The jaswant singh controversy and reading a discussion on the partition of India on a friends note forces me to spill out some venom. (i think in a very weird way i have realized.. sigh..) :-P Some things I also know about the unfortunate event.
The superficial/diplomatic/vague/political reasons of the partition of India are known to the world but what actually/exactly was going on in the Indian, British and international politics, at that time is still hidden and would always be... the thirst of power gets inside everyone after a point and it keeps increasing. Bernard Shaw said "Power does not corrupt men; fools, however, if they get into a position of power, corrupt power". In this context I would like to replace fools with a bunch of few over ambitious people. And that would sum the entire thing up.
Ram commented somewhere that the inclusion of religion led to the partition. I don’t think it was a reason at all. It seems so but in reality it did not lead to the partition but it was portrayed that it was the basis of partition. Religion may be one of the aspects but it is not the cause. And religion has always been a part/basis of any politics, either directly or indirectly.
I can recall one of the conversations which my grand dad was having with my father (my grand dad was appointed as the permanent representative of Nepal to the United Nations and had studied/knew "a lot" about the world/Indian politics). From that discussion I came to know several things which are quite unknown to so many people. My father was saying that the partition of India was mostly a result of clash of ego of just a bunch of people who were sitting at the top (names are evident, don’t need to mention) and it was very strategically supervised and initiated by the British. But grand dad argued that the exact reason of partition appears to be very uncertain. He was talking about the partition of India being in the election manifesto of the then elected prime minister of Britain, Clement Attlee. How ironical is that! And Indians say they fought and won freedom! Partition of India (independence of Burma too was in the manifesto!) played a major role in the largest victory of labor party at polls in the general elections. And this was in 1945 (In February 1946 Attlee declared his intent (election manifesto) to liberate India and in Oct 1946 (if I remember correctly) he announced the grant of Independence to India)! And this was termed as the first and greatest act of decolonization in the British Empire!
What do we think about Pakistan celebrating Independence Day on August 14, while India celebrating it on August 15! (On a lighter note I would comment here that I am sure that the partition of India was decided and planned much before the independence was planned). It is so evident. :-) It is said that Two self governing countries legally came into existence on august 15th, 1947 and the ceremonies for the transfer of power were held a day earlier in Karachi, at the time the capital of the new state of Pakistan, so that Lord Mountbatten could attend both the ceremony in Karachi and in Delhi. It is even said that reason for Pakistan celebrating independence on August 14 is the adoption of new standard time in Pakistan after partition. Is not it funny? Isn’t it ironical and mocking? I read somewhere that this arrangement was to avoid the appearance that Pakistan was seceding from a sovereign India! I did not understand this. Sorry but I need elucidation!
My grand dad even said that one of his British counterpart ended up saying in some informal discussion that partition of India would not have happened if only some people knew that that Jinnah suffered from tuberculosis, which was apparently incurable at that time! he would have been handed over the power. strange but true... that British official even quoted Lord Mountbatten, that when he learned of Jinnah's ailment, he said 'had they known that Jinnah was about to die, they'd have postponed India's independence by a few months as he was being inflexible on Pakistan'.
I have much to talk on this issue which I would do, soon. I have to go for now. :-(
0 comments:
Post a Comment