. Here it is interesting to recall the frontier Ghandhi AGK who was said to be waiting outside the cogress final meeting on the partition plan. And when he was told that cogress accepted the plan he just sat on the ground saying repeatedly "forgiveness lord". Later he said to Gandhiji that 'we (the Pathans) have been thrown before the hungry wolves...'Many muslims regretted the partition as there were great scholars associated with congress party. In the North West Frontier Province a refrendum was held which was over whelmingly won by the Muslim leauge despite the provincial govt then was under congress party rule. AGK brother Dr.Khan Sahib was the provincial chief minister and when Pakistan was declared on August 14, 1947, a day before India all the provinical headquarters in the country had a public ceremony hoisting the Pakistan flag. Held in Peshawar Cunningum Park now called Jinnah Park all officials including Englsih saluted to the Pakistan flag but Dr.Khan Sahib declined...This led to the dissolution of his govt by Mr.Jinnah. Bye now!

Harold Arnold
December 12, 2003 - 09:52 am
Mfido when I opened your link, I got a Travel Agency page advertising Pakistani travel offers. Click Here. I did not see links to history sites. The following are two links to Pakistani History sites from a Google search on the thread, “Pakistani History.” A Google search on “History of Pakistan” yields many other hits.

Click Here. This is a short history since the partition and the creation of Pakistan in 1947.

Click Here . This is a much more detailed history of the Indus Valley from ancient times to the present.

JoanK
December 12, 2003 - 10:32 am
HAROLD: your first link is very interesting. I knew nothing about the proposed constitution, deviding India into semi-autonomous states. It sounds like a plan that might have worked. Also, I am interested to see the economic situation of Pakistan spelled out. It seems to me that that is the problem with many of the new states.The boundaries are drawn such that they have no economic resources, and so are doomed to poverty. Do you or MFIDO know if Pakistan has resources that could be tapped?

mfido
December 12, 2003 - 02:41 pm
Hi Haarold: Yeh you are right. It was my mistake.Sorry about it. The web site is: http://www.storyofpakistan.com/default.asp Hope you will find it this time.If I could add here that when Pakistan was established it had just no resources not its own exchequer and no money save those muslim league party had collected from the masses. Thanks goodness that Agha Khan was there to extend his financial rescue besides the State of Hyderabad in India advanced a one million rupees...Then at the time of partition India had more of less a hundred states that were yet to decide on their future to be joining into Pak or India...Sadly by and by all were swallowed by india and Hyderabad was taken on the very day when Mr.Jinnah's obituary occured (9/11,1948)...It was not just Kashmir that had stayed undecided then...and with no financial, administrative and or other resources Mr.Jinnah could lead the people to found a new state...Was not it his carishma? Then Karachi had a couple of old fashioned factories but within years Karachi became an industrial gaint while the rest of the country had a swift transformation into modern age. If Paksitan was not created these areas now called pakistan would never had a swift progress. Compare it with those muslims areas in India say Gujrat where no progress can be seen save repeatedly occuring of communal violence... One way or the other Pakistan served the cause of changing the peoples lots, educating them and raising their indices. Paksitan proved useful to that end. bye!

TigerTom
December 12, 2003 - 07:10 pm
Jute,

East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) produced 90 percent of the jute in the world. Jute was used to make Burlap which in turn was used to make "Gunny Sacks" This Jute brought in most of Pakistan's hard currency. A sore point was that while East Pakistan earned the hard currency most of it was spent in West Pakistan.

Also, most of the factories using Jute to make Burlap were in India around Calcutta. Before Partition it was not a problem but after partition things had to be worked out. Some people did well and others lost everything.

Today, of course, Burlap is not in use as much as it once was so Bangladesh has lost it's means of earning Hard Currency.

Tiger Tom

Ella Gibbons
December 12, 2003 - 07:37 pm
MFIDO, you are right up with us in the book, the chapter I finished last night is titled "THE MOST COMPLEX DIVORCE IN HISTORY" and it chronicles the division of assets which is tragic, but in some cases, almost comical. What a task!

It was somewhat amazing to read this"

"As in most divorce cases, the bitterest arguments between the two parties came over money. The most important sums were represented by the debt that Britain would be leaving behind. After having been accused for decades of exploiting India, Britain was going to end her Indian adventure five billion dollars in debt to the people she was supposed to have been exploiting. That enormous sum had been run up during the war, part of the crippling price that Brtain had had to pay for the victory which left her bankrup and hastened the great historical process now beginning."


It doesn't say if, when or how the debt was paid and to whom? And we read of Patel and Mohammed Ali being locked up in a bedroom and made to stay until they reached an agreement on all the liquid assets in banks, etc.

Mohammed Ali is a name familiar to Americans, our own former world champion boxer who became a Muslim years ago.

The splitting up of everything is beyond imagination - even dividing libraries - and it is amusing that dictionaries were ripped in half with A to K going to India and the rest to Pakistan. Hahaha Now who would that benefit?

As MFIDO said the Indians refused to share their press for postage stamps and currency, so for a time Pakistan had to stamp huge piles of India rupee notes with a rubber stamp marked "Pakistan."

And Harold talked about the Indian Army, how sad it was for all of them to leave each other, those who had so valiantly fought many battles and so bravelly - the history of this Army was very interesting, the establishment of an Indian Military Academy patterned on Sandhurst, and then to be faced with leaving everything behind as Moslems fled to Pakistan and Hindus fled to India.

But MONUMENTS!!! WHAT TO DO WITH MONUMENTS! I looked up the two mentioned in the book and here the are:

Tomb of Anarkali


Mausoleum of Nur Jahan


Both were in Lahore, which is now in West Pakistan, but at one time our book says this:

"Lahore was a tolerant city and communal distinctions between its 500,000 Hindus, 100,000 Sikhs and 600,000 Moslems had traditionally mattered less than anywhere else in India....Sikhs, Moslems and Hindus rumbaed and did the fox trot together. At receptions, dinners and balls, the communities mingled indiscriminately."


And they all allowed their individual religions to divide them, to cause the most awful catastrophes, deaths, wars and hatred. Why we wonder? Would the Gods, whomever they be, look down with favor on the killing?

Poor Gandhi, he is even ridiculed somewhat in this chapter. He denounced western ways and yet he used a microphone to speak to crowds of followers and the 50,000 rupees a year that allowed him to sustain his first ashram had been a gift of an industrialist, G.D.Birla, whose textile mills had been a nightmare for Gandhi.

Ella Gibbons
December 12, 2003 - 07:43 pm
Hi TOM - we were posting together. Heavens yes, I remember gunny sacks - they were always used on the 4th of July to run races - do you remember that? Two people would each put one leg in one and hop down a field to a goal amid loads of laughter, falling down over - I wouldn't dare do that today!

Can't remember what else we used them for? Oh, potatoes came in gunny sacks.

Jonathan
December 12, 2003 - 08:44 pm
Tom

It's good to see that your technical problems have been solved. You're indispensible. Your experience, your knowledge of India and Pakistan, your first-hand information are vital to this discussion. I got excited as soon as I saw Freedom at Midnight proposed for discussion. There couldn't be a more timely book for an appreciation of the lessons of history, for an understanding of current events, and for a revealing picture of our human family. I like to think that Collins and Lapierre did, with their literary dramatization of the fall of empires and the birth of nations, what Attenborough did on film with Gandhi. Same cast and so complementary in their artistry.

Ginny...I would never for a moment doubt that Mountbatten had charm. It seems to have been legendary. And it went so well with his patrician bearing, didn't it? Perhaps that's why he was chosen for the mission. I thought at first it was because of his military expertise. Or because he was Nehru's choice.

Here's something to consider:

'Britain had come (post WWII) increasingly to rely upon the charm of her diplomats and politicians to draw attention away from and shore up her declining strength...the charm replaced the innovation, industry and raw energy of a century earlier.' Andrew Roberts: Eminent Churchillians.

Roberts then goes on to say that Mountbatten 'inserted his (charm) like a stiletto.'

In the book Nehru flatters Mountbatten to his face when he says that 'Now I know what they mean when they speak of your charm being so dangerous.'

And how about this from Mountbatten's son-in-law, David Hicks:

'When he wanted to be he could be absolutely charming, the most amusing company and delightful to be with. But where his career was concerned, nothing else mattered. He could be a complete bastard.'

Ella...you were wondering about a biography. Philip Ziegler's is the official biography of Mountbatten. He was truly a remarkable character, with a family tree right out of this world. Ziegler, according to one reviewer, brought out...'a combination of gargantuan vanity with cockily unlimited self-assurance and conceit.' While writing the bio, Ziegler had a sign on his desk which read: 'Remember. In Spite of Everything, He Was a Great Man.'

Don't we all remember the shock in 1979, when Mountbatten suffered the same fate as Gandhi thiry-one years earlier. When the Irish terrorists blew the admirals boat right out of the water. Terrible.

Jonathan

Harold Arnold
December 12, 2003 - 09:05 pm
JoanK and Tiger Tom, I think you are right in attaching importance to economic factors in the partitioning of the Indian sub-continent. India today seems to have achieved a measure of technological industry. My one telephone to Dell support last month was answered in India. Pakistan I supposed has not made similar strides though it too is apparently a Nuclear bomb.

I suppose economics had a whole lot to do with the inclusion of Bengal as an independent nation in Mountbatten's first draft plan. According to the account in the book Bengal had a thriving textile industry as well as much of India’s other industry and the major port city of Calcutta. One can see why the local Bengal politicians would want independence rather than merging their relatively prosperous economy in the otherwise poor Indian economy. Likewise one can see why Nehru was so determined that an independent Bengal would not happen.

And Pakistan had even less industry I am sure that nuch suffering in both countries resulted from the many economic disruptions that followed from participation.

Ginny
December 13, 2003 - 08:13 am
JONATHAN! What a quote!! What a series of quotes, wow, thank you for that, "'Britain had come (post WWII) increasingly to rely upon the charm of her diplomats and politicians to draw attention away from and shore up her declining strength...the charm replaced the innovation, industry and raw energy of a century earlier.' Andrew Roberts: Eminent Churchillians." Wow.

Joan K has thrown down a gauntlet here I think we all should pick up, she says but WAS Partitioning inevitable, after all?

The argument, of course, being that there was nothing else that could be done, even tho it's perfectly clear that Mountbatten got his dates and orders before he even approached the country.

Let me ask you all something as pertains to Joan K's question?

  • If India could exist without Partitioning under British Rule then why could it not continue under Democratically Elected Congress rule without Partitioning?

    ginny
  • TigerTom
    December 13, 2003 - 09:03 am
    Ella,

    It wasn't Harold who mentioned the Dividing of the British Indian Army and the sadness of it. I was the one who brought that up as I moved me so much.

    Ginny, The reason that they Indians could live so harmoniously under British Rule was that the British were running things and taking responsibility for what happened. So, they went out of their way to keep a lid on religious problems.

    An example of their success was the British Indian Army. While there may have been problems in the "Other Ranks" in the Officer Corps there was little or no problems and the Indian Officers made sure that no problems among the troops escalated.

    Evey religion to one degree or another prospered under British rule if for no other reason than no individual religion was subject to intollerance.

    The Sikh's did very well under the British. After partition the Sikh's slowly came to control much of the wealth in India. It was a determined effort on the part of the Sikh's. They felt that Economic power would translate into protection for their kind.

    Tiger Tom

    Ginny
    December 13, 2003 - 09:50 am
    So Tom are you saying that the Indians could not then rule themselves with regard to all the religions even when they had a Democratically Elected Government?

    (Thank you for all the additional information, by the way, I am very grateful for your knowledge and experience and your sharing it with us).

    ginny

    Harold Arnold
    December 13, 2003 - 10:04 am
    In message #157 Ginny asked:
    If India could exist without Partitioning under British Rule then why could it not continue under Democratically Elected Congress rule without Partitioning?


    While I do not have an answer to the question, I will offer an observation and another question. Isn't it interesting that until the 1990’s in the Balkans the numerous culturally different ethnic groups could live together in harmony for near 50 years under the Yugoslav Communist government? Yet with the fall of communism and the coming of democracy, they immediately broke apart in bloody conflict.

    And the question; is there not the same result appearing in Iraq today where the different cultural groups, ethnic and religious, Who lived together under the Saddam Hussein dictatorship, are now breaking apart in potentially bloody conflict?

    While I had mentioned the role of the British Indian Army in connection with the WW II Italian campaign and the allied break through at Mount Casino, It was Tiger Tom who mention the effect of the 1947 partition on the division of the Army

    TigerTom
    December 13, 2003 - 04:27 pm
    Ginny, Harold,

    In the case of Yugoslavia and Iraq there were strong men in power who would not put up with relgiious strife. The would do away with anyone stirring up things.

    Britain had the Maharaja's and the Army to retain control. The upper and middle classes were doing quite well under the British and the poor were no better off no matter who ran things so they were more or less docile.

    Gandhi tried to get the poor involved but was never successful. His two events aimed at the poor was the Salt March and the Cotton revolt (making products in India out of Cotton grown in the Country.) Both of these were aimed at the poor because they were so important to the poor. While the Salt March and the Cotton revolt caused the British problems and forced change they did not arouse the poor into a group that would support any kind of a revolt. Revolutions are planned by the wealthy, managed by the middle class and fought by the poor. The third leg just was not there.

    Gandhi knew his enemy: The British and knew how far he could push them and how to use world public opinion against them. The British were vulnerable because they would only throw Gandhi in to jail and when he went on a fast public opinion in Britian and abroad forced them to accede to his demands. Had Gandhi lived Nazi Germany or Stalin's Soviet Union he would not have lasted a day. He would have been frog marched up to the wall and shot. The British would not do that.

    Tiger Tom

    Ginny
    December 13, 2003 - 04:55 pm
    Interesting points, Tom. The issue of Gandi's appealing to the conscience of the British, and thus presenting them with a weapon they could not fight (as they WERE moral men) came up twice in the two classes I took and the question was actually asked about Nazi Germany since Gandhi appealed to the conscience of the rulers, it's a good question.

    Do you really think after the uprising in 1857, that the British actually had any choice? Could they have allowed themselves, even if they were as evil and stupid as a Hitler or a Stalin, to have been so stupid, since their own numbers were something like 100,000 to one, to kill Gandhi? If they had, would there have been any British left alive in India? As it was the news back home was all of the murderous hordes, cartoons of the savages versus the poor outnumbered British, do you really think that anybody in power in India, Stalin, Hitler with that disparity of numbers would have been stupid enough to kill Gandhi?

    Good discussion!

    ginny

    Ella Gibbons
    December 13, 2003 - 06:58 pm
    JONATHAN, thanks so much for the recommendation of Philip Ziegler, I looked him up in my Library (not physically, I can sit here at my computer desk and get into my Library system, type in the author, title or subject, and look at everything our Library has, what technology we have today!) - he's obviously British and has written quite a number of books - one on the BLACK DEATH (what is that - a plague of some sort).. He wrote one in 1999 titled BRITAIN THEN AND NOW, which probably would be a good one to read.and several bios of noted Britishers - Diane Cooper, Henry VIII.

    I reserved the book on Mountbatten by Ziegler, even though it has 784 pages - MERCY! I'll never get it read in its entirety, but I'll get an idea - I remember his death as devastating to Prince Charles - they were very close it seems

    Good line, JONATHAN - "that Mountbatten 'inserted his (charm) like a stiletto."

    Will Prince Charlie ever get on the throne or will it be Prince William? What's your opinion?

    TOM - I've been wanting to ask more questions about our embassies abroad and as I haven't read the next chapter, now is the time to do it. Is there any preparation given to those assigned to an Embassy post? Is the Ambassadorship just a political plum? Are there civil servants in each Embassy who know how it works and how to get the job done? IN foreign countries how many in an Embassy could speak the language of the country? Who protects the Embassy if it needs it - do you American guards at the Embassy?

    GINNY, from what I've read in the book (and that's all I know) I would say that your speculation that the Indians could not rule themselves under a democratic government is true. Once independent and removed from British domination, the divisions among them would be too unmanageable. For hundreds of years they had been ruled by the British, they could not have accomplished self government in as short a time as would have been needed.

    Did any of the professors who taught any of your classes believe that it was possible had they tried it?

    On to "WE WILL ALWAYS REMAIN BROTHERS" - OH, YEAH!!! Will get that read tonight.

    "Revolutions are planned by the wealthy, managed by the middle class and fought by the poor" - good point, TOM

    Would that apply to Russia's Civil War, our Civil War, Vietnam? I'll have to think about that!

    Ella Gibbons
    December 13, 2003 - 07:48 pm
    My daughter is going to be home for the next three days, before she returns to work, and she does keep me busy and then she will be home again for Christmas. I don't expect I will be here much but will try to continue reading.

    mfido
    December 13, 2003 - 09:26 pm
    Hi! Now we have come to the senario after partition. Here I would say that the newly emerged Paksitan had to parts or wings East and west Paksitan.East Pakistan was East Bengal that had its own history of division, unification and again division from West Bengal. The West part had four provinces of Punjab, Sindh, Baluchistan and NWFP. Now after partition the leaders were faced with a job of making a constituition. But it was not an easy task and it took almost nine years when in 1956 the first constitution was formed. And this was done after all the parties agreed that those provinces occuring on the west should be merged to form a single province. Hence the new set was based on two provinces of the federation of Paksistan. This was done to make the sharing of offices and representation possible on fifty fifty basis between East Pakistan which had a larger population and west pakistan that had larger area. This was called the principle of parity. Accepting this prinicple was a great sacrifice on the part of East Pakistan becasue its population was more than the other province. They had jute, and tea that earned Pakistan enough funds while west paksitan had cotton. Later in 1965 war between India and Pakistan errupted and after that ended and both countries signed peace in Tashkent USSR, the pakistani oppositon parties gathered in Lahore to discuse the post war senario. Here in this meeting held in january 1966 Sh.Mujib of Awami League brought his own distinctive view point. He said that during the war East Pakistan people had been provided with no protections and no defence and they had the feelings as if East Pakistn had no value for those ruling it from west Paksitan. Then he tossed his six point scheme saying that it will provide a valid mechanism safe guarding the eastern wing. It had asked for the establishment of its own malitia force, arrangement with the state bank in respect of currency so that export produce of east paksitan may bring money to east pakistan and not west. This created a huge discusion and many said that the defence of East was depended upon the defence of west and that allocating exports on provincial basis would hurt the enitre foreign trade...After a year later Pakistan govt announced that it Sh Mujib alongwith his trusted deputies had visited AgarTala bording area in India and were briefed by the Indians how to resist Pakistn..Hence the govt put them all behind the bar for conspiracy against the state. Later in 1968 like any where else Pakistan too experienced a continued mass unrest and agitation. And it was then that the govt as gesture of good will let free Sheikh Mujib and his associates. Then a new military General named yahya Khan took over and declared to be holding a general elections in the country so that power be transfereed to the peoples representative. This was a good gesture. However the elections results later unleashed a very deep crisis. Actually Gen. Yahya was not interested in power for himself and wanted to transfer it as soon as possible. And there he came with the idea that elections be held on one man one vote. This was the first ever time that adult franchise was provided in the country to each and every Pak citizen. Here it is worth noting that earlier all elections were held under the colonial style with rigt to vote limited to those paying taxes, had land holding etc. The paupers and havenot had no access to such right. Yes, it was a good decison bringing equal rights for all but again counting votes and seats in the federal assembly had undone with the parity principle which was evolved after a long discusions after partition (1947-56) whereafter constitution could be formed. Also the one united province of West Pakistan was undone into older provinces by Gen.Yahya Khan before elections. As the elections returned Sh.Mujib in majority then those politicians from west side were found reluctant to accept that majority led by Sh. Mujib's Awami League party. Thus alot many if and buts made the armed forces to intervene declaring the winner Awami League as extinct. Now India supported by the Soviet intervened to save humanity from the guns of the army and hence the fall of Dacca occured that created BanglaDesh...The rup Pakistan had being alot in hot waters then...Thanks goodness Z.A.Bhutto came could took over power to make peace with Late Indra Gandhi who was hell of a politician and great tactician...All this prove our discusion point that money makes the mere go and when East Paksitan realized of its being exploited on trade it stood in revolt. secondly that the military rulers can hardly be trusted for their political know how...

    Jonathan
    December 14, 2003 - 01:13 pm
    mfido

    It takes an elucidating post such as yours to make one realize how much one has to learn, in order to appreciate the difficulties in resolving serious political problems.

    Do you think they should have taken a little more time in the division of the spoils, when the power-hungry leaders came together in 1947, to determine the fate of the British Raj. Correction: Mountbatten saw to the fate of the Raj. The others were deciding the fate of their peoples.

    To what extent can one rely on the political judgement of 'paupers and havenots'? Why should they be considered an important element in the political process? Their vote can usually be had for so little, such as a kindly lecture from a Gandhi or a Nehru. I'm not trying to be cynical.

    Where do we go from here, now that Saddam has come out of hiding? One almost feels sorry for him. Doesn't he look terrible. It must have been a resigned, relieved 'come and get me' situation.

    Jonathan

    TigerTom
    December 14, 2003 - 01:31 pm
    Ella,

    Your questions:

    Some Ambassadorships are political plumbs but mostly because they are so expensive that only a millionaire could afford it. Even then a Rich Ambassador is hard pressed. Posts like London, tokyo, Paris, and the like go to Political appointees.

    There is usuualy a carrer minister as number two man and he actually runs the Embassy and keeps the Political appointee out of trouble as best he can.

    People are assigned to a post a month before departing their old post. So, one can go from Germany to Bangladesh. Not much time for training other than what is needed for ones job. Politcal Officers, DCM's, Ambassador's, Economic Officers, Administrative Officers, and others are given two years of language training when they are assigned to one of the Far East, Middle East, Near East, African posts and some South American Posts.

    Embassies are guarded by U.S. Marines small contingent of about 12 for a large embassy and five for a small or medium sized Embassy. These Marines are used to hold off any mobs until the local Army can move in (if it does) The Marines, Ambassador and Comuunication staff are the last to get out of an embassy under attack, often pulled of the roof by helicoptor.

    I hope this answers your questions.

    Tiger tom

    kiwi lady
    December 14, 2003 - 04:40 pm
    Harold - your post. I agree I have said the same thing both here and in the Political discussions. It almost seems that some nations need to be ruled with an iron hand ( terrible as it seems) or they dissolve into chaos. It all goes back to amalgamation of lots of little tiny States to make one nation. The ethnic groups then cannot seem to get along. Should we give them all their independance and leave them to it? The only other solution would seem to be a dictatorship! Its a really difficult situation. Russia too is a point in question.

    mfido
    December 15, 2003 - 10:14 pm
    Now this discusion took a new turn. To me it is all about the intelligence of nations which in turn are the individuals who form it to be a nation. I have been constantly watching the development of European Union that is now but a continental govt...but on other side the break up of soviet union is an in toto reversal of such an approach. Still in the third world countries we have similar situation. Abdul Wali Khan is the son of late AGK who was a front runner in the freedom fight. In 1988 he was addressing a press conference where he said that provinces in Paksitan be given autonomous powers...Then in question period I asked him that now was the era of unification as European common market was closing its ranks further to become EU so why would you prefer other way around...And he indulged into a thought for a while and then said abruptly, 'that is what we wanted in 1947...'!

    kiwi lady
    December 16, 2003 - 12:21 am
    Mfido - It was Empire building which created a lot of the problems we see today. I don't think the Balkans, some of the States still under Russia, and some areas in India and Pakistan will never know real peace.

    TigerTom
    December 16, 2003 - 01:37 pm
    Back, again

    Been Hors Du Combat both physically and mechanically:

    I have been in bed with some kind of bug since saturday evening and the ISP I used has had all kinds of problems.

    Naturally, the people at the ISP would not admit that they were having problems so whevever I could I chased back and fort between my two computers (one with WIN 95 200 Hrz and the other with WIN XP and 2 Giga Hrz) both were having the same problems so I knew what was happening was coming out of the ISP. They insisted it must be in my system or in the connection I had to the ISP. So, I changed the connection on one computer and I still had the same problems. Also, I was getting some strange connection speeds out of the ISP, one time as low as 40 KBS. Anyway, the ISP got the problems solved early this morning and things seems to be back to somewhat normal. I was worred that the modem on my new maching had gone out. If those people at the ISP would have admitted they were having problems I would not have been doing all of that running back and forth and thinking about buying a new modem.

    Anyway, Partition has been done and the population movement begun. Bloody, very bloody. It is amazing to me that people who had lived in harmony for so many years could go about killing one another. The British were involved in leaving India, India and Pakistan were involved in Negotiations and the problems of setting up new Government, Military, Rail, Postal and Civil services. No one seemed to have the time to stop or even try to stop the Killing. Individuals were shocked and bemoaned the savagry but by and large could only watch and wring their hands.

    Tiger Tom

    kiwi lady
    December 16, 2003 - 02:40 pm
    We are having problems with our ISP here not being able to disconnect when we want to. Its not my PC as several people I know all with different Windows and Outlook Express editions are having the same problem. It has cost some people money as they did not look when they disconnected to see if it had actually done the job. Daughter got $35 extra bill as hers was on all night! Its been happening to me and my brand new PC and to Cenk my SIL to be who also has a relatively new PC.

    Carolyn

    GingerWright
    December 16, 2003 - 03:21 pm
    Some time ago that happen me but when I called them they said to unplug the cord "like when we loose electricy" so I did and put it on a one of those things that have a switch and now all I have to do is click the shut off button. It works for me. I hope that I explained this so you understand, if Not email me if you can get thru as some cannot for some reason that has Not been fixed yet. Good Luck my Friend.

    Ginger

    kiwi lady
    December 16, 2003 - 06:02 pm
    Thanks Ginger - I should have thought of that!

    TigerTom
    December 16, 2003 - 09:26 pm
    Kiwi,

    I also had that problem but found that disconecting the jack from the wall connector would break the connection and they you can plug the jack back in and will get a dial tone on your phone.

    Tiger Tom

    Ginny
    December 17, 2003 - 08:41 am
    There are a lot of underlying political events and movements, elections and factions we're not talking about yet here in terms of the Partitioning. Nehru discounted and did not believe Jinnah would take the Muslims' claim as far as he did. Not a religious man, Nehru wanted a unified, independent, secular India. In 1945 the Labor Party in England came into power and they had always been for Indian Independence.

    On August 16, 1946 in Direct Action Day 6,000 were killed and 20,000 raped, maimed or mutilated.

    Mountbatten, a man of enormous prestige, a cousin of the King, a man of charm and ego, did not charm Jinnah. Jinnah had his own agenda and was not above calling on that old war horse "they are disrespecting our religious rights" to stir the masses.

    Mountbatten felt there was no way to avoid Partitioning. The decision was made to move up the suggested date of Indian Independence from June 1948, to August 15, 1947, a decision which may live in infamy, and the "official line" was do it quickly or law and order would break down.

    Mountbatten had a career reputation of getting things done, and as we have said wished to regain the family honor of 1st Lord of the Admiralty.

    There was a boundary committee but they kept the actual lines secret until 2 days after Independence was declared.

    5.5 million Hindus and Sikhs left Pakistan, villages were destroyed, trains stopped mid route. Slaughter of the most unimaginable scope began. The estimates are that between 200,000 and 600,000 people were killed.

    Between 8 and 16 million people were involved in the whole melee.

    In my class at Oxford we had the daughter of a man whose father supervised all of the trains in the area that bordered West Pakistan and the stories he told were just horrifying. He thought a rush to judgment had been made, and blamed the one man who wanted a whole India, like many Hindu's, Gandhi, instead of the man who desired this break: Jinnah.

    All but 3 of the Rajput joined either side before Partitioning. Kashmir was a mess. The leader of Kashmir was a Hindu Maharaja, and even tho 70 percent of his country were Muslim he went with the Hindus.

    I thought the statements on pages 199 and 200 were amazing. Mountbatten, in his desire to counter what he thought would be a "disastrous "move by Gandhi and who had only one hour to convince Gandhi, seized on calling it the "Gandhi Plan," but Gandhi was listening for that inner voice.
    Should he remain faithful to his instincts, denounce partition , even as he had urged, at the price of plunging India into violence and chaos? Or should he listen to the Viceroy's pleas for reason?


    And what happened?

    Less than an hour later…Gandhi delivered his verdict. Many in the crowd before him had come, not to pray, but to hear from the lips of the prophet of nonviolence a call to arms, a fiery assault on Mountbatten's plan. No such cry would come this evening from the mouth of the man who had so often promised to offer his own body for vivisection, rather than accept his country's division.

    It was no use blaming the Viceroy for partition, he said. Look to yourselves and in our own hearts for an explanation of what has happened , he challenged. (sounds like Mother Terresa, huh?) Louis Mountabtten's persuasiveness had won the ultimate and most difficult triumph of his viceroyalty.

    As for Gandhi, many an Indian would never forgive him his silence, and the frail old man whose heart still ached for India's coming division would one day pay the price of their rancor.



    I think this is an electric passage in the book and the tale of a tragedy. And I wonder who we can blame here or if we can blame either? I get the impression here that for Mountbatten this was a chess game, get out, get your way, be charming, and go home in triumph, another naval battle won.

    For Gandhi it was his whole soul.

    What should they have expected him to do? Call on violence to get his non violent ends of unity?

    I can really feel for all the people involved in this and the only disdain or censure I have is for the one man who did not want to work with the others for unity but who wanted, above all things, a kingdom for himself: Jinnah.

    No wonder Jinnah did not tell Mountbatten he was ill, if Mountbatten had ONLY waited, a completely different India would have emerged, I believe.

    ginny

    TigerTom
    December 17, 2003 - 09:41 am
    Ginny,

    I am off for California to spend Christmas with my Grandkids.

    Will be back with the discussion on Friday from California.

    As the saying goes: "The fault lies within ourselves dear Brutus."

    Unfortunately, Religion can lead to the most hiddeous things. One would think that people who had lived in tolerance for most of the British rule could change populations without the killings. It would have been hard enough without the slaughter and with both new governments helping as much as they were able. I still say that had the Indian Army not been sepearated, kept under british command, until after the population had been moved and safely within the borders of their new countries, it could have prevented much of the killing. Not all of it but it could have made the killing dangerous to those who were doing so that those people would have second thoughts.

    Tiger Tom

    Harold Arnold
    December 17, 2003 - 10:31 am
    Hello Tiger Tom, and all; I too have had my problems with my connection being as I am on the end of a rural SWC telephone line. Today I count myself lucky when I connect at a speed above 40 kbps through my 59kbs modem. This speed varies depending on the conditions of the telephone line from the 40+ high to sometimes as low as 20 kbps.

    I am now convinced that the load on the telephone circuit is largely responsible. I currently have two ISP’s since I am trying a 6 month free earthlink connection. Earthlinks connects through a local Seguin line, Texasnet connects through a San Antonio metro line at least 30 miles further away. Yet the more distant Texas net connection is always the faster by as much as 10 mbps. For this reason it would appear that I will stay with Texas net

    Getting back to our book I note Tiger Tom’s summary of the situation on the Indian sub-continent August 14th 1947 quoted below and would only add the additional comment that follows:
    Anyway, Partition has been done and the population movement begun. Bloody, very bloody. It is amazing to me that people who had lived in harmony for so many years could go about killing one another. The British were involved in leaving India, India and Pakistan were involved in Negotiations and the problems of setting up new Government, Military, Rail, Postal and Civil services. No one seemed to have the time to stop or even try to stop the Killing. Individuals were shocked and bemoaned the savagry but by and large could only watch and wring their hands.


    I remember from an earlier chapter that Mountbatten selected Aug 14th rather suddenly at a May news conference announcing the final plan. A reporter asked when the Independence would come and Mountbatten, use to making quick decisions, spontaneously chose the 2nd anniversary of a WW II Japanese surrender. Immediately the local astrologers had problems with this date as being most unsuitable for the future of the new nations. Our author’s entitled this Chapter “A Day Cursed By The Stars."

    Be it because of the Stars or otherwise I must agree with Tiger Tom’s comment and use of words like savagery to describe the carnage that followed. In explanation I can only note again the later example in the Balkans where again different ethnic groups who had lived peacefully together for 50 years under the cement of Communism immediately broke apart in savagery upon Communism’s demise. It makes me wonder if the we in the U.S and other similar Western democracies could be subject to the same bloody destiny upon the breakdown of our economic prosperity that seems to be the current binder holding our many diverse groups peacefully together?

    kiwi lady
    December 17, 2003 - 01:22 pm
    Harold we always had had a pretty egalitarian society until we got a Govt who went too far too fast. The rich got really rich and the poor got really poor - unemployment in double figures. Crime soared and yes I believe should our prosperity in the Western World disappear we should end up with big troubles. Things have improved somewhat here but the income people began to generate by growing pot which is grows very fast here in our temperate moist climate has still continued. The large scale growing began in little towns which had been demoralised by large scale company closures which resulted in massive unemployment. Unemployment fed this illegal industry.

    Jonathan
    December 17, 2003 - 10:39 pm
    Ginny, thanks for reminding us of the complexity of everything pertaining to Indian independence and partition: the issues, the demographics, the personalities, and, hovering over all the Mahatma, who becomes stranger the more one thinks of him. It seems to me that he's not all that helpful in the end. Almost a part of the problem, as it is said. While the others are talking and negotiating, Gandhi goes for walks, guessing at what the others are talking about.

    Mountbatten's charm has by now confused Gandhi into believing that it really is his, Gandhi's, plan that is being worked on. Very clever. Mountbatten later said that most of his discussions with Gandhi was a matter of listening to his, Gandhi's, life story.

    Obviously, too, the masses seemed to be cooling to his ideas about non-violence. He was no longer sure whether they would follow where he led. Heaven forbid another Himalayan blunder. I can't recall if he ever talks about Satyagraha now. A real tragic figure in the end.

    As for Mountbatten, he too is becoming more interesting, the more one hears of him. You mention his preoccupation with 'career reputation', and 'family honor'. Was he out of his mind to take on such an impossible task as managing the exit of the Raj? It must have been vanity. The prospect of being enthroned in Delhi. As he and the Prince of Wales saw in 1922, on that royal tour of India, when it was observed by the Prince, that a Viceroy of India exemplified the regal life.

    So Mountbatten saw some glory to be had. Very capable, despite having been tagged along the way as the Master of Disaster. And his bravado! As a captain he once claimed that he would never abandon his ship. Why then such a hurry to evacuate the kingdom? I agree entirely with Tom. It should have been possible to maintain law and order during a transition. He had good officers around him, including Churchill's choice: Ismay.

    And then there is Jinnah. He seemed to have no support, except, of course, that of his sister Fatima. She sounds like a stalwart one. I came across something interesting, from a book by Manmath Nath Das:

    'As personal diplomacy had become a special feature of the Mountbatten days, Miss Fatima Jinnah, the sister of the Quaid, also pitched in. She met Lady Mountbatten and harshly attacked the Congress and the Hindus. "She seemed almost fantical at times, in her attitude" said the Vicereine. Miss Jinnah was bitter against Nehru and the others, and charged them of causing violence while defending her brother and his declarations of non-violence. At the same time, however, she spoke of fighting for separation if the rights of the Muslims were not conceded to. Jinnah and his sister seemed to be gripped by a persecution mania. Lady M reported to the Viceroy: "Her refusal to admit that any Muslim or Hindu really could work and live together was quite frightening, because one knows, of course, that it is possible, and that it is being done all the time. Her cry throughout was, 'why don't the Hindus leave us in peace, and what do they want of us! They are getting, anyways, three-fourths of India, why can't they leave us the rest'! I feel really sorry for her, and for her brother, as they are certainly obsessed with their Pakistani mania, which has become a religion, as well as as illness, but I think of the two, she is much the most unreasoning, certainly much the most vitriolic."

    Jinnah, it is said, was just as secular-minded as Nehru. Keeping in mind the difference between Western secularity on the one hand, and Hindu secularity on the other. Convinced of his 'Islam in Danger', perhaps Jinnah was being just as much a realist as Gandhi was an idealist. If only they had switched roles.

    What strikes one in all this is the fact that such momentous decisions are made by so few. For that matter it doesn't take many to run an empire. That little island, with such a mighty empire! Existing on borrowed time, it is said, after the American colonys declared their independence.

    Jonathan

    Ginny
    December 18, 2003 - 02:59 pm
    Jonathan, that is an absolutely beautiful post and I agree with ALMOST all of it, hahaha I'll let you guess which part I dont, but I loved this one:
    So Mountbatten saw some glory to be had. Very capable, despite having been tagged along the way as the Master of Disaster. And his bravado! As a captain he once claimed that he would never abandon his ship. Why then such a hurry to evacuate the kingdom? I agree entirely with Tom. It should have been possible to maintain law and order during a transition. He had good officers around him, including Churchill's choice: Ismay.
    Is that the same Ismay (she ignorantly asks) who survived the Titanic?

    Anyway, thank you also for that passage about the frightening and fanatical Ms. Jinnah.

    I agree with you and Tom, but alas hindsight is not much use, now.

    ginny

    TigerTom
    December 19, 2003 - 08:56 am
    Greetigs from Sunny California,

    Had time on the plane to review some of the chapters. I, again was struck by how quickly the Punjab returned to savagry.

    I was also impressed how Gandhi was able to calm Calbutta and how incapable the others were able to control the Punjab.

    Tiger Tom

    Jonathan
    December 19, 2003 - 11:54 am
    Ginny...hindsight is always useful. Necessary, in fact, if we are ever going to learn from the mistakes made in the past...

    What do you think of the uses made of foresight by the 'leaders' in this historical drama?

    Tom...I'm happy to hear that you have arrived safely in California.

    I've given a lot of thought to Gandhi's calming effect in violent Calcutta. There is no doubt in my mind that it proves something powerful, something supernatural about him. Almost, it seems to me, on a par with stilling a stormy sea. He must have known, as he made his way to Calcutta, that it meant a showdown with Kali, the Goddess of Destruction, the Goddess of Terror, the Goddess who puts hate into mens' hearts. This journey must have been a Gethsemene for Gandhi.

    It seems beyond belief that a city could venerate violence. That many of its citizens could worship a goddess such as Kali, make supplications in her temple, and then proceed to do her bidding until the streets ran with blood.

    What a heavy heart Gandhi must have taken with him when he left the ashram to do battle with the Goddess Kali in HER bailiwick.

    Katherine Mayo begins her immensely popular book, Mother India, (1927), with a gruesome description of the rites practiced at the Kali Ghat in Calcutta, which lay at the end of Gandhi's walk that day.

    Jonathan

    Harold Arnold
    December 19, 2003 - 06:13 pm
    Do you remember the 1930's movie, Gunda Din base on the poem by Rudyard kipling. Well at any rate it got its title from the poem. Remember in the movie version the insurgents ambushing the British regiment were worshipers of the Hindu God Kali. The movie seemed to picture them as a minority terrorist sect but actually Kali appears to be a significant God among the thousands Hindu deities of all types. Gunda Din saved the Regiment marching into ambush by shimming up the golden Tower bugling a call warning the regiment unaware below before dying in a hail of insurgent bullets. I happened to have seen the movie again last summer on the TCM network.

    Click Here for the Kipling Poem.

    Was it not strange that Nehru choose Mountbatten as the first Governor General of Independent India? I don’t think the fiction of a remaining attachment to Britain persisted very long after that. As I understand it Nehru soon declared India a republic. Tiger Tom isn’t the Chief of State in India today titled “President?” Apparently India remains a member of the so called “British Commonwealth of Nations” which today is more a trade alliance than a political union.

    Jonathan
    December 19, 2003 - 09:14 pm
    Here's a most interesting and very relevant article on Indian politics.

    http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/651CA05B-D253-434C-B520-29F65473F865.htm

    Jonathan

    kiwi lady
    December 20, 2003 - 10:03 am
    Harold the British Commonwealth is a bit more than just trade. There are many ways this organisation benefits the member nations. Some of them are not at all obvious. There is also still a bit of the extended family feeling amongst the nations. It is a bit hard to explain.

    Harold Arnold
    December 20, 2003 - 01:14 pm
    Jonathan I read your interesting link on current India politics. I think the basic idea of the modern Indian nation as a budding secular democracy came through despite the shortcoming of under representation in Parliament accorded the Moslem minority. I was somewhat surprised at reading that Moslems comprise the largest religious minority in India meaning Moslems in India outnumber the Sikhs. Apparently ideas such as “one person, one vote” and “proportional representation” for minorities so important in the U.S. are deem less fundamental in India.

    I for one really appreciate the participation of the several of you who live in countries other than the U.S. I think Jonathan is from Canada, Kiwi Lady is from New Zeeland and Mfido is Pakistani-Canadian. It is you with the several from the U.S. that gives this discussion an international dimension

    Ginny
    December 21, 2003 - 05:08 am
    I'm going to take severe exception to the very idea that Jinnah was responsible for the development of Democracy in India?

    In fact, he showed total disregard for the Democratic process so dearly won by the long struggles of literally hundreds of people. I've quoted here from my classes before on the subject, but let me do so again, and now will bring in other sources which may be of interest.

    When you read about the development of Democracy in India, it takes page after page of miniscule text, whole books have been written on this on aspect, and for instance, if you read in the Britannica, it takes page after page, and hundreds of names, just to go a year or so, we don't have space here or time to repeat it all, here are some salient quotes.

    From my class just completed, taught by a Professor of Asian History Emeritus whose Doctorate is in Indian Independence:

  • "Gandhi had succeeded in restoring a Gandhian idealized version of ancient standards and returned to the Indian the notion of his own culture and worth, and made this version a vehicle for mass action, and caused people to believe they were of worth.

    Gandhi's biggest failure was in alienating the Muslims.

    You can't look at Indian Independence without looking at England's other politics of the time.

  • In 1935 a Central Government and a Provincial Government gave Indians some participation in their own rule. [I think but am not sure this was the first time Indians were even allowed to vote.] These were elected bodies from the Indian populace of government. The British continued to have "communal representation " for minorities, Christians, Muslims, and Untouchables… Jinnah returned to India when he heard about the 1935 Constitution.

    In 1937 in a Provincial Election Congress won a clear majority in 6 of the 11 provinces in British India, and was the largest single party in 3/5 provinces. So Congress could form a government in 6 provinces. Nehru became the political leader and Gandhi the spiritual leader of the Congress.

  • Jinnah, however, wanted to form his own coalition of government, and EVEN when the Congress had majority, "he had no appreciation of the democratic process, and demanded 1/3 of the posts in the cabinet go to the Muslim League. He had NO notion of Democracy." Jinnah offered something he thought important—communal harmony and an absence of violence. Nehru, not a religious man, could not understand this issue, and rejected out of hand, probably arrogantly, this claim, causing Jinnah to unleash the dreaded cry of "Religion in Danger."

    Deliberately cynical politically, Jinnah appealed to the "worst fears of Muslim masses" and that gave him leverage with the Middle Class Muslims. He thus built up his base. Jinnah could not hope for top spot, as he was in the minority. It was not until 1940 that he mentioned the idea of East and West Pakistan."

  • From Empire: "For the first time in India, elections were being held by the people. The Atlee government was waiting for the results of the central and provincial Indian elections, the outcome of which would be known by the end of 1945. Since the last elections for the central assembly had been helped in 1934, and those for the provincial legislatures in 1937, the votes cast in 1945 would provide up to date evidence of, among other things, the electoral strength of the Muslim League.

    During the election campaigns, Congress made its usual broad appeal to a wide range of interest, hoping to retain the support of sufficient numbers of Muslim voters to scupper the growing movement for a separatist state of Pakistan. Jinnah and his supporters in the Muslim League, their confidence boosted by the Raj's encouragement of them during the war and by Wavell's reputation as a Muslim sympathizer, unscrupulously and irresponsibly conjured up the spectre of a united India dominated by a harsh and unsympathetic Hindu majority." (Empire pages 334-335).

    In other words Jinnah played the oldest card in the book.

  • Congress monopolized office in all Hindu majority provinces after the 1937 elections. (EB)

  • Once more in August 1940 the viceroy repeated his statement that dominion status was the goal of British rule in India, and announced the British government wished India to enjoy that position under a constitution formed primarily by Indians, as soon as possible after the end of hostilities. At the same time Indian political leaders were invited to serve as heads of departments on the viceroy's executive council The reply of Congress in this proposal was that India should be granted immediate independence and that the task of drafting a constitution should be committed to an assembly elected by universal suffrage….When the constituent assembly met on December 9, 1946, it was boycotted by the Muslim League.

    I know that's a loose overview but that's really all I have time to put here, and I am not sure how much clearer you can get that Jinnah was not content TO go on the true elected Democratic process, but instead so wanted a vote for his own people that he was willing to unleash the dogs of war and cries of religious persecution to get it, with the result that we now see, the creation of East and West Pakistan, and the subsequent massacre/ abuse of, some estimates place it at more than 600,000 people with untold atrocities. Not my idea of a Democratic Process.

    I wanted to just throw those perspectives also into the widening ring here of our understanding as we go?

    From Freedom at Midnight, page 134, "For the rest of his life, Mountbatten would look back on that failure to move Jinnah as the single great disappointment of his career...'Partitioning,' Mountbatten wrote, 'is sheer madness,' and 'no one would ever induce me to agree to it were it not for this fantastic communal madness that has seized everyrbody and leaves no other course open...The responsibility for this mad decision,' he wrote, 'must be placed squarely on Indian shoulders in the eyes of the world, for one day they will bitterly regret the decision they are about to make.'"

    I guess one of the ironies of this is that Mountbatten has been blamed for Partitioning ever since.

    back in a minute....
  • Ginny
    December 21, 2003 - 06:39 am
    I have, at last, caught up to Chapter 10, I am not sure which week we are in, are we in the third week? What is our remaining schedule, I've been busy with other things, are we to be thru Chapter 10 or the next set?

    At any rate I absolutely love this book, the descriptions of EVERY POV, the British, every maharaja and excess, it does so much to capture the country and the people. In fact, I plan to reread this book later at my leisure (when I can get a half clean copy for myself, this library book is totally dirty).

    Last night there was a program on TV called "Dreams of India," and so, my husband on a trip, I settled down in front of the fire to watch and beheld some kind of Shopping Network thing which was ludicrous so hauled out, I have two new documentaries on Gandhi but hauled out instead the Bollywood " Lagaan" (which I now learn means TAX and TAX it was, it explained the tax structure under the British East India Company:)

    Here's what they said about the taxes if you are interested: the British soldiers would promise the local Maharaja that they woudld protect him. For this service they levied a tax for payment. They likewise promised other Maharajas they would protect THEM and from the original Maharaja, so they were very busy. For these services they levied taxes on the other Maharajas, too. These taxes came in the form of a percentage of the farmer's crop, brought first to the Maharaja. It was said the Maharaja would take his first cut (the movie then showed a sack being brought forth and opened and a fist going into the sack of grain and pulling out a fist full) and the rest went to the British. If it had been a bad year rain wise, etc., then the farmers almost starved trying to provide this "percentage" which might be doubled on a whim.

    I don't know how accurate that is.

    The movie takes place in the late 1800's, during the British East India Company days, and is really fun, it's a fun movie, it's a "type" movie, lots of singing and dancing and courage and romance, but it also shows you things quite subtly.

    Of course the thing is hours and hours long so I only saw 2 hours last night apparently Indian filmmakers want you to get your money's worth. It's in Gujarati, I believe, at least it says it was shot in Gujurat, with subtitles (or Urdu, not sure which) and it's fascinating, it sounds somewhat like American Indian dialect and the thing I REALLY liked was the English subtitles continue when the British were speaking, as if the British needed to be translated. Hahahaha It's also clear there is a hatred for "Whitey" here and it's clear from "Freedom at Midnight" there might have been a good reason.

    Jonathanji, you asked "What do you think of the uses made of foresight by the 'leaders' in this historical drama?"

    That's a good question, and probably a loaded one, I thought Freedom made the point that neither Nehru nor Jinnah could conceive of the necessary foresight, "Nehru and Jinnah each made the grave error of underestimating the degree to which communal passions they did not share or feel could inflame the masses of their subcontinent." (page 253). I would say neither had particular foresight if either thought partitioning would work.

    Likewise, Mountbatten, whom I have come to admire here for his efforts in TRYING to reconcile so many of the disparate groups EVEN THO he did it only for his own "glory," so Britain could "go out in glory" when it did exactly the opposite, showed foresight but the inability to do anything about it.

    Talk about those who are powerless, call Gandhi powerless, at least Gandhi stayed true to his own ideals, and he is the one person who did forsee what this would mean.

    So the two biggest players here were powerless. I need to read more about Gandhi and Mountbatten's last meetings, and to understand what went on there, I think in this one depiction in the book, there is something missing? Something there does not make sense, and I need to understand it more. Gandhi kept saying he was old and worthless and nobody listened to him but Freedom seems to suggest the opposite and we do know that Mountbatten DID intend to offer Gandhi the head of state, Freedom does not mention that, Wolpert's new biography does. I need to take the time (somehow) to read that bit in Wolpert and see what really went on, I'm not so sure here that what we're seeing here is the whole story, tho it's certainly interestingly and colorfully written.

    Was that the type of thing you wanted, Jonathan? I love your questions, what is your own take on that same issue?

    I don't agree that Gandhi is a tragic figure, despite what the book continues to assert: he was true to his ideals till the end, how many others can say the same?

    The fault, dear Brutus, the "tragedy," and the reasons for it, lie elsewhere I believe, and doesn't Freedom do a super job pointing out the atrocities? And they say it was worse, much much worse.

    Do you all think Britain DID exit India in "glory?"

    ginny

    TigerTom
    December 21, 2003 - 08:16 am
    Good Morning,

    I was not able to get on the Computer yesterday.

    I do not believe that Gandhi was a tragic figure. He had a good sense of the power of his beliefs. He used his main weapon, Fasting rarely, but effectively. In other hands that weapon would have lost its effect through overuse.

    Jinna was typical of the type, He would use any method to further his goals even if his goals meant bloodshed and pain. I am not even sure he was aware of what he was trying to create. He seemed to want to carve out a place for himself as leader of a political base.

    Things do not change that much in India I remember passing open fields that were being used as a communal toilet even in this day.

    Tiger Tom

    Harold Arnold
    December 21, 2003 - 11:55 am
    This will quite probably be my final post, as I will leave tomorrow for an unconnected Xmas in New Mexico. I have not yet finished the last 200 pages but will complete the reading and if by chance the board were still open Jan 3rd or 4th when I return, I will add further comment.

    Thank you Ginny for your detailed comment drawn from the course you took last summer at (was it) Oxford or Cambridge in England. You added explanation left un-addressed by our book.

    I see both Nehru and Jinnah as being substantially removed from their Indian roots. Both had been educated in England and both appear to me to be much more secular than the masses of their people. Perhaps it is this non-attachment to their respective religious roots that made them unable to foresee the violence that was to come, and which among Indian leaders, only Gandhi foresaw. Though there is much that I do not understand about Gandhi, he remained true to his Indian roots and much better able to understand the masses of the people than the political leaders.

    So far as Nehru was concern, I see him as a socialist in the pattern of the English Labor Party at the time. As such I would add, he was a democratic socialist. Regarding Jinnah I see nothing in the book justifying crediting Jinnah with bringing democracy to India.

    Both Nehru and Jinnah were personally ambitious and active as leaders of the Congress Party. From Ginny’s post it appears that Nehru emerged after the 1937 elections in the principal position of power. Jinnah seems to have been an opposition force, but remember that when the ideal of an independent Islamic Pakistan was first proposed by a Graduate Student about 1930 Jinnah refused to have anything to do with it. I suspect it was his personal ambition that caused him to change his mind by the time of the 1948 countdown. Nehru meanwhile had remained the leading exponent of Indian Independence in the Congress party. He was enough of a pragmatist to see the value of compromise on the unity/partition issue but not enough of a psychologist to see the certainty of violence.

    Click Here for Xmas Card.

    mfido
    December 21, 2003 - 04:26 pm
    Hi!Harold Arnold: Thanks and particularly for the E-Card. Hope you enjoy your holidays.Here I would clarify one thing that Mr. Jinnah in no case was after founding the religious oriented fundamentalist state or Islamic Pakistan. Instead he tried to keep all such elements away from his circles and as such even the graduate student Chaudhry Rahmat Ali who came all the way from London to participate in the historic MLeague meeting held in Lahore on March 23rd 1940 was not let to table the Pakistan resolution which he desired so much for having invented the name PAKISTAN. The said resolution was moved by a gaint leader from East Bengal called Lion of Bengal A K Fazal ul Haq. Even the concept of a secular Republic of Pakistan was included in the country's first Constitution framed in 1956. However, later various lobbies and pressure groups influenced the then leadership to changed the country's name as Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Well, by and by those who opposed Mr.Jinnah and the Pk movement got power in the country and today we find them all creating a huge conflict of civilization for their narrow minded approaches. Otherwise who cares calling glass an islamic glass or an islamic room or islamic water? to me state is the society organized in a particular territory under a rule of law. Mr.Jinnah wanted the continuation of the then prevailing law and its extension into Pakistan for all those occuring in the territory called Pakistan. Well, the society then was no doubt far backwarded but still on the indian scenario those wanting Pakistan were more advanced than the others. And it was probably because of them having ruled India for centuries...The 1857 Indian scenario speaks that then Muslims being the ruling class had resisted the taking over of India and as such Muslims were badly punished. Later various leaders emerged who wanted to bring peace firstly with the English rulers who were otherwise yielding to non muslims on the intersts of muslims in socio-political and administrative fields. And such strategy soon became successful resulting better understanding between muslims and english rulers. But what damage was done in earlier years that was not repaireable so the gulf continued to breew and those elements in India who had taken the fall of India to their hearts also remained one way or the other in the entire show. For example when Sir SyedAhmed Khan founded his Aligarh College to forward the modern learnig sooner next year Indian clerics founded the school of Deuband.Yes, it was some hundred and fifty year back but even today we find those two currents still influencing each other in opposition. Taliban being the students of religious schools hail from that historic Deoband school which grew and expanded into the entire subcontinent and neighbouring countries. To me such an historical cum emotional phenomenon would have been haulted had Pakistan succeeded in a prompt transformation into an industrial country. However, those feudal lords at the time of independece sitting in the national legislatures would not give up their English titles and previleges. They wanted that Queen Victoria's type of Raj be continued in the name of Pakistan. And to theis situation the Fist Prime Minister Mr.Liaqat Ali Khan had then warned all the landed gentry that if they would not share their good lucks with rest of their countrymen then a revolution might force them doing so...It was later in 60's when such lords learnt how switching to Industries would be more beneficial for thier banking accounts...!So, I mean that Mr. Jinnah's followers after his death failed to continue his mission and were traped by the fundamentalists... Well hope to continue post partition scenario durng holidays and please accept x-mas greeting! Cheers!

    Jonathan
    December 22, 2003 - 10:07 am
    I believe those instincts were in the end just as much a hindrance to the orderly devolution of the Raj, as Jinnah's problems with democracy were an obstacle to a united India.

    Ginny...thanks for the overview. You make a good case to support your belief that Jinnah was opposed to allowing democracy to take a hold in an impending, independent India. I admire your effort to put things into an orderly fashion, such as the English efforts to bring about self-rule in a responsible, peaceful, constitutional way. And in doings so you point out the troublesome areas, not least of which is the problem of assigning blame for the miseries and untold human tragedies which came with the birthing of these two nations.

    I'm not sure it's realistic to talk of democracy in times of turmoil and crisis. It was as Mountbatten puts it, a time of 'sheer madness', a time of 'fantastic communal madness.' page 134.

    Jinnah does play a strange role, or roles, over a long period of time. He seems like such an exasperating character. He reminds me, in a way, of the spokesmen for the Soviet Union during the Cold War, with their constant use of the veto at the UN, and so frustrating all efforts at an accomodation with the West. They were that fervent and fanatic in their attempts to prevent their Marxist system from failing.

    Yassar Arafat comes to mind, as the Muslim leader concerned with the survival of his Palestinian coreligionists. Co-existence with the Jews, for both sides seems impossible, an impasse without any chance of a 'democratic' solution.

    Jinnah obviously had problems with, or felt threatened by 'democracy', as the leader of a minority. He seems like a good example of the difficulties facing Muslim leaders in todays world. And who are deserving of a lot of sympathy. What a challenge for men such as the Ayatollah Khomeini, the Saudi royal house, the Taliban, and even Saddam Hussein, whose Iraq at one time seemed to represent a different kind of future for some Muslims.

    I'm being called for lunch. These are busy times. I just can't find the time that this subject demands. Too many questions to address. Oh, well...

    Jonathan

    TigerTom
    December 25, 2003 - 08:19 pm
    Merry Christmas!!!

    Have been kept from the Computer for the last several days due to Shopping and spoiling Grandkids.

    Hopefully, now that Chrismas is over, we can get back to the disucssion

    Tiger Tom

    Ginny
    December 26, 2003 - 08:29 am
    thank you Harold, yes these "thoughts" that I have do come from (and Jonathan, I don't know enough TO have any opinions of my own, these are just notes, verbatim, from either my classes or other texts, unfortunately I simply don't know enough to hold an opinion , tho I do anyway about Gandhi as you have seen. Hahahaha). When you take these classes, even tho the last one here in America lasted three months, you simply can't cover everything and so, for instance in this last class, when the professor distills years of scholarship in to a couple of sound bytes and quotes and you take them down verbatim, then that's all I'm really doing is presenting here a transcript in the case of Jinnah and Democracy, as to what was said, of course anybody can argue with it, or the other books cited, and I don't know enough to argue back. hahaha Truly.

    But from what I have read, the synopses seem right on!

    I think, now having finished the book, the authors of the book also refute their own claims of Gandhi's ineffectiveness, and it's the more powerful when you see the contrast, but I don't want to get ahead of the story.

    Yet we're in the 4th week here, it's the 26th and so in passing over the truly horrific events of the third section in the book I want to say how vividly and well the authors have brought us into the truly horrific slaughter and how frightening it all is, I will take that image of the train coming into the station with all dead bodies on it forever. I don't know what any one person can do in a situation like that to protect themselves. We here in the US can't imagine slaughter of helpless civilians in such numbers, I think, I certainly can't, the whole country gone insane, it's awful, and it was very powerfully written, I think.

    Likewise, the image in the last, of the result of Gandhi's fast and what Mounbatten said to him, makes me truly think had he lived and had be BEEN able to make that pilgrimage to Pakistan as he wished, that the continuing slaughters would have stopped. I believe that, do you all think so, or not??

    In fact, you have to marvel at the courage of this man, (part 4 of the book deals with Gandhi quite a lot), faced, when he began his last fast, with chants, which he could barely hear and had to ask what are they saying, and it was "Let Gandhi die. " Can you imagine what that must have felt like to a man whose stated policy on fasting was that they have to love you in order to be moved?

    But what did he do? He kept on. What strength and courage he showed, always, whether or not he was addressing an angry mob whose swords gleamed in the sun or his own fear of failure, what a man. What a funeral scene. What a life. Prior to this past August, I knew almost nothing about Gandhi, Jinnah, Nehru, or India, and I think this book has done a wonderful job in filling us in on all sides, do you all feel it was fair and presented an unbiased view? Who comes off the best? And who the worst? Do you see any bias in this book?

    While I like the technique of putting us into the minds of each of the major players, I was extremely annoyed at having to be in the mindset of the assassins in Part IV, felt like I was studying John Hinkley here, and resented it, and skipped over several paragraphs because to me that's an act of total cowardice and I'm not interested in the motivations of somebody who would shoot an unarmed man. Were you?

    more on Gandhi as First Governor General of India from Stanley Wolpert.

    ginny

    Ginny
    December 26, 2003 - 09:13 am
    "Though he never sought conventional power or any job in India's government, Gandhi was waiting within earshot of Nehru and Patel, hoping that they might invite him to replace Viceroy Mountabatten. It seemed gallingly inappropriate to Gandhi for the British royal naval person to remain the ceremonial head of Inpendent India. Now that the cameras had stopped rolling at all the ceremonial speeches and changing of the flags, now that virtually all Britain's troops had sailed home, it was surely time for India to have its own Indian governor-general head of state, which Gandhi knew he deserved to be.

    He had playfully suggested several times that a "Harijan girl," would be India's "best" president, yet each time he said that he added how happy he would be to serve as her unpaid "advisor" or secretary. Those who understood Gandhi knew why he said that, and also why he now bemoaned the fact that no one listened to him any longer. What to Gandhi must have been doubly galling, moreover, was that Jinnah had taken over as Pakistan's governor-general from his nation's birth, refusing to acquiesce to Mountabatten's vain attempts to persuade him that he be permitted to serve both dominions jointly as supreme governor-general. Were Gandhi India's governor-general now he could easily have launched another summit with his old friend Jinnah. Together they might have been able to agree on an formula to stop the slaughter—Gandhi's most passionate aspiration…

    Mountbatten had sense enough to realize that Gandhi truly deserved the job he retained as the historic hangover of his previous position as viceroy. And Mountabtten was keen to geo back to command his fleet at sea. He had, after all, completed the mission Attlee had given him, withdrawing British forces from India without losing a man and transferring Britain's sovereignty to two dominions. Time for him to move on. Delhi was much too hot and dry . So Mountbatten was quite ready to let the old man, whom he never really understood but who had done rather well in keeping Calcutta more or less calm, take over as India's governor-general. Every Indian spoke of him as "Father" of (Bapu) of the nation, after all, so why not let him end his life as it's head of state? But Nehru, who had come to look up to Mountbatten for martial advice and strategic support as well as assistance in dealing with may delicate problems of state, rejected the idea of having Gandhi as his governor-general even more vehemently than he'd vetoed Gandhi's "Jinnah scheme" a year earlier.

    Nehru never forgot that Gandhi believed Jinnah would have been a better prime minister of India than he was. With so many horrors of partition now grotesquely revealed, Nehru knew Bapu had been right, after all. So , less than a week after Mountabatten met with Gandhi and told him of his "desire to retire from the Governor-Generalship of India," Gandhi wrote him the most painful "Dear Friend" letter of his life. " I have spoken to Pandit Nehru. But he is adamant. He is firmly of opinion that no change should be made until the weather has cleared. If it does, it may take two or three months." The "Weather" was the havoc wrought by partition's hurricane and the chaos left strewn across north India by tornadoes of intolerance. That would take more than "three months" to "clear," but three months was now all Gandhi had left. There would be no further summit with Jinnah, no flight to Pakistan, no governor-general Gandhi.
    ---from Gandhi's Passion, pages 245-247, by Sidney Wolpert.

    Imagine what "might have been."

    As the poet says the saddest of all, "it might have been."

    I really also liked the authors's technique, at the end of Freedom, of bringing us up all on "where are they now," found Mountbatten particularly poignant as he, still alive at the book's writing, struggled to help the tons of people writing him for help from India. My admiration for Mountbatten has tremendously increased as a result of reading this book.

    I have found a stack about 2 feet high of old Life Magazines from the 40's, and hope to find SOMETHING some photos, something about India at this time and the major players we're reading about: they seem larger than life, to me, fingers crossed!

    ginny

    TigerTom
    December 28, 2003 - 10:03 am
    Freedom.

    It has always been hard for me to get by the chapter on the savagry right after partition. Unfortunately, I have been witness to such mindless, killing and cruelty in that part of the world

    So when I read about it in the book I cannot read any further for a while. It just brings back too many harsh memories.

    Tiger Tom

    Persian
    December 28, 2003 - 08:32 pm
    Tiger Tom - I remember similar incidents in Afghanistan. There are times when I still (many years after returning to the USA) excuse myself from a discussion, and I surely do not want to read about those events. When I returned to the US, friends said my eyes had changed. Two weekends ago, when I looked at my son's face when we met at the airport as he arrived for a two-week home leave from Iraq (where he has been serving as an Army Chaplain), I knew exactly what they meant! His eyes were flat. Today, as he prepares to return to Kuwait (but not, thankfully, Iraq), his eyes reflect his normal temperament.

    Jonathan
    December 29, 2003 - 10:12 pm
    I've turned the last page in this strange drama. Towards the end of the book I just felt myself carried along by the fateful doom of Gandhiji, unwilling somehow to part company with his indomitable spirit. What a long way we have come since August! What a strange road we have travelled.! Hail and farewell, Bapu. There must be a better world waiting for you somewhere, where experimenting with truth will seem so banal. Perhaps you're feasting with the Gods this very moment. Do you ever look back? Was all the fasting really worth it? There were times when you seemed such a transparent, self-centered old fool. But no more of that tonight. Tomorrow the nagging doubts may return...tonight I grieve at the loss the world suffered at the time of your death...but what an awesome leave-taking! Strange are the ways of the Gods. And kind too. That long walk to Pakistan would have been a foolish undertaking. Walking the trail of tears would just have broken your heart. The barbarities just left me angry. Peace, gentle soul.

    Jonathan

    Ginny
    December 30, 2003 - 06:44 am
    Jonathan, has anybody ever told you you have the soul of a lyric poet? Your writing just knocks my breath away, and yes we sure have come a long way since August, what a ride it has been, not a ride, a journey, incredible, huh? One of the prisoners in the Wally Lamb book mentioned Gandhi, and I wondered has she read his book? I wonder how many have, what a beautiful obituary, Jonathan. I liked Nehru's remarks on Gandhi's death:


    …the light has gone out of our lives and there is darkness everywhere…The light has gone out, I said, and yet I was wrong. For the light that shone in this country was no ordinary light…that light represented something more than the immediate present, it represented the living, the eternal truths, reminding us of the right path, drawing us from error….A great disaster is a symbol to us to remember all the big things of life and forget the small things of which we have thought too much. In his death he has reminded us of the big things of life, the living truth, and if we remember that, then it will be well…

    He died in the fullness of his powers and as he would no doubt have liked to die… He died suddenly as all men should wish to die. There was no fading away of the body or a long illness or the forgetfulness of the mind that comes with age. Why then should we grieve for him? Our memories of him will be of the Master, whose step was light to the end, whose smile was infectious, and whose eyes were full of laughter.

    We shall associate no failing powers with him of body or mind. He lived and died at the top of his strength and powers, leaving a picture in our minds and in the mind of the age that we live in that can never fade away...[He] came to enrich us and make us strong, and the strength he gave us was not for a moment or a day or a year but it was something added on to our… inheritance.

    Prime Minister Nehru on the death of Gandhi

    When comes such another?

    ginny

    kiwi lady
    December 30, 2003 - 10:45 am
    We had our David Lange who stood up for peace against France for testing her bombs in the Pacific and also against the USA by not allowing her nuclear powered ships into our nuclear free zone. We even sent a frigate to stand off Mururoa in peaceful protest along with Greenpeace and the other protestors in the peace flotilla- for that stand for peace the French sent terrorists into Auckland Harbour where they blew up the Rainbow Warrior. The World in general has no time for those who advocate peace. We received little sympathy from the World and punishment from the USA in an economic sense. I am cynical that any nation really wants peace they are more interested in economic issues and the money that comes from the arms industries.

    Gandhi was very sincere in his philosophy for peace but unfortunately other factions were not. Personal ambition came into the equation and it all turned to custard. Isn't that always the way - there is always someone or some nation which will not put aside self interest in the name of peace. I hold no hope for peace in this world. (a very cynical statement you think?)

    mfido
    December 30, 2003 - 09:05 pm
    Hi Friends! Here we got new year eve. Happy New Year to you all searching for Truth. Freedom@Midnite is also a dedication in that very direction. But cultural realities are alot difficult to be identified and put on historical anvil by any foreigner. Here we got the issue in Bosnia & Herzegovina. Serbs, Croats, Macedonian, Bosnians, Montenigrians...all hailing from the same slaiv origin who had 50 years under one Yugoslav federation...But when the time came each fearing the other took their own ways. Surprisingly it were Bosnians who remained loyal to their past on the very cost that they had been paying on every such ocasion...So, I mean that very fact was not taken seriously by the authore. Were it kept in mind the picture of Mr. Jinnah wouldn't be that dark and Gandhji wouldn't be a smiling Budha..Also besides Bapu (father) and Khanu(AGK)there was Nayitaji Sabash Chander Boos who was not mentioned about on this board. When he was elected congress party leader he experienced his own look of Gandhiji...But still this had been a great work on India and it succeeded to convey the message that freedom for India never came as a bed or roses.The sufferings of those who were uprooted and forced to migrate...a hoolocaust that the world ought to know about. Hope to be availble for more thought provoking talk...

    kiwi lady
    December 30, 2003 - 09:50 pm
    Its also New Years Eve here in Auckland. six hours and sixteen minutes and it will be Jan 1, 2004.

    Happy New Year Everyone!

    GingerWright
    December 30, 2003 - 10:01 pm
    Happy New Year to you also. Whee it is already 2004 in your area.

    TigerTom
    December 31, 2003 - 09:30 am
    Flu,

    I have been down with the flue since Christma. Sweated out at least two quarts of liquid last night. Hope I am well enough to travel tomrrow. Sorry I have not been abgle to contribut more to the discussion.

    I have the shakes s badly right now I can hardly type Happy New Year

    Tiger Tom

    Persian
    December 31, 2003 - 04:11 pm
    TIGER TOM - its good of you to struggle to post your New Year's message. This flu season certainly has been a bad one. Best wishes for prompt recovery. We missed you, but have greatly enjoyed your previous posts, which will "get us through" until you're fully recovered and can join in again. HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU AND YOUR FAMILY IN 2004.

    mfido
    January 10, 2004 - 10:06 pm
    Hi Friends! Hope it was a nice turn over to the year 2004.Once again accept Happy New Year from me. I expect now we all got to come back to our board with the same old topic. But now there is a lot of developments in India. Pak and Indian rulers agree to meet and play for peace. Let us see what we all get this time from the leaders. Bye now!

    Ginny
    January 14, 2004 - 12:55 pm
    Thank you all for this wonderful discussion and kind words to Tom, I'm sorry to tell you that Tom has continued quite seriously ill and cannot resume the helmm here, and so since we had concluded the discussion, we want to thank ALL of you for your wonderful contributions and sharing of experiences, I particularly found Tom's experiences fascinating and I really enjoyed the superlative discussion we ALWAYS have with the company here. mfido, we have enjoyed your foray into our Books and hope that you will continue in another of our discussions!

    Thank you ALL, this discussion is concluded and is now Read Only and is ready to be placed in our Archives.

    ginny