First they banned her book
but the ban was overturned in a Court of Law.

Then they forced her out of the state,
at the rioting of Islamic extremists and marxist sympathisers.
And refused to let her return, or give her the refuge she had requested.

And all so conveniently timed to divert attention from the Nandigram massacres.

Now,
following the victory for ideology
the defeat of pseudo-secular hypocrisy
Gujarat, has abraded the apathetic eyes of the nation.

We have woken up, at last.
Hopefully some of us.

Questions will be asked, policies examined, manifestos scrutinised.
Where is our freedom of thoughts and expression?
Who robbed us of our basic human rights?

The Marxist politburo is unable to go back on their arrogant stance.
Like cowards they stayed hidden, instead
their 93 years old ex leader made the humiliating turnaround.
“If she wants to return to Kolkata or elsewhere in West Bengal, she is welcome.
But the Centre will have to ensure her security,” Mr Basu told reporters.

It is us Bengalees, who have failed
if not Ms Nasrin,
but surely the rights of every human being, to free thoughts, speech and expression.

Most of all we failed to give safe refuge to one
who today is homeless for her courage to speak out against injustice and prejudice.
The shame is on us.

For freedom of expression

by Taslima Nasreen: November 12, 1999

Taslima Nasreen took the floor during Commission V of UNESCO’s General Conference,
as a delegate of the NGO “International Humanist and Ethical Union” (I.H.E.U.).

This is the full text of Ms Nasreen’s declaration, from Webworld:

“I was threatened by the religious fundamentalists in my country Bangladesh. They have decreed a fatwa against me and set a price on my head. Not only that, I am a criminal according to the government of my country too. The government there has banned my book, and issued an arrest warrant against me for committing blasphemy. I was forced to leave my country. Since 6 years I have been living in exile.

I was born in a Muslim family, but I became an atheist. In course of my training in science, I developed the powers of observation, experiment, analysis, and reasoning. Without reasoning, I found, nothing should be accepted as fact. I have been fighting against injustice, unreason, and prejudice. I exposed the crimes of religion, particularly the injustice and oppression against women.

It makes me surprised that some Western states have declared the protection of human rights to be one of their supreme objectives, but then they patronized fundamentalism both overtly and covertly. Democratic governments recognize military dictatorships for short-run political interests. Secular states make friends with autocracies as well as theocracies. They even tolerate the completely inhuman behavior of their own fundamentalists. Such double standards practiced by so-called democratic and secular states at home and abroad give the fundamentalists a sort of legitimacy. Governments then have to succumb to the fundamentalists’ pressure and proscribe books and make arrangements to send its writers and authors to prison.

Some Westerners argue that not all the customs in the third world countries are harmful for women. They find a sort of stability and social peace in the oriental world. It is nonsense. For me, there can be no difference in the concept of human rights between the East and the West. If the veil is bad for Western women, then it is bad for their oriental sisters as well. If patriarchy is to be fought against in the West, it should be equally fought against in the East. The fight, in fact, is more urgent there because most of the women have neither any education nor any economic independence. If modern secular education is good for Western women, why should the Eastern women be deprived of it!

The fundamentalists cannot be countered without a relentless and uncompromising fight. The struggle should be both theoretical and tactical. Democracy and secularism should be applied in practice and not remain a mere play of words.

Fundamentalism is an ideology that diverts people from the path of natural development of consciousness and undermines their personal rights. Fundamentalists do not believe in individualism, liberty of personal choice, or plurality of thought. Moreover, as they are believers in a particular faith, they believe only in propagating their own ideas as autocrats generally do . They do not encourage or entertain free debate, they deny others the right to express their own views freely, and they cannot tolerate anything which they perceive as going against their faith.

I believe in fundamental rights of human beings to express themselves orally or in their writings; in equal rights for women in every sphere of life; and in constructing a society in which everybody gets a fair deal. We all should work for it. Media is helpful for spreading the ideas of human rights. And for media to work, the state has to be secular, the religious laws has to be abolished to create uniform civil code in which women get equalities. Education, of course secular education is important for women to get the knowledge about their rights. Religious education and politics based on religion must be banned to save the mankind. As they are not banned in my country, and the country is not secular, I, as a writer and journalist, once worked in media, was prevented to express my ideas and thoughts. It is impossible to have coexistence of religion and freedom of expression.”

It is never too late to make amends.
We need to stop fighting amongst ourselves
and for once, just once, stand up to say, enough is enough.

We are entitled to our rights, we are entitled to know the truth.

Bengalmarxismislamnegationismpseudo secularismhuman rights

Photo: Wikipedia

Are we hindus cowards?

Oh yes we are, Mr Gautier, and proud to be so.
We are also apathetic, lazy and hypocrites.
Our so called patriotism is restricted to our living rooms and cricket stadiums.
And on the screens of Bollywood films.

We hindus do not care a fig,
if India eventually becomes a communist, islamic or christian state.
As long as we can ape the West, what happens to the Hindu India is not our concern.
Besides we maybe dead by then, who gives a toss about our future generations.

Been there, done it. I have aped the West to my hearts content.
Till I arrived in the west, and realise how stupid I was aping the first world apes.
The West in so many ways, is more empty than Mother Hubbard’s cupboards.

Will anyone believe me, when I write this? No they will not.
The Scotch always feels smoother going down than any desi liquors.

Please do not ask us to arise and fight, Mr Gautier,
it is uncool,
it is too much of an effort,
besides why should I die for my country, anyway?

We may be cowards, but no one dare call us stupid.

“ARE HINDUS COWARDS “?

- FRANCOIS GAUTIER

“Muslims are bullies and Hindus cowards”, the Mahatma Gandhi once said. He was right – at least about Hindus: there has been in the past 1400 years, since the first invasions started, very few Shivaji’s and Rajput princes to fight the bloody rule of the Moghuls, or hardly any Rani of Jhansi’s to stand against the humiliating colonial yoke of the British.

If a nation’s soul is measured by the courage of its children, then India is definitely doomed: without the Sikhs, whose bravery is unparalleled in the more recent history of India, Hindus would have even lost additional land to the Muslim invaders and there would have been infinitely more massacres of Hindus by Muslims during the first weeks of Partition.

Are Hindus more courageous since they have an independent nation (thanks – not to the non-violence of Gandhi – but to the true nationalists, such as Sri Aurobindo and Tilak, who prepared the ground for the Mahatma at the beginning of the century)?

Not at all! Because of Nehru’s absurd and naïve “hindi-chini-bhai-bhai” policy, the Indian army was shamefully routed in 1962 by the Chinese, a humiliation which rankles even today. Beijing is still able to hoodwink Indian politicians, by pretending it has good intentions, through the interviews the Chinese leaders very generously give to the Hindu newspaper (which should rightly be called the “anti-Hindu”) and Frontline (“the mouthpiece in India for the Chinese communist party”), while quietly keeping on giving nuclear know-how to Pakistan, as well as the missiles to carry their atomic warheads to Indian cities, arm separatists groups in the north-east and continuing to claim Arunachal Pradesh or Sikkim.

Everywhere in the world, Hindus are hounded, humiliated, routed, be it in Fiji where, once more, an elected democratic government was deposed in an armed coup, or in Pakistan and Bangladesh, where Muslims indulge in pogroms against Hindus every time they want to vent their hunger against India (read Taslima Nasreen’s book “Lalja”).

In Kashmir, the land of yogis, where Hindu sadhus and sages have meditated for 5000 years, Hindus have been chased out of their ancestral home by death, terror and intimidation: there were 25% of Hindus at the beginning of the century in the Kashmir valley… and hardly a handful today.

And how did India start the new millennium? By surrendering as a lamb goes to the slaughterhouse to a handful of terrorists who took over flight IC 814 from Kathmandu to Delhi (Nepal is another small inconsequential country, which owes its culture to India, but keeps on indulging India’s enemies, whether Pakistan or China)! India had the opportunity to storm the plane when it landed in Amritsar, at a time when the militants had not been furnished with explosives and more guns by the Talibans, but it did nothing out of bureaucratic bungling and sheer incapability. And not only did this Hindu Government (yes, BJP/Hindu, not Congress/Secular) make an ass of itself by calling the Talibans “friendly”, whereas all along the Talibans only helped the terrorists, but also by its weak “Gandhian” attitude, it lost any credibility in a world, where Might is the only criteria, as the US proves us every day.

And what happens when there is ONE man in India – whatever his faults, quirks, or excesses – who dares to call a spade a spade, is not afraid of words and is ready to stand-up for his opinions? Not only, of course, he is attacked by Christians and Muslims, but he is also hounded by his own brothers and sisters, the “secular” Hindus, the Human Rights activists, the journalists, the judges, the police, the (Congress) politicians! Are Hindus so intent to show the world that not only they are cowards, but also idiots? This man, of course, is Bal Thakeray.

When Bal Thakeray said, already many years ago, that there was no point in playing cricket against Pakistan, as long as Islamabad was sending militants to kill and maim into Indian territory, he was ridiculed by the secular press as fanatic and un-sportive (and cricket is certainly not a gentleman’s game as the recent scandal has shown). But he was proved right, when during Kargil, India refused – for once – to play cricket with Pakistan. When he says too, that since fourteen centuries, Muslims always strike first against Hindus, he has another good point, for those who live in Indian cities which have important Muslim minorities, will tell you that every time there are Hindu-Muslims, it is the Muslims who start them, either by attacking the police, or by provoking the Hindus.

And this is exactly what happened in Bombay, after the Ayodya mosque was brought down by Hindu militants : Muslims, angry of the “terrible” affront done to Islam, started pelting the police with stones and burning shops; but unfortunately for the Muslims, who have made of riots an art (please read the passages of the Koran which deal with riots as part of jihad), they found that for once, the Hindus under the leadership of the Shiv Sena, retaliated blow for blow – an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth – as the Israelis, who have been so long at the receiving end of Muslim bullying, say so well. It is not for us to condone violence: but how long can the Hindus be the butt of killings and persecution, be sacrificial lambs that meekly go to slaughter ?

For in a way, Gandhi was right: Muslims are bullies, they have bullied India and they continue to bully Hindu India, as Pakistan has demonstrated by receiving a well-meaning, but naïve Vajpayee at Lahore, while its soldiers were quietly invading the heights above Kargil; or as Mushraraf shows, by giving gullible Indian journalists pep talk about how he wants peace with India, while Islamabad is still training and arming murderous jihadis for Kashmir.

And what monstrous murder is Bal Thakeray accused of ? What crime against humanity has he committed? He is guilty of having written two “inflammatory” editorials in the Shiv Sena’s mouthpiece. Editorials? Inflammatory? But did Bal Thakeray ever kill anyone ? Is the man going to be arrested for having “written” something ? Are not the leaders of the Muslim organization which spearheaded the recent bombing of churches in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, to sow disharmony between Christians and Hindus, still scot-free, by pretending that they believe in secularism ? Has Tiger Memom, who planted deadly bombs in Bombay in 1992, ever been caught and brought to court ? Are not the Muslim organizations, which organized the bomb attacks in Coimbatore a few years back, still functioning under different names ? Isn’t it true that in Kerala, every day a new mosque is built with money coming from the Gulf and that from these mosques and madrasas the mullahs preach openly violence and anti-Hinduism ?

The truth is that there are two standards in India: one for the Hindus; and one for the Muslims. Did the “fanatic” Hindus who brought down Ayodhya (and brought shame onto secular India, according to the Indian media) kill or even injure anyone in the process? No. But Muslims do not have such qualms. When Gandhi said they were bullies, he was being very nice or very polite. For forget about the millions of Hindus killed during the ten centuries of Muslim invasions, probably the worst Holocaust in world history; forget about the hundreds of thousands of Hindu temples razed to the ground, whose destruction – whatever our “secular” Hindus of today say – was carefully recorded by the Muslims themselves, because they were proud of it (see Aurangzeb’s own chronicles); forget about the millions of Hindus forcibly converted to Islam, and who sadly are now rallying under a banner, a language, a scripture which have nothing to do with their own ethos and culture (*).

Yesterday and also today, when the Muslim world feels it has been slighted, in even a small measure by Hindus, these Infidels, who submitted meekly to Muslim rule for ten centuries, it retaliates a hundred fold – this is the only way one intimidates cowards. After Ayodhya, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia (at least in a passive way by giving shelter for a while to Tiger Memon) with the help of Indian Muslims, planted bombs in the heart of Bombay and killed a thousand innocent human beings, most of them, once more, Hindus. Tomorrow, Pakistan might wage, with the blessing of the Muslim word, the ultimate jihad against India, which if necessary, will utilise the ultimate weapon, nuclear bombs. For has not the Koran said “’Choose not thy friends among the Infidels till they forsake their homes and the way of idolatry. If they return to paganism then take them whenever you find them and kill them” (Koran 98:51-9:5-4:89) ?

Unfortunately for India, the British, when they were here, had created an intellectual elite, to act as a go-between themselves and the “natives”, which today, thanks to the Nehruvian culture of successive Congress governments, looks at its own country, not by means of its own Indian eyes, but through a western prism, as fashioned by the white colonizers and the missionaries.

These « Brown Shahibs », these true children of Macaulay, the « secular » politicians, the journalists, the top bureaucrats, in fact the whole westernised cream of India are very critical of anything Hindu. And what is even more paradoxical, is that 98% of them are Hindus !

It is they, who upon getting independence, have denied India its true identity and borrowed blindly from the British education system, without trying to adapt it to the unique Indian mentality and psychology; and it is they who are refusing to accept a change of India’s education system, which is totally western-oriented and is churning out machines, learning by heart boring statistics which are of little usefulness in life.

And what India is getting from this education is a youth which apes the West : they go to Mac Donald’s, thrive on MTV culture, wear the latest Klein jeans and Lacoste T Shirts, and in general are useless, rich parasites, in a country which has so many talented youngsters who live in poverty.

They will grow-up like millions of other western clones in the developing world, who wear a tie, read the New York Times and swear by liberalism and secularism to save their countries from doom. In time, they will reach elevated positions and write books and articles which make fun of their own country, ridicule the Bal Thakeray’s of India and put them in jail; they will preside human-right committees, be “secular” high bureaucrats who take the wrong decisions and generally do tremendous harm to India, because it has been programmed in their genes to always run down their own country.

It is said that a nation has to be proud of itself to move forward – and unless there is a big change in this intellectual elite, unless it is more conscious of its heritage and of India’s greatness, which has begun to happen in a small way, it is going to be very difficult for India to emerge as a real 21st century superpower.

One would be tempted to say in conclusion : “Arise ô Hindus, stop being cowards, remember that a nation requires Kshatriyas, warriors, to defend Knowledge, to protect one’s women and children, to guard one’s borders from the Enemy”….
And do Indians need a Bal Thakeray to remind them of that simple truth ?

FRANCOIS GAUTIER

(*) This is no to say that all Muslims are fanatics; on the contrary, many of India’s Muslims are extremely gentle and their sense of hospitality unsurpassed. The same thing can be said about Pakistan: Pakistani politicians, for instance, are much more accessible than in India and Pakistan has its own identity, which cannot be wished away.

No, the problem is not with Muslims, whether they are Indians or Pakistanis, the problem is with Islam, which teaches Indian Muslims from an early age, to look beyond their national identity to a country – the Mecca, in Saudi Arabia – which is not their country, to read a Scripture which is not written in their own language, to espouse a way of thinking, which is inimical to their own roots and indigenous culture. Indian Muslims, have to think of themselves first as Muslims and secondly only as Muslims. Muslim soldiers fighting against Pakistan in Kargil, have shown the way.

** The author will release his new book “Arise Ô India” (Har-Anand) on the 25th August at India International Centre, 1PM..

It is so fashionable to be seen as secular and to be seen to be thinking “global”,
that we feel proud to lend our voices in support of our enemies and to denounce those
who everyday risk their lives to keep our borders unbreached and our country safe.

From the comforts of our living rooms made safe by those we denounce.
We do not deny being cowards, but it is uncool to be a hindu
or to be patriotic for India.

Indiahinduismislammarxismnegationismsecularismpropaganda

THE LAHORE RESOLUTION:

March 1940, Nawab Sir Shah Nawaz Mamdot

The Resolution declared:

“No constitutional plan would be workable or acceptable to the Muslims unless geographical contiguous units are demarcated into regions which should be so constituted with such territorial readjustments as may be necessary. That the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in majority as in the North-Western and Eastern zones of India should be grouped to constitute independent states in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign”.

Historical, Moral and Constitutional Perspectives – contd:

Professor Deshmukh

We pick up the threads from the events after the Quit India movement, i.e. after August 1942.

By 1944, the Muslim League had become quite weak. Jinnah faced considerable opposition even within the Muslim League. The Sind leader, Allah Baksh was a formidable rival to Jinnah, for whose public speeches only a few hundred would turn up now, as opposed to a hundred thousand in previous years. Jinnah retired from politics, a second time, and this was just three years before August 15, 1947!

On February 19, 1946, when the Labor party was in power in Britain, Prime Minister Atlee sent a delegation comprising of
Pethick-Lawrence, Secretary of State for India,
Stafford Cripps, then President of the Board of Trade, and
A.V.Alexander, the first Lord of Admiralty.

On May 16, 1946, the British Cabinet Mission published its plan that had for its parts, a long-term plan toward India’s independence, and a short-term plan for governance of the region till the British completely surrendered power.

Both the Congress and the Muslim League accepted the long- term plan, but had differences over the short-term plan.

The long-term plan rejected the division of India into two separate sovereign states. Further, it did not provide for the princely states to secede from the union of India.

Statement by the Cabinet Delegation and His Excellency the Viceroy
(as issued in New Delhi on 16 May 1946).
[L/P&J/10/42: ff 53-5]

(Para) 4. It is not intended in this statement to review the voluminous evidence that has been submitted to the Mission; but it is right that we should state that it has shown an almost universal desire, outside the supporters of the Muslim League, for the unity of India.

(Para) 15. We now indicate the nature of a solution which in our view would be just to the essential claims of all parties, and would at the same time be most likely to bring about a stable and practicable form of constitution for All-India.

We recommend that the constitution should take the following basic firm:

(1) There should be a Union of India, embracing both British India and the States, which should deal with the following subjects: Foreign Affairs, Defence, and Communications: and should have the powers necessary to raise the finances required for the above subjects.

(2) The Union should have an Executive and a Legislature constituted from British Indian and States representatives. Any question raising a major communal issue in the Legislature should require for its decision a majority of the representatives present and voting of each of the two major communities as well as a majority of all the members present and voting.

(3) All subjects other than the Union subjects and all residuary powers should vest in the Provinces.

(4) The States will retain all subjects and powers other than those ceded to the Union.

(5) Provinces should be free to form Groups with executives and legislatures, and each Group could determine the Provincial subjects to be taken in common.

(6) The constitutions of the Union and of the Groups should contain a provision whereby any Province could, by a majority vote of its Legislative Assembly, call for a reconsideration of the terms of the constitution after an initial period of 10 years and at 10 yearly intervals thereafter.

Professor Deshmukh contd:

The cabinet mission returned to England on June 29, 1946, happy that both the Congress and the Muslim League had accepted the long-term plan.

We now narrate one of the most tragic instances in Indian history and see how ostensibly very minor events can change course of history. In May 1946, the Congress held elections for its next president, at the end of Moulana Azan’s term and Jawaharlal Nehru became the new President. Nehru addressed a press conference on July 10, 1946, in Mumbai, following a meeting of the Congress.

Right until that day, the amputation of India was not on the cards.
The unity of India was not threatened.

To satisfy some congressmen over some of their concerns regarding the cabinet mission’s long term plan, Nehru announced at the press conference that certain aspects of the long-term plan were not resolved. This gave Jinnah the opportunity to claim that the Congress was pettifogging and haggling and could not be trusted.

Jinnah called upon the Muslim League to demand for Pakistan, rejected the cabinet mission plan, and called for a civil war against the British and against the Congress on August 16, 1946, which he declared as the Direct Action Day. A large number of Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs were killed in the! violence following Jinnah’s call for direct action.

A copy of a secret report written on 22 August 1946 to the Viceroy Lord Wavell,
from Sir Frederick John Burrows, concerning the Calcutta riots.
[IOR: L/P&J/8/655 f.f. 95, 96-107]

After the Muslim League had retracted its acceptance of the Cabinet Mission’s Plan and called for a ‘Direct Action Day’, communal violence broke out.
16-18 August saw the first wave with the ‘Great Calcutta Killing’. Around 4,000 people were killed in Calcutta and many more injured, with around 100,000 made homeless.

This report was written after the event, from the viewpoint of the British Governor of Bengal. There was criticism of Suhrawardy, Chief Minister in charge of the Home Portfolio in Calcutta, for being partisan and of Burrows for not having taken control of the situation.

The troubles then spread to the Noakhali district in East Bengal and to Bihar where approximately 7,000 Muslims were killed. There were also troubles in Bombay and the United Provinces, but little elsewhere. The original report by sir John Burrow was lengthy and laborious containing 10 pages of narratives. The following is an extract…

(Para) 2. The setting. Omitting the more remote causes of the riots – the long struggle for power between Hindus and Muslims, in which Calcutta is a focal point, the weakening of our authority which is an inevitable consequence of our impending departure, the dislocation of the normal life of Calcutta by war and famine, and the presence of a Muslim Ministry in a predominantly Hindu city – the proximate cause was the resolution of the Council of the All-India Muslim League passed at Bombay on July 29th, calling on ‘the Muslim nation to resort to direct action to achieve Pakistan’, and the consequent fixing of August 15th as ‘Direct Action Day’.

Professor Deshmukh contd:<

Viceroy Wavell was left with no choice, with the Muslim League having declared defiance, but to invite the Congress alone to form the interim government that would govern till the already approved long-term plan of India’s independence could be implemented. Realizing however that an interim Government without the Muslim League would cause only more bloodshed, and out of sheer exasperation, Nehru invited Jinnah and some other Muslim League members to join the short-term interim Government.

The Muslim League members would not cooperate with the Congress on the simplest of things, and both Patel and Nehru helplessly out of frustration reconciled with the eventual formation of Pakistan.

 

TERMS OF DECLARATION OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF INDIA

Prime Minister Atlee declared, on February 20, 1947, that Britain would transfer power by June 1948, by which time the Congress and the Muslim League were supposed to resolve their differences and accept some plan.

Atlee declared that if no comprehensive plan were put forth, then power would be transferred to one or more governments in different regions (as per their divide and quit policy).

Churchill, who had always remained contemptuous of India and Indian people, and had never agreed to surrender power to India, condemned the Atlee government for its resolution to transfer power to India’s politicians who were men of straw, of whom in a few years no trace would remain. The same day, the British Government recalled Wavell, since he was committed to surrendering power to a united India, and replaced him by Mountbatten as India’s last Viceroy.

Viceroy Wavell (center)

Viceroy Wavell was indeed reluctant to dividing India.
Wavell is generally considered the best Viceroy and Governor General of India, for not only he had done all his homework before he became viceroy, but he is also considered one of those British personalities who touched Indian souls and understood them.

His understanding of the Indian situation and the ignoring of his requests and proposals by Winston Churchill had made him quite frustrated. He was relieved to see Clement Attlee replace Churchill as Prime Minister in July 1945; however, he was unhappy with Attlee’s slowness to make decisions.

He had himself requested several times to be removed from his post, but his requests were turned down by London. However, had Wavell not been there, the communal tension and civic strife could have been prolonged and more bloody. Wavell was against the Partition of India, as he knew this would lead to bloodshed which neither Indians nor the British would be able to control.

Professor Deshmukh contd.

Wavell has reported in his diary that Churchill wanted him to divide India between Hindustan, Pakistan and Princestan; hence Churchill’s brief to Mountbatten: If the British could not hold India, it was best to divide her.

Communal riots broke out in February-March, 1947, and the Congress demanded the partition of Punjab and Bengal on communal lines in the hope that this would stop violence. Patel and Nehru were advised by V.P.Menon, the Reforms Commissioner and Constitutional Advisor to the last three viceroys (Linlithgow, Wavell, Mountbatten), that the Cabinet Mission plan would not work and that it would therefore be better to concede to the Muslim League’s demand for Pakistan.

 

THE MENON MOUNTBATTEN PLAN:

It had now become clear that India would be disintegrated and that the British would withdraw soon. Several small regions sought sovereignty.

It was decided that Atlee’s deadline of June 1948 be advanced to August 15, 1947. V.P. Menon proposed the TWO-DOMINION of INDIA and PAKISTAN plan that was accepted by Mountbatten and by Nehru on May 11, 1947.

On June 2, 1947, the Menon-Mountbatten plan was accepted by Nehru, Kripalani and Patel on behalf of the Congress, by Baldeo Singh on behalf of the Sikhs, and by Jinnah (with a nod!) on behalf of the Muslim League.

Indian Empire 1901: 565 Princely States

Professor Deshmukh contd.

The STATUS OF THE PRINCELY STATES

The British had divided what makes up for the present Bangladesh, India and Pakistan into several segments.
About 40% of this territory came under ‘British India’ over which alone the British Parliament could legislate.
The British Parliament did NOT legislate for the remaining 60% of the territory that was ruled by the princes, the maharajas, and the nizams, and they reported to the Viceroy.
There were nearly six hundred of these princely states. The Indian princely states were left free to decide if they would stay independent or join one of the two countries.

The British Government’s ruling, contained in His Majesty’s Government’s statement of June 3, 1947 was clear: the decision announced about the partition relates only to British India (seven provinces) and that their policy towards the Indian (princely) states remains unchanged .

There was no provision to influence the destiny of the princely states with regard to any communal factor, which was the governing factor for the partition only of British India over which alone did the British Parliament legislate. The future of the nearly six hundred princely states was thus completely, exclusively and irrevocably to be determined by their monarchs.

PAKISTAN DECLARATION 1933:
NOW OR NEVER: ARE WE TO LIVE OR PERISH FOR EVER?

Rahmat Ali’s Pakistan Declaration issued on January 28, 1933 from Cambridge.

At this solemn hour in the history of India, when British and Indian statesmen are laying the foundations of a Federal Constitution for that land, we address this appeal to you, in the name of our common heritage, on behalf of our thirty million Muslim brethren who live in PAKSTAN – by which we mean the five Northern units of India, Viz: Punjab, North-West Frontier Province (Afghan Province), Kashmir, Sind and Baluchistan – for your sympathy and support in our grim and fateful struggle against political crucifixion and complete annihilation.

This is more especially ture when there is just and reasonable alternative to the proposed settlement, which will lay the foundations of a peaceful future for this great continent; and should certainly allow of the highest development of each of these two peoples without one being subject to another. This alternative is a separate Federation of these five predominantly (sic) Muslim units – Punjab, North-West Frontier (Afghan Province), Kashmir, Sind and Baluchistan.

The States of Kalat (Balochistan) and Kashmir, were princely states and never under the legislate of the British Parliament. Their future was not going to be decided by the Partitioning of India. Yet the future rulers of Pakistan, by proclaiming the name “Pakistan” proves that as early as in 1933, they had decided on the future of these states.

Professor Deshmukh contd.

PAKISTAN WAS CONCEIVED AND FORMED AS A MUSLIM STATE
INDIA WAS NOT, BY DEFAULT, FORMED AS A HINDU STATE.

Sardar Patel led a marathon and magnificent campaign that can be compared perhaps only with the unification of India by the Mouryas or the Guptas and got most of the princely states to take suitable decisions.

These princely states were encouraged to accede to either Pakistan or to India as per the wishes of their rulers. It was expected, naturally, that the rulers would keep in mind the interests of their subjects. Given the treatment handed to the Muslims from India who went to Pakistan, any Government of Jammu and Kashmir, it was obvious, would opt only for accession with India.

Pakistan was conceived and formed as a Muslim state. India was not, by default, formed as a Hindu state. Most of the princely states acceded to one or the other country in a very dignified way, governed by simple logistics. However, there were some exceptions…

Viceroy Wavell’s had concluded his presentation with:

(Para) 24. To the leaders and people of India who now have the opportunity of complete independence we would finally say this. We and our Government and countrymen hoped that it would be possible for the Indian people themselves to agree upon the method of framing the new constitution under which they will live.

Despite the labours which we have shared with the Indian Parties, and the exercise of much patience and goodwill by all, this has not been possible. therefore now lay before you proposals which, after listening to all sides and after much earliest thought, we trust will enable you to attain your independence in the shortest time and with the least danger of internal disturbance and conflict.

These proposals may not, of course, completely satisfy all parties, but you will recognise with us that at this supreme moment in Indian history statesmanship demands mutual accommodation. We ask you to consider the alternative to acceptance of these proposals. After all the efforts which we and the Indian Parties have made together for agreement, we must state that in our view there is small hope of peaceful settlement by agreement of the Indian Parties alone.

The alternative would therefore be a grave danger of violence, chaos, and even civil war. The result and duration of such a disturbance cannot be foreseen; but it is certain that it would be a terrible disaster for many millions of men, women and children. This is a possibility which must be regarded with equal abhorrence by the Indian people, our own countrymen, and the world as a whole.

We therefore lay these proposals before you in the profound hope that they will be accepted and operated by you in the spirit of accommodation and goodwill in which they are offered. We appeal to all who have the future good of India at heart to extend their vision beyond their own community or interest to the interests of the whole four hundred millions of the Indian people.

We certainly got that one historically wrong.

KashmirhistoryIndiaPakistanpropagandahuman rights

To be continued