Role of Lord Mountbatten in Power Transfer in India

Role of Lord Mountbatten in Power Transfer in India 

Indian Holocaust My Fathre`s Life and Time- Two Hundred FORTY

Palash Biswas

http://indianholocaustmyfatherslifeandtime.blogspot.com/

Ready to take on any challenge at short notice: Indian Army
New Delhi, Dec 4 (IANS) The Indian Army reiterated Friday that it was fully prepared and capable to counter any challenge at a very short notice.'It may also be understood that our armed forces are fully prepared, battle-worthy and capable to counter...
Reviewed defence procurement policy to roll out Nov 1
New Delhi, Oct 27 (IANS) The government will roll out a new defence procurement policy (DPP) Nov 1 in a bid to promote the Indian defence industry and bring transparency in acquisitions, Defence Minister A.K. Antony said Tuesday.The reviewed DPP would...
Indian firms to get boost in new defence procurement policy
New Delhi, Oct 27 (IANS) Under the revised defence procurement policy (DPP) 2009, request for proposal (RFP), which was earlier issued only to foreign companies, would now also be issued to Indian firms having requisite financial and technical capabilities,...
Centre to amend Defence Procurement Procedure every year
New Delhi, Aug 10 (ANI): Defence Minister A.K.Antony said on Monday that the Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) will be amended every year to improve country's acquisition policy for the armed forces, instead of once in two or three years...
Antony wants armed forces to get sixth pay commission arrears before Diwali
New Delhi, Oct 1 (ANI): Defence Minister AK Antony today said that the Armed Forces must get all their pay arrears relating to the Sixth Central Pay Commission well in time before Diwali. Addressing the Defence Accounts Day function here today,...
Army commanders to review operational preparedness
New Delhi, Oct 20 (IANS) The Army commanders conference beginning Wednesday would review operational preparedness of the one million strong force as well security situation in the country and the neighbouring states, officials said here Tuesday.Army...
New DPP from November 1: Defence Minister Antony
New Delhi, Oct 27 (ANI): Defence Minister A.K. Antony announced here on Tuesday that the new defence procuring procedure (DPP) would be effective from November 1. Addressing a national [^] seminar on defence acquisition, organized by the Institute...

States on high alert on eve of Babri demolition anniversary!The home ministry on Friday asked all states to remain on high alert on the eve of the anniversary of the Babri Masjid demolition and deploy security forces in sensitive places. Meanwhile, ULFA chief Arabinda Rajkhowa, his deputy commander-in-chief Raju Baruah and eight others, including their families, surrendered before Indian authorities at a border outpost in Meghalaya early on It was a dramatic end to 30 years of life underground for one of India's most wanted fugitives, Arabinda Rajkhowa, chairman of the outlawed United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA). appears to be quite a GOT Up game between Govt. Of India, Bangladesh and ULFA which confirms my Hypothesis that any INSURGENCY whatsoever is basically SPONSERED  by the STATE and is used for ETHNIC Cleasning to readjust Demogrphy in the best interest of the Ruling hegemony. It always hapened in the Northeast.It happened with Khalistani Movement and it is happening in Central India with projected maopist menace! Communalism is also a creation of the well known ALCHEMIST which evloved the Politics of religion and committed the Original SIN, the Partition of India with a BASTARDISED Gandhian Theory with which bengali Brahamins invented the best STIMULUS Muslim League Politics in reaction and the TWO nation Theory folowed by SWARAJ HINDU RASHTRA outcasting SIKHs,Dalits, OBC and ST, converted communities as DR Ambedkar also Joined the Hegemony CARAVAN after the Poona pact was signed. But we do hesitate to discuss the THIRD Dimension of oIndian Holocaust and opt to VICTIMISE Ourselves in Intense hate Campaign, ZIONIST War Economy and Ethnic Cleansing Economic as well as religious.

I was stunned to browse TV Channels as Birendra Sehbag could not live up to the Media HYPE of BREAKING Worldrecords. Suddnly TV Channels focused on the Helplessness of Indian ARMY which is Half Prepared in COMBAT MODE in case of EXTERNAL Aggression, means Pakistan mainly and CHINA tagged with. The Hate campaign is targeted against Muslims on the eve of the anniversary of BABRI demlotion. It justifies the Nuclear ARMAMENT, Defence Kickbacks and BUDGETARY Hike for Defence Outlays! More than the quarter of Revenue is spent on Defence and it is still not enough!It boosts the Drive for OFFENSIVE against Maoist menace to cpature all natural Resources for the India Incs, MNCs and LPG Mafia!What a NEWS Break! What an OCCASION! It is quite reminiscent with FREEDOM at Midnight sixty two years ago. The Brahamins of West bengal voted for Pakistan while the EAST Bengal Muslims rejected it. But only Jinnah and Muslims are blamed for Partition and MOUNTBATTEN showcased as the VILLAIN to make all MUSLIMS stranded in India and All Hindus Strnaded in Pakistan and Bangladesh VICTIMS. Indian MUSLIMS are so much so overburdened with the SIN which was committed by the Gandhian CARBIDES, still holding the Hegemony under ZIONIST Dynasty, that Indian Muslims dare not to speak out with Indian Identity. This CRISIS is overblown with BABRI Explosion which further Brands MUSLIMS as Terrorists and the KARSEVAKS as CRUSADRER KNIGHTS! RSS and CONGRESS, Gandhian Crbides, socialist OXIDES and the Mraxists Brahmins CORRUPTED the HISTORY!

'It is possible that some misdirected elements may wish to disturb communal peace and harmony. Hence, all state governments have been advised to remain on high alert. Security forces will be deployed for maintaining law and order in sensitive places,' the home ministry said  in a press statement.

The Partition of India was mastermided by the MK Gandhi Followers, the Gandhian CARBIDES to haste Power tarnsfer to the Brahaminical Hegemony with the caste bania, to which the so called Mahatma belonged, inserted in the ruling class as Master of the Future eliminating the Rajputs,Thakurs, hitherto dominating Power hegemony. Congress as well as RSS  blame Lord Mountbatten and Md. ali Jinna for the CREATION of Pakistan but never do mention the history of Politics made Religious by gandhi himself with his Hindu Swaraj Ramrajya theory. The Hegemony manipulated the Demogrphy of India systematically to hold on the Key to Power and this manipulation continues even today with adjustment and readjustment of Population, displacement, exodus and ethnic cleansing all on the name of welfare and development, ECONOMIC Reforms.On the other hand, Dominique Lapierre and Larry Collins Glorified the Mountbatten Couple in their book FREEDOM at Mdnight.

The Indian Army reiterated Friday that it was fully prepared and capable to counter any challenge at a very short notice.Mind you, After liquor, fuel and ration scandals, land scams
are now exploding in the Army's face. The fate of four generals and several other
Tofficers hangs in the balance after a court of inquiry (CoI) found that a prima facie case does exist in the alleged land scam at the Sukna military station earlier this year.

"It may also be understood that our armed forces are fully prepared, battle-worthy and capable to counter any challenges at a very short notice, in keeping with the task assigned to defend the nation," the army said in a statement.

"It is clarified that modernisation is a deliberate process and is progressive in nature. The deficiency of the military hardware is reviewed at regular intervals and replacement of these are projected after deliberation based on the operational requirement and enhancement of operational efficiency keeping pace with modernization," the statemetn added.

Recent media reports have suggested that the operational preparedness of the army has suffered as its modernisation drive has slowed down for a variety of reasons, ranging from corruption in defence deals to delays in selecting equipment to be procured.

The army said its combat efficiency could not be doubted as this was its primary task.

"There has been no compromise in this issue. The progress of modernization is monitored closely at various levels to minimize the shortfall," the statement added.

Freedom at Midnight is about the transition of India from a British Colony to an independent nation on midnight of 15 August 1947. The strongest attribute of this book is the description of the characters and personalities involved. The key players are Mountbatten, Gandhi, Nehru and Jinnah.


 Apart from Muslims and Hindus, Converted Communities, Sikhs and the Dalits led by Dr ambedkar were involved in the debate for transfer of power. But other facotrs remained IRRELEVANT as Dr Ambedkar was CO Opted in the system with mainstream SC, ST and OBC communities. The Divide in the Indigenous Aboriginal and Minority communities and failure of Dr Ambedkat helped the BRAHMINS to acomplish their agenda of Demograhic Massacre all over the divide Geopolitic swhich Continue to bleed even today and the Hegemonies Ruling across the Political Borders continue the Persecution, Practice of Untouchability, Apartheid,Ethnic Cleansing and Finally made the ENTIRE Geopolitics the Peripherry of US war Economy. Colonial Status and Zamindaries remain INTACT only the Brahminical hegemony has tkaen over from the British! To understand this , we must trace the History once again and see through the facts that how MOUNTBATTEN couple as well as Jinnaha were used by the Zionist Brahmin Gandhian Carbides!

Pakistan or The Partition of India

Between 1941 and 1945, he published a number of books and pamphlets, including Thoughts on Pakistan, in which he criticized the Muslim League's demand for a separate Muslim state of Pakistan but considered its concession if Muslims demanded so as expedient.

In the above book Ambedkar wrote a sub-chapter titled If Muslims truly and deeply desire Pakistan, their choice ought to be accepted. He wrote that if the Muslims are bent on Pakistan, then it must be conceded to them. He asked whether Muslims in the army could be trusted to defend India. In the event of Muslims invading India or in the case of a Muslim rebellion, with whom would the Indian Muslims in the army side? He concluded that, in the interests of the safety of India, Pakistan should be acceded to, should the Muslims demand it. According to Ambedkar, the Hindu assumption that though Hindus and Muslims were two nations, they could live together under one state, was but a empty sermon, a mad project, to which no sane man would agree.

The Partition was a highly controversial arrangement, and remains a cause of much tension on the subcontinent today. The British Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten of Burma has not only been accused of rushing the process through, but also is alleged to have influenced the Radcliffe Line in India's favour since everyone agreed India would be a more desirable country for most.[12][13] However, the commission took so long to decide on a final boundary that the two nations were granted their independence even before there was a defined boundary between them. Even then, the members were so distraught at their handiwork (and its results) that they refused compensation for their time on the commission.Some critics allege that British haste led to the cruelties of the Partition.[14] Because independence was declared prior to the actual Partition, it was up to the new governments of India and Pakistan to keep public order. No large population movements were contemplated; the plan called for safeguards for minorities on both sides of the new border. It was an impossible task, at which both states failed. There was a complete breakdown of law and order; many died in riots, massacre, or just from the hardships of their flight to safety. What ensued was one of the largest population movements in recorded history. According to Richard Symonds[15]
"     at the lowest estimate, half a million people perished and twelve million became homeless     "

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Freedom at Midnight (1975) is a book by Dominique Lapierre and Larry Collins. It describes the events in the Indian independence movement in 1947-48, beginning with the appointment of Lord Mountbatten of Burma as the last viceroy of British India, and ending with the death and funeral of Mahatma Gandhi.

The authors having interviewed many of those who were there, including Lord Mountbatten of Burma, the book gives a detailed account of the last year of British India, the princely states' reactions to independence (including descriptions of the Indian princes' colorful and extravagant lifestyles), the partition of India and Pakistan on religious grounds, and the bloodshed that followed. It also covers in detail the events leading to the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, as well as the life and motives of British-educated Jawaharlal Nehru and Pakistani leader Muhammad Ali Jinnah, a secular Muslim. The book is a result of deeply scanned and researched events, which often are left out by other historians. For example, the crucial maps separating India and Pakistan on religious grounds, were drawn that year by a man named Cyril Radcliffe who had never visited India in his life before being appointed as the chairman of the Boundary Commission. The description of the very British-style summertime capital Shimla in the Himalayas and how supplies were carried up steep mountains by porters each year is interesting. The book also explains the fury of both Hindus and Muslims, misled by their communal leaders, during the partition, and the biggest mass slaughter in the history of India as millions of unfortunate people were uprooted by the partition and tried to migrate laboriously by train, oxcart, and on foot to new places designated for their particular religious group. Many migrants fell victim to bandits and bloodthirsty religious extremists of both dominant religions. One incident quoted is particularly terrifying: it describes a canal in Lahore that ran with blood and floating bodies. A tragedy that befell a poor but sincere interfaith peasant couple is heart-rending.

Controversial for its portrayal of the British expatriates, the native rulers of India and members of India's first cabinet, it is a non-fiction book told in a casual style, similar to the authors' previous Is Paris Burning? and O Jerusalem!.

Collins and Lapierre also wrote a book about their researches with respect to Mountbatten, titled Mountbatten and the Partition of India by vinod RB. This book contains interviews with Mountbatten, and a selection of papers that were in his possession. The book mainly is a detailed portrayal of the various events, good and bad happening in India. The book, unlike others, reveals many stunning facts which would perhaps be never unearthed without an extensive research as the author. The most engrossing aspects of the book are the heart-rending portrayals of the religious carnage which occurred after the Partition. Another thing which makes it interesting is the highlight on the lives and the roles of the various insignificant monarchies scattered across British India. In all, this book is a complete documentation of the Indian political imbroglio at the time of Partition, and the helpless struggle of Mahatma Gandhi to save his country from Partition and from the clutches of his political foe, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, and Gandhi's final moments, which have been documented with frightful detail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_at_Midnight

Though an embarrassed Army HQ on Monday flatly refused to say anything about the CoI findings, sources say there is ``more than enough'' evidence to ``try some senior officers'' for ``gross improprieties and irregularities'' through a court-martial.

Incidentally, one of the generals questioned by the CoI, Lt-Gen Avadhesh Prakash, is among the eight principal staff officers to Army chief Gen Deepak Kapoor as the military secretary at the Army HQ here.
Moreover, the appointment of another general, Lt-Gen P K Rath, as the new Army deputy chief (information systems and training) from November 1 has already been cancelled by the defence ministry, as reported by TOI earlier.

Lt-Gen Rath was `attached' to the CoI at the Kolkata-based Eastern Army Command in October because he was the commander of the crucial 33 Corps based in Darjeeling district of West Bengal, under which the Sukna military station comes, when the alleged land scam took place.

Lt-Gen Rath's then deputy, Lt-Gen Ramesh Halgali, who is commanding the 11 Corps at Jalandhar at present, and some other officers in the `chain in command' have also apparently been indicted by the CoI.
Incidentally, another CoI is being conducted into alleged financial irregularities in the construction of a war memorial and museum renovation at the Ranikhet-based Kumaon Regimental Centre.

While the centre commandant Brigadier Bhupinder Singh is being questioned in this CoI, Lt-Gen Prakash — interestingly enough — also happens to be the `Colonel of the Kumaon Regiment'.

Defence minister A K Antony, on his part, has asked the Army to fix responsibility in the land scam, which revolves around the grant of a no-objection certificate (NoC) on February 6 to a business group and private education trust, which posed as an affiliate of the Ajmer-based Mayo College, to acquire a 70-acre tea estate adjacent to the Sukna military station.

Incidentally, Army authorities had initially rejected the NoC to the Kolkata-based business group on the grounds of security but the decision was later overturned when Lt-Gen Rath was the 33 Corps commander. Even documents were apparently forged to help the business group to start a Rs 300-crore venture on the land in question.

Antony, in fact, has warned the Army that such cases ``not only damage the Indian Army's image'' but also ``adversely affect the ability of senior officers to measure up to the expectations of the men they lead''.

The minister expressed the worry that the involvement of senior officers in such cases would ``weaken the ability of the armed forces to ably handle ever-increasing security challenges''. The Army should, therefore, ensure that a loud and clear message is sent that corruption will be ``dealt with absolute sternness and promptness''.

The declining standards of probity and discipline in armed forces have been underlined by a series of meat, cereal, liquor and fuel scandals. So much so that a major-general has faced the music for even sexual harassment in recent times.


Poona Pact
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Poona Pact refers to an agreement between the lower caste Untouchables (then called Depressed Classes, now referred to as Dalits) of India led by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar and the upper caste Hindus of India that took place on 24 September 1932 at Yerawada Jail in Pune (now in Maharashtra), India.
Contents
[hide]

    * 1 History
    * 2 Text of the pact
    * 3 See also
    * 4 References

[edit] History

To draft a new Constitution involving self rule for the native Indians, the British invited various leaders for Round Table Conferences in 1930-32. Mahatma Gandhi did not attend the first Round Table Conference but attended the later Conferences. The concept of separate electorates for the Untouchables was raised by Dr. Ambedkar. Similar provisions were already available for other minorities, including Muslims and Sikhs. The British government agreed with Ambedkar's contention, and British Prime Minister J. Ramsay MacDonald's Communal Award to the "depressed classes" was to be incorporated into the constitution for governance of British India. Gandhi strongly opposed it on the grounds that it would disintegrate Hindu society. He began an indefinite hunger strike at Yerawada Jail from September 20, 1932 to protest this Award.

As Gandhi's health worsened, Dr. Ambedkar was under tremendous pressure to save the life of Mahatma Gandhi. A compromise, the Poona Pact, was made between the leaders of caste Hindus and Dr. Ambedkar was reached on September 24, 1932.
[edit] Text of the pact
Edit-copy purple-wikis.svg
    This section is a candidate to be copied to Wikisource.
If the section can be edited into an encyclopedic article, rather than merely a copy of the source text, please do so and remove this message. Otherwise, you can help by formatting it per the Wikisource guidelines in preparation for the duplication.

The text uses the term "Depressed Classes" to denote Untouchables who were later called Scheduled Castes under India Act 1935, and the later Indian Constitution of 1950. The Untouchables are now popularly known as Dalits.

Following is the text of the pact:

1) There shall be seats reserved for the Depressed Classes out of general electorate seats in the provincial legislatures as follows: -

Madras 30; Bombay with Sind 25; Punjab 8; Bihar and Orissa 18; Central Provinces 20; Assam 7; Bengal 30; United Provinces 20. Total 148. These figures are based on the Prime Minister's (British) decision.

2) Election to these seats shall be by joint electorates subject, however, to the following procedure –

All members of the Depressed Classes registered in the general electoral roll of a constituency will form an electoral college which will elect a panel of four candidates belonging to the Depressed Classes for each of such reserved seats by the method of the single vote and four persons getting the highest number of votes in such primary elections shall be the candidates for election by the general electorate.

3) The representation of the Depressed Classes in the Central Legislature shall likewise be on the principle of joint electorates and reserved seats by the method of primary election in the manner provided for in clause above for their representation in the provincial legislatures.

Central Legislature

4) In the Central Legislature 18 per cent of the seats allotted to the general electorate for British India in the said legislature shall be reserved for the Depressed Classes.

5) The system of primary election to a panel of candidates for election to the Central and Provincial Legislatures as herein-before mentioned shall come to an end after the first ten years, unless terminated sooner by mutual agreement under the provision of clause 6 below.

6) The system of representation of Depressed Classes by reserved seats in the Provincial and Central Legislatures as provided for in clauses (1) and (4) shall continue until determined otherwise by mutual agreement between the communities concerned in this settlement.

7) The Franchise for the Central and Provincial Legislatures of the Depressed Classes shall be as indicated, in the Lothian Committee Report.

8) There shall be no disabilities attached to any one on the ground of his being a member of the Depressed Classes in regard to any election to local bodies or appointment to the public services. Every endeavour shall be made to secure a fair representation of the Depressed Classes in these respects, subject to such educational qualifications as may be laid down for appointment to the Public Services.

9) In every province out of the educational grant an adequate sum shall be ear-marked for providing educational facilities to the members of Depressed Classes.


PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION

The problem of Pakistan has given a headache to everyone, more so to me than to anybody else. I cannot help recalling with regret how much of my time it has consumed when so much of my other literary work of greater importance to me than this is held up for want of it. I therefore hope that this second edition will also be the last I trust that before it is exhausted either the question will be settled or withdrawn.

There are four respects in which this second edition differs from the first.

*[f1] The first edition contained many misprints which formed the subject of complaints from many readers as well as reviewers. In preparing this edition, I have taken as much care as is possible to leave no room for complaint on this score. ,The first edition consisted only of three parts. Part V is an addition. It contains my own views on the various issues involved in the problem of Pakistan. It has been added because of the criticism levelled against the first edition that while I wrote about Pakistan I did not state what views I held on the subject. The present edition differs from the first in another respect. The maps contained in the first edition are retained but the number of appendices have been enlarged. In the first edition there were only eleven appendices. The present edition has twenty-five. To this edition I have also added an index which did not find a place in the first edition.

The book appears to have supplied a real want. I have seen how the thoughts, ideas and arguments contained in it have been pillaged by authors, politicians and editors of newspapers to support their sides. I am sorry they did not observe the decency of acknowledging the source even when they lifted not merely the argument but also the language of the book. But that is a matter I do not mind. I am glad that the book has been of service to

Indians who are faced with this knotty problem of Pakistan. The fact that Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Jinnah in their recent talks cited the book as an authority on the subject which might be consulted with advantage bespeaks the worth of the book.

The book by its name might appear to deal only with the X. Y. Z. of Pakistan. It does more than that. It is an analytical presentation of Indian history and Indian politics in their communal aspects. As such, it is intended to explain the A. B.C. of Pakistan also. The book is more than a mere treatise on Pakistan. The material relating to Indian history and Indian politics contained in this book is so large and so varied that it might well be called Indian Political What is What.

The book has displeased both Hindus as well as Muslims though the reasons for the dislike of the Hindus are different from the reasons for the dislike of the Muslims. I am not sorry' for this reception given to my book. That it is disowned by the Hindus and unowned by the Muslims is to me the best evidence that it has the vices of neither and that from the point of view of independence of thought and fearless presentation affects the book is not a party production.

Some people are sore because what I have said has hurt them. I have not, I confess , allowed myself to be influenced by fears of wounding either individuals or classes, or shocking opinions however respectable they may be. I have often felt regret in pursuing this course, but remorse never. Those whom I may have offended must forgive me, in consideration of the honesty and disinterestedness of my aim. I do not claim to have written dispassionately though I trust I have written without prejudice. It would be hardly possible—1 was going to say decent—for an Indian to be calm when he talks of his country and thinks of the times. In dealing with the question of Pakistan my object has been to draw a perfectly accurate, and at the same time, a suggestive picture of the situation as I see it. Whatever points of strength and weakness I have discovered on either side I have brought them boldly forward. I have taken pains to throw light on the mischievous effects that are likely to proceed from an obstinate and impracticable course of action.

The witness of history regarding the conflict between the forces of the authority of the State and of anti-State nationalism within, has been uncertain, if not equivocal. As Prof. Friedmann* [f2] observes:—

" There is not a single modem State which has not, at one time or another, forced a recalcitrant national group to live under its authority. Scots, Bretons, Catalans, Germans, Poles, Czechs, Finns, all have, at some time or another, been compelled to accept the authority of a more powerful State whether they liked it or not. Often, as in Great Britain or France, force eventually led to co-operation and a co-ordination of State authority and national cohesion. But in many cases, such as those of Germany, Poland, Italy and a host of Central European and Balkan countries, the forces of Nationalism did not rest until they had thrown off the shackles of State Power and formed a State of their own . . . . . "

In the last edition, I depicted the experience of countries in which the State engaged itself in senseless suppression of nationalism and weathered away in the attempt. In this edition I have added by way of contrast the experience of other countries to show that given the will to live together it is not impossible for diverse communities and even for diverse nations to live in the bosom of one State. It might be said that in tendering advice to both sides I have used terms more passionate than they need have been. If I have done so it is because I felt that the manner of the physician who tries to surprise the vital principle in each paralyzed organ in order to goad it to action was best suited to stir up the average Indian who is complacent if not somnolent, who is unsuspecting if not ill-informed, to realize what is happening. I hope my effort will have the desired effect.

I cannot close this preface without thanking Prof. Manohar B. Chitnis of the Khalsa College, Bombay, and Mr. K. V. Chitre for their untiring labours to remove all printer' sand clerical errors that had crept into the first edition and to see that this edition is free from all such blemishes. I am also very grateful to Prof. Chitnis for the preparation of the Index which has undoubtedly enhanced the utility of the book.

 

1st January 1945,

22, Prithviraj Road,                              

B.R.AMBEDKAR

New Delhi.

 

PROLOGUE

It can rightly be said that the long introduction with which this treatise opens leaves no excuse for a prologue. But there is an epilogue which is affixed to the treatise. Having done that, I thought of prefixing a prologue, firstly, because an epilogue needs to be balanced by a prologue, and secondly, because the prologue gives me room to state in a few words the origin of this treatise to those who may be curious to know it and to impress upon the readers the importance of the issues raised in it. For the satisfaction of the curious it may be stated that there exists, at any rate in the Bombay Presidency, a political organization called the Independent Labour Party (abbreviated into I.L.P.) for the last three years. It is not an ancient, hoary organization which can claim to have grown grey in politics. The I.L.P. is not in its dotage and is not overtaken by senility, for which second childhood is given as a more agreeable name. Compared with other political organizations, the I.L.P. is a young and fairly active body, not subservient to any clique or interest. Immediately after the passing of the Lahore Resolution on Pakistan by the Muslim League, the Executive Council of the I.L.P. met to consider what attitude it should adopt towards this project of Pakistan. The Executive Council could see that there was underlying Pakistan an idea to which no objection could be taken. Indeed, the Council was attracted to the scheme of Pakistan inasmuch as it meant the creation of ethnic states as a solution of the communal problem. The Council, however, did not feel competent to pronounce at that stage a decided opinion on the issue of Pakistan. The Council, therefore, resolved to appoint a committee to study the question and make a report on it. The committee consisted of my self as the Chairman, and Principal M. V. Donde, B.A.; Mr. S. C. Joshi, M.A.,LL.B., Advocate (O.S.), M.L.C.;Mr.R.R.Bhole,B.Sc., LL.B.,. m.l.a.i Mr. D. G. Jadhav, B.A., LL.B., M.L.A., and Mr. A. V. Chitre, B.A., M.L.A., all belonging to the I.L.P., as members of the committee. Mr. D. V. Pradhan, Member, Bombay Municipal Corporation, acted as Secretary to the committee. The committee asked me to prepare a report on Pakistan which I did. The same was submitted to the Executive Council of the I.L.P., which resolved that the report should be published. The  treatise now published is that report.

The book is intended to assist the student of Pakistan to come to his own conclusion. With that object in view, I have not only assembled in this volume all the necessary and relevant data but have also added 14 appendices and 3 maps, which in my judgement, form an important accompaniment to the book.

It is not enough for the reader to go over the material collected in the following pages. He must also reflect over it. Let him take to heart the warning which Carlyle gave to Englishmen of his generation. He said:

"The Genius of England no longer soars Sunward, world-defiant, like an Eagle through the storms, ' mewing her mighty youth,'.......... . . . . . . the Genius of England—much like a greedy Ostrich intent on provender and a whole skin ..........; with its Ostrich-head stuck into ...... whatever sheltering Fallacy there may be, and so awaits the issue. The issue has been slow; but it now seems to have been inevitable. No Ostrich, intent on gross terrene provender and sticking its head into Fallacies, but will be awakened one day—in a terrible a posteriori manner if not otherwise! Awake before it comes to that. Gods and men did us awake! The Voices of our Fathers, with thousand fold stern monition to one and all, bid us awake".

This warning, I am convinced, applies to Indians in their present circumstances as it once did to Englishmen, and Indians, if they pay no heed to it, will do so at their peril.

Now, a word for those who have helped me in the preparation of this report. Mr. M. G. Tipnis, D.C.E., (Kalabhuwan, Baroda), and Mr. Chhaganlal S. Modyhave rendered me great assistance, the former in preparing the maps and the latter in typing the manuscript. I wish to express my gratitude to both for their work which they have done purely as a labour of love. Thanks are also due in a special measure to my friends Mr. B. R. Kadrekar and Mr. K. V. Chitre for their labours in undertaking the most uninteresting and dull task of correcting the proof sand supervising the printing.

28th December, 1940,

'Rajagrah                                                                                    B.R. AMBEDKAR. Dadar, Bombay, 14.

 
INTRODUCTION

The Muslim Leagued Resolution on Pakistan has called forth different reactions. There are some who look upon it as a case of political measles to which a people in the infancy of their conscious unity and power are very liable. Others have taken it as a permanent frame of the Muslim mind and not merely a passing phase and have in consequence been greatly perturbed.

The question is undoubtedly controversial. The issue is vital and there is no argument which has not been used in the controversy by one side to silence the other. Some argue that this demand for partitioning India into two political entities under separate national states staggers their imagination ; others are so choked with a sense of righteous indignation at this wanton attempt to break the unity of a country, which, it is claimed, has stood as one for centuries, that their rage prevents them from giving expression to their thoughts. Others think that it need not be taken seriously. They treat it as a trifle and try to destroy it by shooting into it similes and metaphors. " You don't cut your head to cure your headache," " you don't cut a baby into two because two women are engaged in fighting out a claim as to who its mother is," are some of the analogies which are used to prove the absurdity of Pakistan. In a controversy carried on the plane of pure sentiment, there is nothing surprising if a dispassionate student finds more stupefaction and less understanding, more heat and less light, more ridicule and less seriousness.

My position in this behalf is definite, if not singular. I do not think the demand for Pakistan is the result of mere political distemper, which will pass away with the efflux of time. As I read the situation, it seems to me that it is a characteristic in the biological sense of the term, which the Muslim body politic has developed in the same manner as an organism develops a characteristic. Whether it will survive or not, in the process of natural selection, must depend upon the forces that may become operative in the struggle for existence between Hindus and Musalmans. I am not staggered by Pakistan; I am not indignant about it ; nor do I believe that it can be smashed by shooting into it similes and metaphors. Those who believe in shooting it by similes should remember that nonsense does not cease to be nonsense because it is put in. rhyme, and that a metaphor is no argument though it be sometimes the gunpowder to drive one home and imbed it in memory. I believe that it would be neither wise nor possible to reject summarily a scheme if it has behind it the sentiment, if not the passionate support, of 90 p.c. Muslims of India. I have no doubt that the only proper attitude to Pakistan is to study it in all its aspects, to understand its implications and to form an intelligent judgement about it.

With all this, a reader is sure to ask : Is this book on Pakistan seasonable in the sense that one must read it, as one must eat the fruits of the season to keep oneself in health ? If it is seasonable, is it readable ? These are natural queries and an author, whose object is to attract readers, may well make use of the introduction to meet them.

As to the seasonableness of the book there can be no doubt. The way of looking at India by Indians themselves must be admitted to have undergone a complete change during the last 20 years. Referring to India Prof. Arnold Toynbee wrote in 1915—

" British statesmanship in the nineteenth century regarded India as a 'Sleeping Beauty,' whom Britain had a prescriptive right to woo when she awoke; so it hedged with thorns the garden where she lay, to safeguard her from marauders prowling in the desert without Now the princess is awake, and is claiming the right to dispose of her own hand, while the marauders have transformed themselves into respectable gentlemen diligently occupied in turning the desert into a garden too, but grievously impeded by the British thorn-hedge. When they politely request us to remove it, we shall do well to consent, for they will not make the demand till they feel themselves strong enough to enforce it, and in the tussle that will follow if we refuse, the sympathies of the Indian princess will not be on our side. now that she is awake, she wishes to walk abroad among her neighbours; she feels herself capable of rebuffing without our countenance any blandishments or threats they may offer her, and she is becoming as weary as they of the thorn-hedge that confines her to her garden.

"If we treat her with tact, India will never wish to secede from the spiritual brotherhood of the British Empire, but it is inevitable that she should lead a more and more independent life of her own, and follow the example of Anglo-Saxon Commowealths by establishing direct relations with her neighbours........"

Although the writer is an Englishman, the view expressed by him in 1915 was the view commonly held by all Indians irrespective of caste or creed. Now that India the " Sleeping Beauty " of Prof. Toynbee is awake, what is the view of the Indians about her ? On this question, there can be no manner of doubt that those who have observed this Sleeping Beauty behave in recent years, feel she is a strange being quite different from the angelic princess that she was supposed to be. She is a mad maiden having a dual personality, half human, half animal, always in convulsions because of her two natures in perpetual conflict. If there is any doubt about her dual personality, it has now been dispelled by the Resolution of the Muslim League demanding the cutting up of India into two, Pakistan and Hindustan, so that these conflicts and convulsions due to a dual personality having been bound in one may cease forever, and so freed from each other, may dwell in separate homes congenial to their respective cultures, Hindu and Muslim.

It is beyond question that Pakistan is a scheme which will have to be taken into account. The Muslims will insist upon the scheme being considered. The British will insist upon some kind of settlement being reached between the Hindus and the Muslims before they consent to any devolution of political power. There is no use blaming the British for insisting upon such a settlement as a condition precedent to the transfer of power. The British cannot consent to settle power upon an aggressive Hindu majority and make it its heir, leaving it to deal with the minorities at its sweet pleasure. That would not be ending imperialism. It would be creating another imperialism. The Hindus, therefore, cannot avoid coming to grips with Pakistan, much as they would like to do.

If the scheme of Pakistan has to be considered, and there is no escape from it, then there are certain points which must be borne in mind.

The first point to note is that the Hindus and Muslims must decide the question themselves. They cannot invoke the aid of anyone else. Certainly, they cannot expect the British to decide it for them. From the point of view of the Empire, it matters very little to the British whether India remains one undivided whole, or is partitioned into two parts, Pakistan and Hindustan, or into twenty linguistic fragments as planned by the Congress, so long as all of them are content to live within the Empire. The British need not interfere for the simple reason that they are not affected by such territorial divisions.

Further, if the Hindus are hoping that the British will use force to put down Pakistan, that is impossible. In the first place, coercion is no remedy. The futility of force and resistance was pointed out by Burke long ago in his speeches relating to the coercion of the American colonies. His memorable words may be quoted not only for the benefit of the Hindu Maha Sabha but also for the benefit of all. This is what he said:

" The use of force alone is temporary. It may endure a moment but it does not remove the necessity of subduing again : a nation is not governed which is perpetually to be conquered. The next objection to force is its uncertainty. Terror is not always the effect of force, and an armament is not a victory. If you do not succeed you are without resource; for conciliation failing, force remains; but force failing, no further hope of reconciliation is left. Power and Authority are sometimes bought by kindness, but they can never be begged as alms by an impoverished and defeated violence. A further objection to force is that you impair the object by your very endeavours to preserve it. The thing you fought for (to wit the loyalty of the people) is not the thing you recover, but depreciated, sunk, wasted and consumed in the contest."

Coercion, as an alternative to Pakistan, is therefore unthinkable.

Again, the Muslims cannot be deprived of the benefit of the principle of self-determination. The Hindu Nationalists who rely on self-determination and ask how Britain can refuse India what the conscience of the world has conceded to the smallest of the European nations, cannot in the same breath ask the British to deny it to other minorities. The Hindu Nationalist who hopes that Britain will coerce the Muslims into abandoning Pakistan, forgets that the right of nationalism to freedom from an aggressive foreign imperialism and the right of a minority to freedom from an aggressive majority's nationalism are not two different things; nor does the former stand on a more sacred footing than the latter. They are merely two aspects of the struggle for freedom and as such equal in their moral import. Nationalists, fighting for freedom from aggressive imperialism, cannot well ask the help of the British imperialists to thwart the right of a minority to freedom from the nationalism of an aggressive majority. The matter must, therefore, be decided upon by the Muslims and the Hindus alone. The British cannot decide the issue for them. This is the first important point to note.

The essence of Pakistan is the opposition to the establishment of one Central Government having supremacy over the whole of India. Pakistan contemplates two Central Governments, one for Pakistan and the other for Hindustan. This gives rise to the second important point which Indians must take note of. That point is that the issue of Pakistan shall have to be decided upon before the plans for a new constitution are drawn and its foundations are laid. If there is to be one Central Government for India, the design of the constitutional structure would be different from what it would be if there is to be one Central Government for Hindustan and another for Pakistan. That being so, it will be most unwise to postpone the decision. Either the scheme should be abandoned and another substituted by mutual agreement or it should be decided upon. It will be the greatest folly to suppose that if Pakistan is buried for the moment, it will never raise its head again. I am sure, burying Pakistan is not the same thing as burying the ghost of Pakistan. So long as the hostility to one Central Government for India, which is the ideology underlying Pakistan, persists, the ghost of Pakistan will be there, casting its ominous shadow upon the political future of India. Neither will it be prudent to make some kind of a make-shift arrangement for the time being, leaving the permanent solution to some future day. To do so would be something like curing the symptoms without removing the disease. But, as often happens in such cases, the disease is driven in, thereby making certain its recurrence, perhaps in a more virulent form.

I feel certain that whether India should have one Central Government is not a matter which can betaken as settled; it is a matter in  issue and although it may not be a live issue now, some day it will be.

The Muslims have openly declared that they do not want to have any Central Government in India and they have given their reasons in the most unambiguous terms. They have succeeded in bringing into being five provinces which are predominantly Muslim in population. In these provinces, they see the possibility of the Muslims forming a government and they are anxious to see that the independence of the Muslim Governments in these provinces is preserved. Actuated by these considerations, the Central Government is an eyesore to the Muslims of India. As they visualize the scene, they see their Muslim Provinces made subject to a Central Government predominantly Hindu and endowed with powers of supervision over, and even of interference in, the administration of these Muslim Provinces. The Muslims feel that to accept one Central Government for the whole of India is to consent to place the Muslim Provincial Governments under a Hindu Central Government and to see the gain secured by the creation of Muslim Provinces lost by subjecting them to a Hindu Government at the Centre. The Muslim way of escape from this tyranny of a Hindu Centre is to have no Central Government in India at all.*[f3]

Are the Musalmans alone opposed to the existence of a Central Government ? What about the Hindus ? There seems to be a silent premise underlying all political discussions that are going on among the Hindus that there will always be in India a Central Government as a permanent part of her political constitution. How far such a premise can be taken for granted is more than I can say. I may, however, point out that there are two factors which are dormant for the present but which some day may become dominant and turn the Hindus away from the idea of a Central Government.

The first is the cultural antipathy between the Hindu Provinces. The Hindu Provinces are by no means a happy family. It cannot be pretended that the Sikhs have any tenderness for the Bengalees or the Rajputs or the Madrasis. The Bengalee loves only himself. The Madrasi is.bound by his own world. As to the Mahratta, who does not recall that the Mahrattas, who set out to destroy the Muslim Empire in India, became a menace to the rest of the Hindus whom they harassed and kept under their yoke for nearly a century. The Hindu Provinces have no common traditions and no interests to bind them. On the other hand, the differences of language, race, and the conflicts of the past have been the most powerful forces tending to divide them. It is true that the Hindus are getting together and the spirit moving them to become one united nation is working on them. But it must not be forgotten that they have not yet become a nation. They are in the process of becoming a nation and before the process is completed, there may be a setback which may destroy the work of a whole century.

In the second place, there is the financial factor. It is not sufficiently known what it costs the people of India to maintain the Central Government and the proportionate burden each Province has to bear.

The total revenue of British India comes to Rs. 194,64,17,926 per annum. Of this sum, the amount raised by the Provincial Governments  from provincial sources, comes annually to Rs. 73,57,50,125 and that raised by the Central Government from central sources of revenue comes to Rs. 121,06,67,801. This will show what the Central Government costs the people of India. When one considers that the Central Government is concerned only with maintaining peace and does not discharge any functions which have relation to the progress of the people, it should cause no surprise if people begin to ask whether it is necessary that they should pay annually such an enormous price to purchase peace. In this connection, it must be borne in mind that the people in the provinces are literally starving and there is no source left to the provinces to increase their revenue.

This burden of maintaining the Central Government, which the people of India have to bear, is most unevenly distributed over the different provinces. The sources of central revenues are (1) Customs, (2) Excise, (3) Salt, (4) Currency, (5) Posts and Telegraphs, (6) Income Tax and (7) Railways. It is not possible from the accounts published by the Government of India to work out the distribution of the three sources of central revenue, namely Currency, Posts and Telegraphs and Railways. Only the revenue raised from other sources can be worked out province by province. The result-is shown in the following table :—

 
    

Revenue raised by
    

Revenue raised by

Provinces
    

Provincial
    

Central

 
    

Government from
    

Government from

 
    

provincial sources
    

central sources

 
    

Rs.
    

Rs.

1 Madras
    

16,13,44,520
    

9,53,26,745

2 Bombay
    

12,44,59,553
    

22,53,44,247

3 Bengal
    

12,76,60,892
    

23,79,01,583

4 U.P.
    

12,79,99,851
    

4,05,53,030

5 Bihar
    

5,23,83,030
    

1,54,37,742

6 C. P. & Berar
    

4,27,41,280
    

31,42,682

7 Assam
    

2,58,48,474
    

1,87,55,967

8 Orissa
    

1,81,99,823
    

5,67,346

9 Punjab
    

11,35,86,355
    

1,18,01,385

10 N.W.F.P.
    

1,80,83,548
    

9,28,294

11 Sind
    

3,70,29,354
    

5,66,46,915

It will be seen from this table that the burden of maintaining the Central Government is not only heavy but falls unequally upon the different provinces. The Bombay Provincial Government raises Rs. 12,44,59,553; as against this, the Central Government raises Rs. 22,53,44,247 from Bombay. The Bengal Government raises Rs. 12,76,60,892; as against this, the Central Government raises Rs. 23,79,01,583 from Bengal. The Sind Government raises Rs. 3,70,29,354; as against this, the Central Government raises Rs. 5,66,46,915 from Sind. The Assam Government raises nearly Rs. 2 1/2 crores; but the Central Government raises nearly Rs. 2 crores from Assam. While such is the burden of the Central Government on these provinces, the rest of the provinces contribute next to nothing to the Central Government. The Punjab raises Rs. 11 crores for itself but contributes only Rs. 1 crore to the Central Government. In the N.W.F.P. the provincial revenue is Rs. 1,80,83,548; its total contribution to the Central Government however is only Rs. 9,28,294. U.P. raises Rs. 13 crores but contributes only Rs. 4 crores to the Centre. Bihar collects Rs. 5 crores for itself; she gives only 1 1/2 crores to the Centre. CJP. and Berar levy a total of 4 crores and pay to the Centre 31 lakhs.

This financial factor has so far passed without notice. But time may come when even to the Hindus, who are the strongest supporters of a Central Government in India, the financial considerations may make a greater appeal than what purely patriotic considerations do now. So, it is possible that some day the Muslims, for communal considerations, and the Hindus, for financial considerations, may join hands to abolish the Central Government.

If this were to happen, it is better if it happens before the foundation of a new constitution is laid down. If it happens after the foundation of the new constitution envisaging one Central Government were laid down, it would be the greatest disaster. Out of the general wreck, not only India as an entity will vanish, but it will not be possible to save even the Hindu unity. As I have pointed out, there is not much cement even among the Hindu Provinces, and once that little cement which exists is lost, there will be nothing with which to build up even the unity of the Hindu Provinces. It is because of this that Indians must decide, before preparing the plans and laying the foundations, for whom the constitutional structure is to be raised and whether it is temporary or permanent. After the structure is built as one whole, on one single foundation, with girders running through from one end to the other; if, thereafter, a part is to be severed from the rest, the knocking out of the rivets will shake the whole building and produce cracks in other parts of the structure which are intended to remain as one whole. The danger of cracks is greater, if the cement which binds them is, as in the case of India, of a poor quality. If the new constitution is designed for India as one whole and a structure is raised on that basis, and thereafter the question of separation of Pakistan from Hindustan is raised and the Hindus have to yield, the alterations that may become necessary to give effect to this severance may bring about the collapse of the whole structure. The desire of the Muslim Provinces may easily infect the Hindu Provinces and the spirit of disruption generated by the  Muslim Provinces may cause all round disintegration.

History is not wanting in instances of constitutions threatened with disruption. There is the instance of the Southern States of the American Union. Natal has always been anxious to get out from the Union of South Africa and Western Australia recently applied, though unsuccessfully, to secede from the Australian Commonwealth.

In these cases actual disruption has not taken place and where it did, it was soon healed. Indians, however, cannot hope to be so fortunate. Theirs may be the fate of Czechoslovakia. In the first place, it would be futile to entertain the hope that if a disruption of the Indian constitution took place by the Muslim Provinces separating from the Hindu Provinces, it would be possible to win back the seceding provinces as was done in the U.S.A. after the Civil War. Secondly, if the new Indian constitution is a Dominion Constitution, even the British may find themselves powerless to save the constitution from such a disruption, if it takes place after its foundations are laid. It seems to be, therefore, imperative that the issue of Pakistan should be decided upon before the new constitution is devised.

If there can be no doubt that Pakistan is a scheme which Indians will have to resolve upon at the next revision of the constitution and if there is no escape from deciding upon it, then it would be a fatal mistake for the people to approach it without a proper understanding of the question. The ignorance of some of the Indian delegates to the Round Table Conference of constitutional law, I remember, led Mr. Garvin of the Observer to remark that it would have been  much better if the Simon Commission, instead of writing a report on India, had made a report on constitutional problems of India and how they were met by the constitutions of the different countries of the world. Such a report I know was prepared for the use of the delegates who framed the constitution of South Africa. This is an attempt to make good that deficiency and as such I believe it will be welcomed as a seasonable piece.

So much for the question whether the book is seasonable. As to the second question, whether the book is readable no writer can forget the words of Augustine Birrell when he said:

" Cooks, warriors, and authors must be judged by the effects they produce; toothsome dishes, glorious victories, pleasant books, these are our demands. We have nothing to do with ingredients, tactics, or methods. We have no desire to be admitted into the kitchen, the council, or the study. The cook may use her saucepans how she pleases, the warrior place his men as he likes, the author handle his material or weave his plot as best he can; when the dish is served we only ask. Is it good ?; when the battle has been fought. Who won ? ; when the book comes out. Does it read ?

" Authors ought not to be above being reminded that it is their  first duty to write agreeably. Some very disagreeable men have succeeded in doing so, and there is, therefore, no need for anyone to despair. Every author, be he grave or gay, should try to make his book as ingratiating as possible. Reading is not a duty, and has consequently no business to be made disagreeable. Nobody is under any obligation to read any other man's book."

I am fully aware of this. But I am not worried about it. That may well apply to other books but not to a book on Pakistan. Every Indian must read a book on Pakistan, if not this, then some other, if he wants to help his country to steer a clear path.

If any book does not read well, i.e., its taste be not good, the reader will find two things in it which, I am sure, are good.

The first thing he will find is that the ingredients are good. There is in the book material which will be helpful and to gain access to which he will have to labour a great deal. Indeed, the reader will find that the book contains an epitome of India's political and social history during the last twenty years, which it is necessary for every Indian to know.

The second thing he will find is that there is no partisanship. The aim is to expound the scheme of Pakistan in all its aspects and not to advocate it. The aim is to explain and not to convert. It would, however, be a pretence to say that I have no views on Pakistan. Views I have. Some of them are expressed, others may have to be gathered. Two things, however, may well be said about my views. In the first place, wherever they are expressed, they have been reasoned out. Secondly, whatever the views, they have certainly not the fixity of a popular prejudice. They are really thoughts and not views. In other words, I have an open mind, though not an empty mind. A person with an open mind is always the subject of congratulations. While this may be so, it must, at the same time, be realized that an open mind may also be an empty mind and that such an open mind, if it is a happy condition, is also a very dangerous condition for a man to be in. A disaster may easily overtake a man with an empty mind. Such a person is like a ship without ballast and without a rudder. It can have no direction. It may float but may also suffer a shipwreck against a rock for want of direction. While aiming to help the reader by placing before him all the material, relevant and important, the reader will find that I have not sought to impose my views on him. I have placed before him both sides of the question and have left him to form his own opinion.

The reader may complain that I have been provocative in stating the relevant facts. I am conscious that .such a charge may be levelled against me. I apologize freely and gladly for the same. My excuse is that I have no intention to hurt. I had only one purpose, that is, to force the attention of the indifferent and casual reader to the issue that is dealt with in the book. I ask the reader to put aside any irritation that he may feel with me and concentrate his thoughts on this tremendous issue : Which is to be, Pakistan or no Pakistan ?
 

                                                                                 PART I

 [f1] * In the first edition there unfortunately occurred through oversight in proof correction a discrepancy between the population figures in the different districts of Bengal and the map showing the lay-out of Pakistan as applied to Bengal which had resulted in two districts which should have been included in the Pakistan area being excluded from it. In this edition, this error has been rectified and the map and the figures have been brought into conformity.

 [f2] * The Crisis of (he National State (1943), p. 4.

 [f3] * This point of view was put forth by Sir Muhammad lqbal at the Third Round Table Conference.

 http://www.ambedkar.org/pakistan/#p1

Mohammad Ali Jinnah - Dr Ambedkar
A Wisdom Archive on Mohammad Ali Jinnah - Dr Ambedkar

Mohammad Ali Jinnah - Dr Ambedkar

A selection of articles related to Mohammad Ali Jinnah - Dr Ambedkar
More material related to Mohammad Ali Jinnah can be found here:
Main Page
for
Mohammad Ali Jinnah     Index of Articles
related to
Mohammad Ali Jinnah     Index of Articles
related to
Mohammad Ali Jinnah - Dr ...
Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Mohammad Ali Jinnah - A Secular Jinnah, Mohammad Ali Jinnah - A new understanding of Jinnah and Partition, Mohammad Ali Jinnah - Christoper Lee, Mohammad Ali Jinnah - Contested legacy, Mohammad Ali Jinnah - Descendants, Mohammad Ali Jinnah - Dr Ambedkar, Mohammad Ali Jinnah - Early life and family history, Mohammad Ali Jinnah - Exile in England, Mohammad Ali Jinnah - Fourteen Points of Mr Jinnah, Mohammad Ali Jinnah - H V Hodson, Mohammad Ali Jinnah - Jinnah as a legislator, Mohammad Ali Jinnah - Jinnah in the eyes of his contemporaries, Mohammad Ali Jinnah - Law, Mohammad Ali Jinnah - M C Rajah, Mohammad Ali Jinnah - Modern Views on Jinnah, Mohammad Ali Jinnah - Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Mohammad Ali Jinnah - Nehru, Mohammad Ali Jinnah - Nelson Mandela, Mohammad Ali Jinnah - Partition and Pakistan, Mohammad Ali Jinnah - Political Career, Mohammad Ali Jinnah - Quotes, Mohammad Ali Jinnah - Return, Mohammad Ali Jinnah - Sarat Chandra Bose, Mohammad Ali Jinnah - Sarojini Naidu, Mohammad Ali Jinnah - Trivia


by Narender Sehgal
 

    Chapter 17
    The Rise of Sheikh Abdullah as the British Agent

            In order to perpetuate their rule on vast India the Britishers made two matters as the foundation of their entire political activities. First was the "divide and rule" diplomacy which was given constitutional recognition. Secondly, an arrangement for able agents and stooges for implementing the same principle in the political setup conveniently. The principle of "divide" through caste-based political process and reservation received patronage from the Government and in the garb of social reforms an army of the British agents and sycophants was raised through establishment of many institutions.
             The rulers of the lndian states too played their role in strengthening the second political base. These rulers of the Indian states neither dared nor thought it proper to oppose the foreign power because they remained busy in their entertainment. The freedom struggle of 1857 was a revolt when the Britishers had not strengthened their foothold. Therefore, the Britishers gave importance to the individual ego of the rulers and never tried to interfere in their world of pleasure. That is why the British Government remained unperturbed from their side and it kept on using them as the base for its stability.

      One nationalistic ruler

      But the British Government was jolted when Kashmir's ruler, Maharaja Hari Singh, talked about India's independence in the capacity of the Chairman of the Chamber of Princes during the roundtable conference in London in 1931. Such a talk from the head of the Chamber of Princes was politically a challenge. Those very days the pace of the freedom movement and partition of India were getting sharper. The Muslim League was playing its political cards and the League had the blessings of Lord Mountbatten.

      Kashmir was a Muslim majority state and the Maharaja had, by talking in terms of complete independence, struck the caste-based politics announced by the Britishers. Getting angry and alert following the unhelpful attitude of the Maharaja, the viceroy, Lord Mountbetten, started looking for a suitable British Agent in Kashmir. There was need for preparing the Muslim society against the Hindu Maharaj and for diluting the popularity of the Maharaja, for shaking his political base and finally for finishing his existence. For this it was necessary to plant an influential Muslim leader. Therefore, for realising this objective Lord Mountbetten thought the emerging young Muslim, Skeikh Abdullah, as the suitable person and backed him up.

      Communalism of Sheikh Abdullah

      Sheikh Abdullah was the product of that Aligarh Muslim University which had produced many leaders for assisting the Indian Muslim society in adopting the path of separatism. The founders of the "isms" of Muslim nationalism, Muslim fundamentalism and creation of Pakistan were produced from the same university. Sheikh Abdullah had received M.Sc. degree from the university and was appointed a science teacher in Government High School, Srinagar. From this very place he started his political activities.

      In order to establish his political base in Kashmir the Sheikh decided to collect and incite Muslim youths against the Maharaja. He gave up his service to intensify his political activities. However, Dr. Gori Nath Rastogi has, in his book "Our Kashmir", written that the Sheikh was sacked because of immoral behaviour. He had already received, as a gift from the Aligarh Muslim University, the seeds of communalism in his mind and the sacking from the services further inflamed him. His mind was inflammed with hatred against the Maharaja and he started plans for promoting religious passions. The British diplomacy had the need for such a person in Jammu and Kashmir.

      Sheikh Abdullah started encouraging communalism openly. He launched a movement on the basis of the demand for Government posts for the Muslims, their share in the administration and religious freedom. Inflammatory speeches from mosques began communalising the entire atmosphere. The Sheikh also succeeded in giving Islamic hue to the entire movement. How was this dye ? Gopinath Shrivastav has given information about this dye in his book "Kashmir".

      According to Shrivastav, one Abdul Qadir, a Muslim cook, had come to Kashmir with a European traveller. He too jumped into the movement and on June 21,1931 he delivered an anti- Government speech at a function organised at Shah Hamdan. It resulted in his arrest and trial. The hearing of the trial was going on in the central Jail, Srinagar, when four to five thousand people assembled outside the Jail and attacked the Jail gates. Their demand was withdrawal of the case against Abdul Qadir. The crowd tore the fence, jail inmates got incited and the police opened fire in which 21 persons were killed. Their bodies were carried in a procession and the entire city was gripped by communal tension. Shops of Hindus were looted and three Hindus were killed. The good relations between the Hindus and the Muslims were snapped. The Maharaja set up a committee under the chairmanship of the Chief Justice to enquire into the police firing. The Muslims boycotted the committee. This way Sheikh Abdullah started emerging as a Muslim leader and started getting the base for revolting against the Maharaja.

      Sheikh planned riots during Maharaja's birthday

      It was Maharaja's birthday on September 24, 1932. The entire city of Srinagar had been decorated. Muslims too were making preparations for celebrating the Maharaja's birthday. The Sheikh did not like all this. His political existence had been endangered by the way the Muslims had assmebled in support of the Maharaja. He, therefore, decided to create hurdles in these celebrations and in generating tension. Two days earlier the Shoba Yatra was stoned, as per the plan. The result was that the entire city was rocked by communalism. The workers of the Muslim Reading Room, a party formed by the Sheikh, supervised the plan. The houses of Hindus were looted and a crowd surrounded the house of Jia Lal Kilam and stoned and ransacked it. The entire attention of the Maharaja and the administraticn was diverted towards the law and order of the city. The Army was deployed in Mirpur and other riot affected areas. This way the Sheikh succeeded in disrupting the birthday celebrations.

      Muslim Conference, a platform for antinational activities

      In this atmosphere of Muslim bigotry Sheikh Abdullah became the sole leader of the Muslims. The Sheikh and his colleagues organised Kashmir Muslim Conference Party. A three-day convention of the Conference was held under the chairmanship of Sheikh Abdullah from October 14, 1932. The aim of the resolution adopted at the convention was to incite the Muslim society on the basis of religion and force ouster of the Hindu Maharaja in order to establish Islamic rule. Dr H.L. Saxena has given an account of this convention in his book "The Tragedy of Kashmir".

      According to Dr. Saxena, one important aspect of this convention was that neither the President, Sheikh Abdullah, nor any other person spoke a word about the atrocities on Hindus in Srinagar and Mirpur. Instead a demand was made for withdrawing the Army from these places which could ensure the annihilation of Hindus and Sikhs. The speeches delivered at the convention further communalised the atmosphere in the entire state. Sheikh Abdullah went to some area in Punjab where he hid himself to evade arrest. The Sheikh, who had left the workers of his party, Muslim Conference, in the current, returned to Kashmir after one month when the atmosphere was calm.

      Again the Sheikh started inciting Muslim youths, organised processions and demonstrations and delivered fiery speeches in mosques for inflamming their mind with religious zeal. The situation was again disturbed. Communal riots took place. When the Maharaja tried to enlighten the Sheikh through the Home Minister, Wajahat Hussain, and the British representative in Kashmir, colonel Colvin, Sheikh Abdullah attempted to conceal facts to keep them in darkenss. Wajahat Hussain suggested to the Maharaja to order immediate arrest of the Sheikh. Again the Sheikh escaped afeer getting the reports of his arrest orders in advance. This time he spent four months in Lahore and other places.

      After his return the Sheikh again remained busy in communal activities for achieving his goal. As a result of his activities the Muslim society of the State had, by now, become anti-Maharaja. Sheikh Abdullah was now an influential Muslim leader.

      Sheikh, a British Agent

      In order to utilise the Sheikh in the form of a British Agent the British Government found the opportune time for converting him into a British "stooge". The Sheikh himself wanted to seek blessings of the British Government and the support from a prominent Congress leader for making his campaign and movement a success. His both the wishes were fulfilled by Lord Mountbatten and Jawaharlal Nehru respectively.

      A prominent weekly of Bombay, Blitz, in its April 24, 1964 issue published a comprehensive article in which Sheikh Abdullah has been dubbed as a British Agent. In the article, original documents in the form of secret correspondence and letters have been published exposing the antinational activities of the Sheikh. Dr. H.L. Saxena has published the entire article of "Blitz" in his book "The Tragedy of Kashmir". The documents published in Blitz have lifted the thick veil from the initial political life of Sheikh Abdullah. These documents indicate that he had started his political career under the protection and assistance of the British Government. What has the Blitz to say :

      "Bombay: Blitz is now in possession of a mass of sensational and scalding documents which lift the heavy veil covering the early political career of Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah.

      On studying them, we are staggered at the amount of evidence-mostly in Abdullah's own language - which could lead to the following conclusion that:

      Sheikh Abdullah began his political career in collusion with and with the full patronage of the political service of the then British Government of India.

      It is common knowledge that the Anglo-Indian Political Service was mainly the machine of Intelligence Agents. British and Indian - specially trained and recruited by British Imperialism to keep India enslaved.

      These documents came in our possession on the eve of the Sheikh's departure to Saudi Arabia for his professed Haj pilgrimage. We decided to await his return home before we published them, so as to offer him an opportunity to deny their authenticity and clear his name.

      Treacherous

      The treacherous tale of Abdullah's exploits with the national enemies during this period is now too notorious to need repetition.

      Apart from playing objectively the role of a Pakistani agent, Abdullah transgressed the limits of national loyalty by seeking a secret confabulation with Chou-En-lai and by accepting an invitation to visit Peking - the capital of the invaders of India.

      He also tried to throw dust in the eyes of our friends and allies in the Arabic and Islamic countries by posing as a crusader for democracy, self-determination and what not. Under these circumstances, it is a matter of Privilege and National duty for all Indians to expose the career of this opportunist who now wants to dismember the Union by engineering the secession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir with the open and unashamed assistance of the known enemies and aggressors, Pakistan and China.

      Indictment

      On the basis of these documents which are published for the first time today, we level a four count indictment against Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah as under:
            1. That Sheikh Mohammd Abdullah, M.Sc. (Aligarh) contacted sometime in 1953 Sir B.J.Giancy, then Political Secretary to the then Government of India and head of the British Intelligence Service, otherwise known as the Political Service, and offered his services to the British Raj.

             2. That the said Glancy, ICS, passed him on, after checking on his antecedents, to one Lt. colonel L.E. Lang, CIE, MC, a high ranking offioer of the British Intelligence, who was then posted as the British Political Agent in Srinagar.

             3. That the course of his work as a willing collaborator af the enslavers of India, Abdullah received and carried out orders, instructions and wishes of one Col. C.W. Calvin, another member of the British Intelligence, who then acted as the Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir.

             4. That Abdullah knowingly acted as an agent of the British Intelligence to rouse communal passions of Kashmiri Muslims with a view to fighting the rising tide of Indian nationalism.
      Turning point

      Now let us present the evidence which takes us back to the turning point in national history. Sheikh Abdullah contacted Glancy some time in 1935. It is important to bear in mind the political situation in the country at that time. Between 1930 and 1934, our people had unitedly waged two satyagrah battles and faced incredibly brutal repression at the hands of the British. The nation was getting ready for one more battle to assert its independence.

      However, the most crucial development from the British viewpoint concerned the new awakening of the Pathans, the Baluchis, the Kashmiris and the West Punjabis. These were dominated Muslims who had been kept in reserve by the British to divide and tear the national movement apart. By 1935, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan and Khan Abdus Samad Khan Baluchi had won them over for the national independence of a united India.

      The national spirit had made a deep impact in Kashmir which was strategically the most important outpost of British Imperialism in Central Asia. The Gilgit military base, only a few miles from the Soviet border, had become all important. The British Intelligence service at that time was in desperate need of agents who could rouse Muslim communal passions in Kashmir against the national spirit and weaken the national movement.

      Abdullah was then a school teacher who had just returned from the Aligarh University - a hotbed of communal separatists and the most favourable recruiting centre for British agents among oppoitunist, self-seeking Muslim middle class, antinational elements.

      It was the British Intelligence which made the first move to recruit Sheikh Abdullah. The initiative was taken by Abdullah himself.

      Glancy and Abdullah

      How and in what manner Abdullah contacted the alien rulers is a tale still shrouded in mystery. However, it can be stated that he offered his services to the British in a letter dated December 6,1935, addressed to Glancy. On December 17,1935, Glancy accepted Abdullah's offer and wrote to him the following letter.

      "My dear Mr Abdullah,

      With reference to your letter dated 6th December, 1935, I may say that it is conceivable that there in that state, should be a development to retain work of politics as there are means to preserve the British aim.

      The recent information regarding Mr. Lal indicates a tendency towards the point, yet it seems necessary that unless an immediate change in the plan is not made, his removal seems impossible. Apart from the alterations the proposal will remain as originally stated, and as I understand from the various concerns, the proposal in search of his removal will be attempted in near future, Col. Colvin's report assures that prompt and up-to-date arrangements which indicates the survey based on the consequent needs.

      I hope you too remember the directions regarding the same and act upon.

      Yours sincerely,
      B.J. Glany ICS

      Patriot attacked

      Glancy's letter clearly indicates that Abdullah had proposed a political movement in Jammu and Kashmir which was aimed at the preservation of the British raj. He had already done some work in that connection, a plan had been prepared, which had been later slightly altered, and Abdullah had received his instructions. Further the plan was to dislodge from office one Mr. Lal.

      Who was this Mr. Lal ?

      Hari Kishan Lal was a fervent Indian patriot who in 1935 was the head of the Sericulture Department to Jammu and Kashmir. Highly qualified for his work, Mr. Lal developed the sericulture industry in the State and refused to compromise his political views. He had been a nationalist of long standing; having attended the 34th annual session of Indian National Congress in 1919, the year of the Jalianwala Bagh massacre.

      Glancy personally knew him. But when in the wake of the Swedeshi Movement, Mr. Lal banned the purchase of the British goods for his department, he became a thorn in Glancy's flesh. Further, Mr. Lal, with his nationalist views, became an example for others in Kashmir. Glancy used Abdullah in the first stage to seek dismissal of Mr. Lal from the post of the Director of the Sericulture Department. The weapon to used to secure this aim was the division between Hindus and Muslims. Abdullah was to rouse the Muslim workers to boot out the Hindu Mr. Lal.

      Secret Meeting

      That Abdullah got to work immediately, preaching hatred against the "Hindu" Director and praising the British, is clearly indicated from the following letter which he wrote on February 4, 1936 to Col. Lang, the British Resident, who was then camping at Sialkot.

      "As requested before, I have not been favoured with the important directions regarding the Director of Sericulture. Will you please pay an immediate attention towards this rough scrawl and let me know how to proceed with.

      A secret meeting of the Executive body was called upon. Resolution of no confidence against H.K. Lal, the Director, has been unanimously passed. You will note with great pleasure that it was done accordingly.

      It has finally been decided that this disease in the Sericulture Department requires drastic remedy and when this remedial measure appears, we give our support.

      The members of the meeting were made more excited and they preferred to bring the factory under British control. The situation and circumstances will not be more severe than necessary. Rest assured".

      Now the Sheikh started working as British agent in Kashmir. According to Dr Gourinath Rastogi, the Sheikh had the biggest desire to become the Sultan of Kashmir. For this he could do anything. In the beginning of 40's he engineered violent revolts in Kashmir under the instructions of the Britishers and forced Maharaja Hari Singh to set up the Glancy Commission for reforming the administration ? Glancy had remained Chief of the British Intelligence in India. In the name of the administrative reforms he forced the Maharaja to give Gilgit on lease for 60 years. He killed two birds with one stone. While on one hand Gilgit came under the British rule, on the other he succeeded in establishing Sheikh Abdullah as a political figure in Kashmir. Prior to this, Sheikh Abdullah could not establish his foothold in Gilgit, being a Muslim majority area, because of the influence of the Maharaja.

      The mask of National Conference

      Now Sheikh Abdullah decided to wear on his face a mask of natioalism. He wanted the support and blessings of some Indian leaders and Hindus for seeing his dream of becoming the sultan of Kashmir fulfilled. He succeeded in receiving guidance, support and blessings of influential national leaders like Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru and Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan in order to reach the level of national leaders. Prof. Balraj Madhok has given information about this dramatic act of the Sheikh in his book "Kashmir, Jammu and Ladakh".

      According to Prof. Madhok, Sheikh Abdullah converted the Muslim Conference into the National Conference in 1939. By doing this in the interest of his political ambition he wanted to secure the support of the Indian National Congress and the Indian Press. Khan Abdul Gaffar too played a pivotal role in this. The Khan had explained to the Sheikh that since 95 per cent population of the valley was that of Muslims he would get the power, whenever and howsoever, as a leader of the Kashmiris. This strategy paid him dividends. Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru started taking interest in him and his politics. He appointed hirn President of the All India States Peoples Conference. This gave him an opportunity to come to the national stage.

      This way Sheikh Abdullah, a regional leader, highly communal and a British Agent, succeeded in coming to the all India stage with the support and blessings of Pandit Nehru.

      In the clutches of communists

      A person who is influenced by the interest of assuming power, any type of anti-national activity can be expected from such a person. Communists too ensnared him. When in 1942 the Quit India movement was at its peak, all prominent congress leaders were in jails, and the people of India were struggling for ousting the Britishers by supporting Mahatma Gandhi, the communists by dubbing Gandhi as a stooge of imperialists engaged themselves in the condemnable act of stabbing him in the back. These communalists tried and succeeded in using the Sheikh in weakening the Quit India movement.

      The Quit Kashmir Movement launched by Sheikh Abdullah was a part of the conspiracy of the communists. Sheikh Abdullah wanted that before the Bntish quit India, the Maharaja should quit Kashmir. The Sheikh was active, since 1931, in giving practical shape to this objective. This was also the wish of the British Government which had projected the Sheikh as a Kashmiri leader. The Sheikh, the communists and the British Government together launched the "Quit Kashmir Movement" at a time when the people of entire India were busy in the freedom struggle and were raising slogans like "Britishers, quit India". Maharaja Hari Singh too was a supporter of India's independence. That is why the Britishers had formulated a long-term plan for finishing the Maharaja, and the Sheikh was implementing this plan. But unfortunately Pt. Nehru kept on siding with the Sheikh.

      Naya Kashmir, a political stunt

      The National Conference under the leadership of Sheikh Abdullah adopted Naya Kashmir campaign as a manifesto. Behind the political stunt of Naya Kashmir three forces were playing their cards. Mountbatten wanted to keep away nationalist elements of Jammu and Kashmir away from the Indian freedom movement, through this, the communists were trying to project it as independent socialist republic and the Sheikh wanted to use it as a cushion for assuming the throne of Kashmir. The manifesto of Naya Kashmir, contained a declaration for the establishment of a responsible Government besides the high ideals of reformation in social, educational and economic fields alongwith a provision for independent judiciary and parliamentary democracy. According to Sheikh Abdullah, all these things were possible when the Maharaja was ousted from power.

      Quit Kashmir movement against the Maharaja

      With full religious zeal the National Conference launched its Quit Kashmir movement on May 10, 1946. The entire Muslim society in Kashmir was made to follow the path of rebellion. This movement was directed against the Hindu Maharaja and the Dogras of Jammu. The Sheikh and his colleagues were arrested on May 20, 1946. This pained Pt. Nehru. He immediately wrote a letter to the Maharaja demanding immediate release of the Sheikh. Nehru did not limit himself to only making a demand, he decided to go to Kashmir for pleading the case of the Sheikh. He even rejected suggestions of senior congress leaders in this context. The Maharaja requested Pt. Nehru not to support the Sheikh because the Sheikh's movement had the blessings of the British Government and was against the interests of India.

      Blessings of Pt. Nehru

      It is a matter of ridicule that a national leader like Pt. Nehru could not stop his ego of being a Kashmiri and a friend of Sheikh Abdullah. Seeing that his appeal to Nehru had no impact, the Maharaja banned entry of Pt. Nehru into Kashmir. And when Nehru violated the ban and entered into Kashmir, he was arrested. This incident sowed the seeds of hatred in the mind of Nehru against the Maharaja. This unilateral decision of Nehru generated anger among the Congress leaders. The then President Acharya Kriplani, described this movement untimely, condemnable, ugly and opportunist.

      When in 1947 Kriplani visited Kashmir as the Congress President, he repeated this opinion. In reply to a question of a newsman he said that the Britishers were foreigners and had to quit India but Maharaja Hari Singh was the son of the soil and how could he be told to quit the Jammu and Kashmir state. Kriplani had thought Sheikh Abdullah could not merge Kashmir with India. As a result of being a sole legal authority, Maharaja Hari Singh alone could accede or not. Even a one time guide of the Sheikh, Mr. M.A. Jinnah, too had criticised the movement saying that it was a revolt by some dissidents to create disorder in the state. The Maharaja too tried to suppress it.

      The result was that Sheikh Abdullah was compelled to withdraw the movement. He had feared his arrest and thus displaying his old cowardice he planned to flee Kashmir. But this time the vigilant police arrested him near Uri on May 21, 1946. Under the instructions of the Maharaja he was jailed in Badami Bagh cantonment in Srinagar. This way the "Quit Kashmir" movement was completely crushed.

      But the result of this incident was that hatred and animosity between Nehru, who sided with the antinational Abdullah, and the Maharaja, who ordered arrest of the Sheikh, further deepened.

<<< Chapter 16
    
Converted Kashmir
    
Chapter 18 >>>


Inside The Pentagon
by Elaine M. Grossman
July 6, 2006
Page 1

[Reprinted by permission of Inside Washington Publishers. This article may not be reproduced or redistributed, in part or in whole, without express permission of the publisher. Copyright 2004, Inside Washington Publishers. For more information and exclusive news, go to: http://defense.iwpnewsstand.com. Every Tuesday and Thursday, visit the INSIDER, http://defense.iwpnewsstand.com/insider.asp, free from Inside Washington Publishers.]

Air Force preparedness at ?historic low?
HOUSE MEMO: ARMY UNIT READINESS FOR IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN IS LAGGING

A memorandum circulated last week on Capitol Hill by a House Armed Services subcommittee chairman is raising concerns that Army units training at home are so short on equipment and personnel that they are unready if needed urgently for Iraq, Afghanistan or potentially any other crisis that may emerge domestically or abroad.

The June 26 document, issued by readiness panel head Rep. Joel Hefley (R-CO), suggests the Army has already deployed units to Iraq and Afghanistan officially rated at the lowest levels of readiness.

But an Army spokesman said this week that although some units arrive in theater at less than top preparedness, they receive additional equipment and training before undertaking missions. In the Persian Gulf, for example, Army units typically fall in on equipment in Kuwait and undergo weeks of additional training there before moving into Iraq.

?There?s not one unit that goes across the berm [into Iraq or Afghanistan] that is not C-1 ready,? Lt. Col. Carl Ey, an Army spokesman, told Inside the Pentagon on July 5.

?C-ratings? are an official measure that describes units ready for their assigned missions as ?C-1? and those most ill-prepared as ?C-4.? The ratings reflect three major factors ? personnel, equipment and training
? and any of the three can alone drive a low assessment.

Hefley prepared the memo for readiness subcommittee members prior to a June 28 closed-door briefing by one- and two-star flag and general officers from each of the services.

The six-page missive, obtained by ITP, asserts that ?overall, units are deploying in a combat-ready status, but at the expense of units that are remaining behind.? Army and Marine Corps stocks of weapon systems and support equipment are being used abroad so heavily that little is available with which units back home can train for their own potential deployment.

Hefley goes on to recommend questions that members of the readiness subcommittee might ask the military briefers, and here the memo alludes to readiness problems that have already spread from home bases to units deployed to Operation Iraqi Freedom, or ?OIF,? and Operation Enduring Freedom, or ?OEF,? in Afghanistan.

According to the subcommittee chairman, there are multiple instances of Army forces deploying abroad with the worst possible C-ratings.

?In many cases, units deploying to OIF/OEF have lower C-ratings than previously would have been allowed,? the memo states in a section recommending questions for Maj. Gen. George Higgins, an Army assistant deputy chief of staff assigned to brief the subcommittee. ?Why do units with poor C-ratings deploy to combat? How do units that are C-3 or C-4 accomplish their mission in theater??

Because last week?s briefing was closed to the public, staff aides contacted for this article said they were unable to discuss responses military briefers offered to this and other questions posed by lawmakers. The memo does not provide details on how many units or which ones have deployed with the lowest readiness ratings.

But it does indicate readiness problems appear to be getting worse rather than better.

?Data suggests that overall readiness ratings of the Army are continuing to decline due to equipment shortages,? Hefley writes. Lawmakers should ask the service how it plans to repair or replace worn-out equipment, particularly in the National Guard, which bears ?the greatest burden of equipment shortages in the Army,? according to the document.

Nonetheless, those familiar with the issue say unit readiness lapses are affecting both the active and reserve components of the services.

The military briefers were on Capitol Hill last week as part of a series of meetings devoted to readiness concerns. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker and Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Michael Hagee testified June 27 before the House Armed Services Committee on plans to replace or repair ground equipment and rotorcraft. A day later, the two service chiefs returned to the committee to testify in closed session.

The Army is seeking $17.1 billion in fiscal year 2007 to ?reset? its force after years of wear in Afghanistan and Iraq. The effort includes $6.5 billion for repair; $8.5 billion for recapitalization; and $2.1 billion to replace equipment destroyed in combat, sister publication Inside the Army reported this week.

That continues an effort begun several years ago.

?Since 9/11, we have reset and returned over 1,900 aircraft, over 14,000 track vehicles, almost 111,000 wheeled vehicles, as well as thousands of other items to our operational units,? Schoomaker told the House committee last week. ?By the end of this year ? fiscal year 2006, which will end in three months ? we will have placed approximately 290,000 major items of equipment into reset. Approximately 280,000 major items will remain in theater and will not redeploy to be reset until the drawdown [of U.S. forces in Iraq] is implemented.?

Across the services, the Pentagon is seeking $8.6 billion in the coming fiscal year to buy new weapons and equipment for operations abroad, Inside the Army reported.

?To make sure that we continue to operate at the level we do in theater, we have to have enough funds to get equipment turned around . . . on time,? says one Army official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Units typically return home from Iraq and Afghanistan at C-3 or C-4 readiness, and there have been increasing ?challenges? in bringing them back up to full capability before they must deploy again, the official acknowledged. Those include serious shortages of equipment with which to train, as well as personnel shortfalls as officers and troops transfer to other units or attend school.

The Army had hoped to allow a unit to train at home for two years between each yearlong deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan. But sustaining large force levels in both nations typically has allowed only a single year of rest and repair between deployments, Lawrence Korb, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, noted in an interview last week.

?We know that the ground forces are overstretched,? and Army recruiting and retention problems have aggravated readiness challenges, he said.

?It hit home [units] first? and the challenge now is to avoid putting inadequately prepared forces in harm?s way, Korb said.

Peculiarities in the ways in which Army unit readiness is measured make the exercise more an art than a science, experts say.

?Clearly there are challenges during reset in terms of having all people present and all equipment on hand,? one senior Army official told ITP on condition of not being named. ?On the other hand, over half the units ? [and] even more of their leaders ? will have experience in [Iraq and Afghanistan] and thus are much better prepared for what they?ll be required to do. Because of that, I am nowhere near as concerned as I otherwise would be.?

Moreover, a unit may be unready to perform its primary mission as combat engineers, for example, but may be prepared to deploy abroad to undertake secondary tasks, such as driving trucks, according to service officials and experts on Capitol Hill. So an engineering unit could be rated C-3 or C-4 in its primary mission, but effectively be at a C-1 level for truck driving.

?I?m not sure the C-rating system necessarily captures the readiness of a unit,? the senior officer said. ?I think you really have to look more closely at the C-ratings and determine whether they actually should be cause for concern or not.?

Other factors also may mitigate the official ratings, including an Army ?unit manning system? that attempts to keep soldiers training and operating together over time to increase their effectiveness, as well as improved training and manuals that better prepare troops for counterinsurgency operations, service officials say.

?I don?t buy it,? responds Winslow Wheeler, a longtime Capitol Hill defense aide who has served members of both parties.

?Commanders don?t rate their units at this bottom level of readiness lightly. If they do, they?re admitting failure on their part, failure of the system and failure of their commanders,? says Wheeler, now director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information. ?The typical pattern is to inflate ratings of readiness.?

Korb agrees.

?It?s hard to say what pressure they?re under to put a better face on it,? he told ITP.

Lagging readiness in a unit?s primary mission may be cause for serious concern, particularly in the event that a new crisis demands the urgent deployment of units not already tied up in Iraq or Afghanistan, experts say.

With this week?s missile tests by North Korea and simmering tension surrounding Iran?s potential nuclear weapons capability, national security leaders and analysts are increasingly alarmed about potential obstacles to deploying U.S. troops outside of existing commitments.

?In order to sustain the current pace of military operations in Iraq without leaving the nation vulnerable to aggression in other places, the Department of Defense must continuously repair, rebuild and replace equipment worn out or destroyed by the war effort,? defense experts Korb, Loren Thompson and Caroline Wadhams wrote in an April report published by the Center for American Progress. Strains on equipment from intense use in the harsh Iraqi environment ?currently undermine the Army?s ability to confront new challenges overseas or cope with disasters at home and threaten to impede operations in Iraq over the long term,? the trio wrote.

As a candidate for the presidency against Al Gore in 2000, George W. Bush criticized the Clinton-Gore administration for allowing lapses in Army readiness.

?If called upon by the commander in chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to report, ?Not ready for duty, sir,?? Bush said at the Republican National Convention in August of that year (ITP, Oct. 5, 2000, p1).

Pentagon officials explained at the time that the two divisions, which were deployed to the Balkans, were fully ready for the missions they were undertaking. But if crisis arose, they would require more time to disengage from the region, retrain and redeploy than plans for major theater wars assumed, officials told reporters.

Similar challenges emerged after Bush became president.

Beginning in late 2003, four Army divisions were deemed unready for combat in the event of a major conflict in Korea or elsewhere, a Pentagon official told reporters at the time. After returning from Iraq, the C-3 and C-4 rated units would require 120 to 180 days of rest and retraining before cycling back into ready status.

With Army forces typically facing greater risks combating insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan than they did in peacekeeping operations in the Balkans, defense officials and outside experts worry readiness strains could be much more dangerous today.

?The penalty you?re going to pay is casualties,? says Wheeler.

Although ground troops bear the greatest brunt of combat duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, the House memo also notes strains the current operations are having on the Air Force.

?Despite claims that Air Force readiness levels are stable, it must be noted that readiness is at an historic low and the factors associated with current shortfalls will likely fuel a continued decline,? according to the memo.

The service operates many of the Pentagon?s so-called ?high-demand/low- density? forces ? such as command and control aircraft, combat search and rescue planes, air refuelers, and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft ? which are used heavily and are in short supply.

? Elaine M. Grossman

Grossman Archive

"HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH?"
HOST:

Rear Admiral Eugene Carroll (USN, Ret.)

Deputy Director, Center for Defense Information

INTERVIEWER & NARRATOR:

Sanford Gottlieb, Senior Producer

MARKETING & OPERATIONS:

Mark Sugg

PRODUCERS:

Matthew Hansen

Nick Moore

Daniel Sagalyn

PRINCIPAL ANALYST & SCRIPTWRITER:

Marcus Corbin

PROGRAM PRODUCER:

Daniel Sagalyn

ASSOCIATE PRODUCER/MARKETING:

Lori McRea

ORIGINATION:

Washington, D.C.

PROGRAM NO.:

527

INITIAL BROADCAST:

22 March 1992

CONDITION OF USE: Credit "AMERICA'S DEFENSE MONITOR"

Center for Defense Information

(C) Copyright 1992, Center for Defense Information. All Rights Reserved.

Videotapes also available.

"HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH?"
Features commentary from:

DICK CHENEY

U.S. Secretary of Defense

Admiral STANLEY FINE (USN, Ret.)

Former Navy Budget Director

PETER McCLOSKEY

President, Electronics Industries Association

General COLIN POWELL

Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff

HOBART ROWEN

The Washington Post

JOHN STEINBRUNER

The Brookings Institution

"HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH?"

NARRATOR: What are these people doing? Still building fighter planes, tanks, missiles and bullets. But, after the disappearance of the Soviet Union, instead of making bullets, they could be making bullet trains.

["AMERICA'S DEFENSE MONITOR" program introduction.]

Admiral EUGENE CARROLL: As Americans we share a common understanding that we need a sound national defense program. We also understand that it may be possible to spend too much money on forces and weapons and weaken our economy which, in turn, hurts our security.

Today, we're going to listen to some experts describe how much is enough. What are the factors we should consider in how much goes into our military forces and how much we're going to need to strengthen our economy. They're very interesting, well informed people. You might listen carefully and see who seems to make the most sense for you.

NARRATOR: Despite the end of the cold war, the Pentagon has not changed its plans for war. It still wants to keep hundreds of thousands of troops stationed around the world and to act as global policemen.

The Secretary of Defense even puts the fate of the world on US shoulders.

Defense Secretary DICK CHENEY (Senate Armed Services Committee hearing): "It's important for us to remember that future peace and stability in the world will continue to depend, in large measure, upon our willingness to deploy forces overseas in Europe, Southwest Asia and the Pacific, and to retain high quality forces here at home."

NARRATOR: Admiral Stanley Fine capped a career aboard ship and in military planning as Budget Director for the Navy.

Admiral STANLEY FINE (USN, Ret.): I think the Pentagon is spending so much money on a force or forces looking for a mission, and I'm being somewhat harsh when I say that. Ultimately, the forces that we have and that we're projecting for the future are not much different from the forces that we had during the cold war. Nor is our thinking much different from what it was during the cold war. We're still talking about keeping Marines aboard ship in farflung parts of the Earth to fight against uncertain countries, to fight uncertain wars, to fight uncertain battles.

NARRATOR: If you care to wade through the 1700 pages in this document, President Bush's budget request to Congress for next year, you'll find that the administration wants to increase military spending from $281 billion in 1993 to $291 billion in 1997. Although it may not keep pace with inflation, military spending in this plan will remain at high cold war levels and swallow up any peace dividend.

In this election year, our attention has turned from the cost of war to the cost of peace. Politicians have focused on the jobs that will be lost in the short run if less is spent on the military. The economic costs and tax burdens of continued cold war spending are getting less attention.

But this is to turn the situation on its head. The end of the cold war actually provides a rare opportunity to free millions of people and billions of dollars from unproductive military work.

Hobart Rowen perceptively covers economic issues at The Washington Post. Before that, he wrote for Newsweek. Today his widely read columns are syndicated nationally and internationally.

INTERVIEWER: In the long run, can cuts in military spending spur economic growth?

HOBART ROWEN: Yes, they can, because cuts in military spending will enable us to divert resources to those productive things, like investment, that will get the economy moving ahead at a faster pace. Now there's going to be a transition. You can't overnight slash any kind of spending and not expect that there won't be a negative reaction. But over the long run, certainly, cuts in military spending can lead us into a better and healthier economy.

NARRATOR: So how much military spending is enough?

The Congress has not settled on an answer, but many members feel the administration plan would spend more than enough. Senator Jim Sasser, chairman of the Budget Committee, has proposed spending $120- to $140 billion less than President Bush over five years. Senator John McCain, an influential Republican on the Armed Services Committee, has proposed spending about $250 billion in 1997, $40 billion less than the administration in that year.

Large savings could come as early as next year.

Admiral FINE: I would dare say that if we really wanted to and were willing to do the restructuring that other nations are going through, if we really were serious about it and not looking to the defense budget as much as an industrial policy to keep people employed, but really zeroed-in on what the need was and came to grips with what our national objectives should be, we probably could take another $20-30 billion out of the defense budget without really weakening our real military needs.

NARRATOR: If you're not a military expert, you can use a simple but sensible method to figure out how much is enough.

Mr. ROWEN: I'm just applying sort of a common sense rule. If we needed $300 billion a year when the Soviet Union was our major threat and 40, 50, or 60 percent of that was directed toward the Soviet Union and if the Soviet Union isn't a threat now, then I should think we'd be able to reduce the total by something like that percentage. So, I don't see why we couldn't point toward getting down to a number that's approximately half that in a reasonably short number of years.

NARRATOR: Another revealing rule of thumb for military spending is to look at what other rich industrial countries that have no powerful enemies spend. Germany, the United Kingdom, France and Japan all spend $30- to $40 billion on their militaries, at most one-seventh of what the United States is now spending.

Researchers at the Brookings Institution have suggested to Congress building a really new world order that would make the world safe enough to allow even less spending.

JOHN STEINBRUNER, The Brookings Institution (Senate Budget Committee hearing):

"We suggest the possibility of saving $250 billion over a five-year period. This is in the 050 National Defense Account. $725 billion over a ten-year period, and 93 billion a year thereafter. Those obviously are very impressive savings indeed, but the more important point is that we would be better off."

NARRATOR: A study by retired senior military officers at the Center for Defense Information has found that the United States could spend about $200 billion in 1995 and still perform all the Pentagon's military missions. That sum would put armed forces in the field capable of defeating any plausible enemies without help from allies.

Roughly $90 billion of the $200 billion would be spent on a force to defend the United States, including nuclear weapons. Another $60 billion would maintain the capability to assist allies. And $50 billion would permit intervention around the world.

This alternative military would still include one million active duty soldiers and another million in the reserves. It would maintain more than two times as many soldiers in the active component alone than took part in the war with Iraq.

Secretary Cheney fears that such spending would leave us unprepared for a new cold war.

Secretary CHENEY (Senate Armed Services Committee hearing):"Eventually the threats will not be remote, they will not be vague, and we will not have the alliances and the capabilities needed to deal with them. We will wish then that we had made the much smaller investment that we ask for today to preserve the depth in our strategic position that we have so dearly won."

NARRATOR: But in 1948, the last time we faced no powerful enemies, we spent the equivalent of only $80 billion today. Still we were able to build up very quickly to fight the Korean War and the cold war.

We could spend even less than $200 billion later if we let our rich and powerful allies take full responsibility for defending themselves and give the United Nations the lead in preventing and resolving conflicts.

When there is a military threat to the United States, the high economic costs of large military forces must be borne. But is there a threat out there?

Even the Pentagon can find few threats around the world.

Secretary CHENEY (Senate Armed Services Committee hearing):"Today, we have no global challenger, except with respect to strategic nuclear forces. No country is our match in conventional military technology or the ability to apply it. There are no significant alliances hostile to our interests. To the contrary, the strongest and most capable countries in the world are our friends. No region of the world critical to our interest in under hostile, non-democratic domination."

NARRATOR: This has led the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell, to go to the extraordinary lengths of arguing that the US military no longer needs threats to justify the forces it wants.

General COLIN POWELL (Senate Armed Services Committee hearing): "The real threat, the real threat is the unknown, the uncertain. In a very real sense, the primary threat to our security is instability and being unprepared to handle a crisis or a war that no one expected or predicted. And to hedge against this uncertainty, we must structure our forces based on the capabilities of other military forces in regions where we retain vital interests, whether or not there is a specific, well-defined military threat."

NARRATOR: But to request spending billions of dollars to deal with threats that cannot be identified is to ask for a blank check.

Admiral FINE: Now we really have to change our world outlook. If we can change our world outlook and recognize that the immediate threat, conventional threat to the United States and the Western Hemisphere and its allies is practically negligible, and that we don't want to take on the role of being the world's policeman for every little spat that goes on anywhere in the world, then clearly a number related to what our real national defense needs are, taking into account what our allies and we can contribute together to international security, would be at a significantly lower number than it is now.

NARRATOR: As president of the Electronics Industries Association, Peter McCloskey has been promoting electronic technology and vigorously representing the $270 billion electronics industry for the past 15 years. He sees trouble spots around the world requiring continued US military involvement.

PETER McCLOSKEY: We still have quite a bit of unrest as it relates to other areas of the world. And so, I don't see any end to the regional type of conflicts, the civil wars that will go on. We have the instability that exists in the former Soviet Union and the various members of that common market.

NARRATOR: Even if the countries with the world's largest militaries were hostile to the United States, and most of them are not, they don't come close to the military strength the Soviet Union once had.

The Soviet Union once had a four million-man military; Syria, for example, has only a 400,000-man military. The Soviet Union had 61,000 tanks; North Korea has 3000. The Soviets once had 51,000 artillery pieces; Libya has 1700. The Soviets had 4300 combat aircraft; Iran has 213.

These countries don't even match Iraq's former military strength and the United States needed only 17 percent of its military personnel and about a third of its combat units to quickly defeat Iraq.

If military action is required around the world, the United States no longer has to try to do it all by itself. The forces of our close friends, including European allies, Canada, Japan, Australia and South Korea, include over four million active personnel, over 12 million additional reserve personnel, 25,000 tanks, 7000 combat aircraft and 500 major surface warships.
What are some of the missions that we can safely spend less on than we did during the cold war?

Defending Europe. Price tag: well over $100 billion a year.

Defending Japan and Korea. Price tag: another $40 billion.

Fighting nuclear war. Cost: over $50 billion yearly.

The Pentagon is now using missions other than fighting the Soviet Union, such as war for oil, to justify some of its spending. Defending the Persian Gulf costs another $60 billion, four times the cost of the oil imported from the Persian Gulf each year. Yet positive alternatives to war for Persian Gulf oil, such as stockpiling, conservation and development of other promising energy sources, have not yet been vigorously pursued. Furthermore, the United States imports only about 5 percent of its total energy from the Persian Gulf. Even the transportation system, which is relatively oil-dependent, gets only about 11 percent of its energy from the Persian Gulf.

What cold war weapons that are no longer needed are still being built?

The B-2 Bomber. The Pentagon wants five more at a cost of $4 billion for 1993.

Admiral FINE: And to buy five more is more a drill in rounding out a force rather than doing a cost-effective analysis of what those extra five would do for the force. To spend the billions needed for an extra five just to make it a nice round number doesn't make economic sense or sense in any other way.

NARRATOR: New nuclear missiles for submarines. Price tag in 1993: $1.1 billion.

The F-22 fighter. Cost: $2.2 billion in 1993 alone.

New destroyers. The bill for one year: $3.5 billion.

Transport aircraft. 1993 charge: $2.9 billion.

New and old versions of the F/A-18 Navy fighter bomber. $3 billion.

Star Wars. For 1993, nearly a one-third increase in funding, from $4.2 billion to $5.4 billion.

Some see Star Wars expenditures justified by the possibility of nuclear weapons spreading to additional countries.

Mr. McCLOSKEY: We have major problems with the spread of nuclear technology, and where that technology can go, and how it can be delivered, and the subject of blackmail. That's why the Strategic Defense Initiative has gotten such strong support in the Congress right now. We want to try to prevent the opportunities for terrorist blackmail.

NARRATOR: Star Wars remains unproven technology, however, and the director of the CIA sees no new capability to attack the United States for at least ten years.

Peter McCloskey also argues that it's too soon to slow the development and purchase of new equipment.

Mr. McCLOSKEY: Well, certainly if I was in a foxhole, I'd want to make sure that there were certain things, like target identification, that my close air support wasn't getting me, but it was getting the people on the other side of the line, if you will. So, there are a lot of technology things that need to be done, particularly in the electronics area and particularly in the area of counter-measures. We're in an era now of great technology advance. Electronics can be used very aggressively to ensure that we have the capability.

NARRATOR: Yet most of the weapons now under development were designed to defeat future Soviet weapons that are very unlikely to be built.

Military reasons for keeping spending at cold war levels have vanished. What are some of the other reasons?

Admiral FINE: Part of it, I would guess, is inertia. It's what's been done over the last 40 or 45 years, let's keep doing what we've been doing.

Part of it is what I call the drive for institutional survival. The other day there was an article in the paper about the commandant of the Marine Corps, saying that if the Marines are cut back to 145,000, they'll not be able to perform the missions that have been outlined for them. Well, most of the missions that he discussed are basically cold war missions or, worse yet, missions for intervention in the Third World.

Mr. ROWEN: Everybody I think recognizes that the threat from the Soviet empire is gone. I think everybody understands that military spending is being maintained at a high level because congressmen don't want to cut that particular base in their own district and they're afraid of the employment consequences in those districts.

NARRATOR: If there were military threats, we would spend whatever was necessary to defend ourselves. But in the absence of powerful enemies, the costs of high military spending cannot be justified.

It's hard to grasp just how costly the administration's $281 billion request for 1993 military spending really is. This might help. If you printed 100 one dollar bills every second, it would take until the year 2081 to print the $281 billion.

The military is now spending about $6 billion every week, or $9400 every second.

How much do you spend on the military? $3000 every year for the average American household. Over five years, that's the down payment on a $150,000 house.

Some point out that military spending is taking a smaller share of the economy than in the past.

Mr. McCLOSKEY: We have gone from, as I mentioned, 4 1/2 percent of GNP today and we're going to go down to 3.4. That would be the lowest level of defense support since prior to the Second World War. We always go through these cyclical kinds of activity. What's important is to make sure that we don't emasculate our capability.

NARRATOR: Although military spending represents a modest part of the overall economy, it takes a huge chunk of government funds. It amounts to more than the entire combined total of spending by the Departments of Agriculture, Labor, Transportation, Education, Housing and Urban Development, Energy, Treasury, Justice, Interior, State and Commerce, plus the federal courts.

But that's not the whole story. The government's definition of military spending under-counts the actual size of military spending. The figure is more like $420 billion every year than 281 billion when you include military-related costs, such as:

Over $80 billion for interest on the national debt that can be attributed to military spending.

Over $30 billion for veterans.

And $2.5 billion for the military share of NASA and the Coast Guard.

$420 billion every year works out to $4400 for the average family.

High military spending has inflicted a cost on the economy, as well to our individual pocketbooks. A large portion of our federal spending deficits and the $3 trillion net national debt is due to military spending. Now we're dealing in trillions. To print $3 trillion at a 100 one dollar bills a second would take 950 years. The debt amounts to $32,000 per family.

Massive government borrowing to pay for the debt has starved US businesses of funds needed for investment. Almost a fifth of this money is borrowed from foreigners, particularly Europeans and Japanese. Ironically, this money helps pay for the US troops in those countries defending them against unidentifiable enemies.

Interest costs on the national debt are now $200 billion a year and are the fastest growing item of federal spending.

During the cold war, the military spent the equivalent of over $12 trillion. Four decades of this spending has diverted much needed research talent and resources away from civilian industries. For every dollar of federal government research, the military gets 60 cents. Energy gets four cents. Transportation gets two. Health, 14. The environment, two.

Mr. ROWEN: And while we were pursuing our military aims, as logical and as necessary as they were, it gave Japan and Germany and other countries who were with us in the need to ward off any external threat, it gave them the opportunity to pursue civilian things. So, naturally, our concentration on the military put us at a great disadvantage as against those countries who were able to benefit from our security umbrella and went ahead with their own civilian programs. So, that's been a big factor in limiting our ability to penetrate the civilian export markets of the world.

NARRATOR: Another example of the hidden costs of maintaining a big cold war military is environmental destruction. It's estimated that it will cost a shocking $300- to $400 billion over at least 30 years to clean up the mess at military bases and nuclear bomb factories.

But how quickly can we go from spending at cold war levels to only spending what we need militarily?

Mr. McCLOSKEY: We're talking about very serious cuts in the defense budget. We're talking about a million jobs in the defense industry itself during the period involved. We're talking about a half-a-million uniformed soldiers. We're talking about a quarter-of-a-million Civil Service people. Some of that will be by attrition, but others, a large amount of it, will not.

NARRATOR: In the past, the nation has made faster and deeper transitions from a wartime economy to a peacetime economy.

For example, after World War II, the number of soldiers plummeted from 12.1 million to 1.6 million in two years, from 1945 to 1947. An astonishing 22.5 million people left employment in the war effort. Military spending dropped from 35 percent of the gross national product to 6 percent.

After the Korean War, military spending dropped by the equivalent of $115 billion in three years. After the Vietnam War, it dropped by the equivalent of $131 billion in six years.

Mr. ROWEN: And I think we have to do a courageous thing. I think we have to say we don't need these military expenditures at these levels, we must cut them, it's good for the economy. And we've had the experience after World War II in how to begin to approach a reconversion problem.

Now I will quickly concede that the problems now and the problems at the end of World War II are different.

NARRATOR: After World War II, the economy was growing rather than in a recession. But today, the money no longer spent on the military will be free to deal with a broad array of domestic problems, including unemployment.

Mr. ROWEN: It takes a lot of effort. It takes a lot of money. It takes a lot of patience and it takes time, but it can be done. What we have to do is to make a national commitment. If our military needs are no longer that high, we shouldn't continue to spend the money for that purpose, we've got to divert it to some other purpose.

Admiral CARROLL: You have heard from some very impressive people talking about our national defense requirements. We had officials of the Department of Defense saying that we need to spend more, that we face uncertainty and instability and we must be prepared for wars we cannot foresee.

On the other hand, you've heard from critics who say, no, we're spending too much, that we don't need B-2 bombers, we don't need Star Wars, and that we have national needs that we must address with the money we could save on military spending.

Who's right? How much is enough?

Thanks heavens, we live in a democracy and the answer to that question rests with you, the citizens of the United States. We would like to hear from you here at the Center for Defense Information, hear your answer to how much is enough to defend the United States of America.

[End of broadcast.]

CONDITION OF USE Credit "AMERICA'S DEFENSE MONITOR"

Center for Defense Information

(C) Copyright 1992, Center for Defense Information. All Rights Reserved.

Brahmins are responsible for the partition and creation of Pakistan

Jun 1 2009  | Views 1045 |  Comments  (81)  | Report Abuse
Tags: brahmin muslim hindu india pakistan china partition 1947 varnashram manu smriti manuvadi

Buzz up!  ShareThis

Brahmins are responsible for the partition and creation of Pakistan:

Undivided India today - Hard facts? 

Total population = 1.55 billion.
Muslims = 600 million
Shudras (low caste Hindus) = 600 million
Christians, Sikhs and Others = 150 million
High caste Hindus = 200 million 

Can you see?. Who will be the kingmaker?.

Divide and rule:

Brahmins practiced Manu Smriti and Varnashram Dharma. They divided society in to four castes - Brahmana, Kshatriya, Vaisya as high castes and Shudra as low castes who are supposed to serve the 3 high castes. This forced Shudras to renounce Hinduism and embrace Islam. This inturn lead to Hindu-Muslim hatred which eventually culminated into the creation of Pakistan.

Why India could NOT progress?:

Today, India is NOT able to provide better quality of life for 70% of it's population, who do NOT have access to toilets and clean water, despite it's spectacular success in science and technology. Instead, Manuvadis who inherited power from the British in 1947 have started blaming everyone around them for their own failures. Not only Pakistan, which remains a threat since 1947, but all our neighbours are perceived as a threat for India. China is 30 years ahead of India and has become the default regional superpower. We have stopped talking about our vision 2020 and superpower crap. 

So, Brahmins are responsible for the creation of Pakistan. Otherwise, we would have remained as one nation and would have surpassed China and brought prosperity and better quality of life for all.

© Alamsha Karnan., all rights reserved.

The Brahmin Warrior

Rehan Ansari December 8, 2001

Tags: Imagination , Loss , Marriage , Violence , Women

Rehan is a featured Chowk writer. Visit him at I Love Nawaz Sharif.

When Kamal Haasan visited Nehru Memorial Library for a talk before historians and other Delhi types, shortly after the release of his partition epic, he was expecting compliments. Instead, he came in for haranguing. One attack

was for showing the Muslim community as helpless in the scenes of violence in Delhi until the manly Hindu with the fancy gun decides to save them.

At the Center for the Study of Developing Societies in Delhi, earlier this year, I heard a paper on the film delivered by Ravi Vasudevan, a film theorist, and was astounded by his unenthusiastic tone. He found Hey Ram disturbing, but not in a good way.

When Saket Ram goes down the fundamentalist path, a journey he begins after Partition violates his world, it is an erotic journey. He dreams/fantasises about being a gleamingly muscled warrior in ceremonial garb wielding a big golden sword and swinging away at the whirlwind. Ravi Vasudevan seemed troubled by the attractive images of Saket Ram' s imagination - golden sword, gleaming muscles - and told me afterwards that it was not clear to him where the filmmaker stood in relation to his images. The fundamentalist imagination should be clearly condemned by Kamal Haasan, Ravi seemed to be saying.

Fundamentalism attracts so, it must be sexy and showing a character seduced, the seduction shown from the character' s perspective, I find to be a fantastic subject for a film. Looking to fight the inner storm that partition engendered, one can imagine inventing a persona that wears a brahmin thread and wields a big sword and sets out to fight the storm.

In 1991, a year before Ayodhya and the Bombay riots, I managed a cup of tea in Lahore with Malkani, then a BJP vice-president, now in the Rajya Sabha, who was attending a seminar organised by The Frontier Post. I remember him avuncular and enthusiastic for meeting young people, taking a break as it were from verbal duelling with the hawks of Islamabad, but I also remember another moment. I asked about and he recalled Hyderabad, Sind, the city of his birth, and boyhood and I' ll always remember how the room went cold. I knew I was in the presence of a great anger.

Kamal Haasan does a brilliant job of letting the viewer remain within Saket Ram' s subjectivity. Partition violence, political events, political personalities are represented from Saket Ram's disturbed perceptions.

Naseeruddin Shah is a great actor but its wonderful that the direction given to Naseer presents Gandhi as an someone's idea and perception. The director is not interested in creating the fiction that the Gandhi we see in the film is Gandhi-as-he-really-was, the Gandhi of Attenborough. An example of the staging of Gandhi: there is the scene in which Saket Ram revisits the streets of his violent, vengeful acts. He then wanders the street, and becomes one of a gathering crowd that watches a tableau in a window - Gandhi is with Suhrawardy

addressing the audience and exonerating Suhrawardy for the Calcutta riots.

In the eye of the would-be assassin of Gandhi, Saket Ram, this then is Gandhi partial to the Muslim and hence the great betrayer of the Hindu.

More fabulous work by Kamal Haasan is Saket Ram' s relationship with the two women in his life. In pre-partition Calcutta, Saket Ram is in a relationship with an equal, the Mukherjee character. She is a teacher, has a life independent of him, his parents don' t know about her and so on. They are two

moderns living in a modern city, in this fabulous empire apartment.

Comes the violence: an attempted rape of Saket Ram, her murder, the loss of his world.

Post-partition he is lost, going through the motions of his life. His second relationship is a marriage chosen by his parents. She is beholden to him as a young bride. From being a modern he is now in traditional mode. It is in this part of his life that he is attracted to a fundamentalism, and in a feverish dream fantasy his virgin wife becomes a gun (an animation sequence). She is a wife to him like an appendage, and now that he desired a gun, she became a different appendage: in his dream her body morphs into a gun.

To become an assassin he becomes a brahmachari, forsaking the wife, family, livelihood to live a life of austerity, celibacy, and - violence. It is the realisation of his fantasy of becoming a brahmin warrior.

A brahmin who is a warrior, a brahmachari who focuses on violence, the journey that Saket Ram takes is a provocative reading of Gandhi' s autobiography, The Story of My Experiments with Truth. Gandhi and Saket Ram' s paths of self-discipline sometimes seem eerily similar, but one led to non-violence and

the other to its opposite.

Where else in cinema or in fiction have we recently found as complex and rewarding-to-analysis exploration of the fundamentalist imagination? Not in Hanif Kureishi' s unsympathetic writings of Bradford types, certainly not in Deepa Mehta' s Earth or Pankaj Butalia' s forgettable film.

Previously published in Midday, India.

http://alamsha.sulekha.com/blog/post/2009/06/brahmins-are-responsible-for-the-partition-and-creation.htm

Nehru, Jinah and partition

Submitted by admin4 on 14 August 2009 - 5:00pm.

• Articles
• Indian Muslim
• Muslim World News

By Asghar Ali Engineer,

Mr. Jaswant Singh, a senior BJP leader from Rajasthan has written a book on Jinnah which is expected to be published shortly. He has, according to a news item on NDTV, called Jinnah a secular person and thrown responsibility for partition on Nehru. Earlier Mr. L. K. Advani had also described Jinnah as secular while visiting Jinnah's mausoleum in Karachi and paid heavy price for it as RSS asked him to resign as president of BJP. And now Jaswant Singh, a fairly independent minded leader has called Jinnah a secular person.

No doubt Jinnah is a highly controversial figure. He is greatly admired and is father of the nation in Pakistan. He is often referred to as Baba-e-Qaum by Pakistanis. But he is hated by many in India and is considered mainly responsible for creation of Pakistan and hence a villain of the peace. Such extremes can never adequately define a person, let alone being understood adequately.

The motives for describing Jinnah as secular by two top BJP leaders may be different but there is an element of truth in what they say. Shri Advani was speaking as a politician during his visit and may be he tried to please his hosts in Pakistan. Mr. Jaswant Singh is under no such obligation and is speaking as a scholar as he is known to be of fairly independent mind and may not be much concerned about what RSS and BJP leaders might think.

It is not only in India that Jinnah is subject to different interpretations, some hating him as breaker of India and some absolving him of total responsibility for partition. Jinnah is subject to different interpretations in Pakistan itself, some moderate and liberal Muslims describing him as secular and often quoting his speech in the Constituent Assembly as a proof of his secularism. The conservatives and orthodox Muslims, on the other hand, projecting him as believer in two nation theory and true Muslim who created Pakistan for Islam and Muslims.

We have the same problem with Mahatma Gandhi in our own country. Some Dalit and RSS leaders hate him again for different reasons. Dalits hate him as an upper caste Hindu leader who upheld the concept of caste, if not of untouchability. And RSS leaders hate him, though publicly they may not take such position for obvious reasons. They hate him as they consider Gandhi as betrayer of Hindu cause and supporter of Muslims. They even indulge in propaganda that Gandhiji is responsible for partition of the country.

Many people hold Nehru as responsible for partition and among those who hold Nehru as responsible there are all types of people – secular as well as communal. The question arises who is really responsible? We Indians and Pakistanis while holding our own leaders as responsible we have completely exonerated the British rulers of their responsibility for partition.

Though secular elements at times do refer to the role of the British, communal forces in both the countries have completely absolved British. In RSS propaganda main culprits are Muslims led by Jinnah whereas in Pakistani propaganda it is Hindus led by Gandhi who are mainly responsible for partition. If one studies the complex developments carefully in mid-fifties it is difficult to fix total responsibility on any one person or one party. Different actors played different role adding up to partition of the country.

First let us see the role of Jinnah since he is at the centre-stage of partition. Before this we also have to look at him whether he was secular or communal. It must be noted that we cannot go by western definition of secular and communal. We have accepted these terms in our own sense and in our own context. Gandhiji was secular despite being highly religious in his attitude. Nehru, of course, was secular more in western than in Indian sense.

Similarly Jinnah was also secular more in western sense. Both Nehru and Jinnah never were religious as Gandhi and Maulana Azad were. Nehru was closer to Jinnah than to Gandhiji and Maulana Azad was closer to Gandhiji than to Jinnah. Maulana Azad also was deeply a religious person like Gandhiji though he was more liberal in religious matters than Gandhiji.

Jinnah was thoroughly westernized person right from his younger days. He never had any religious training. He did not observe any Islamic taboos like liquor and pork. He never observed religious rituals. He even disagreed with Gandhiji about involving Ulama in politics and he opposed Gandhiji taking up Khilafat question. He believed in separation of politics from religion. He was described as Muslim Gokhale by friends. Gokhale was liberal and so was Jinnah.

Jinnah was certainly secular in this sense. He until 1935 described himself as Indian first and then Muslim. And, until 1937 he had never thought of partition even in his dreams. He even entered into an informal understanding with the congress in 1937 elections in U.P. His differences with Indian National Congress had begun from 1928 onwards when his demands were rejected by the Nehru committee set up by the Congress to solve communal problem. He had even ridiculed the concept of Pakistan initially propounded by Rahmat Ali, a Cambridge University student.

The two nation theory was deeply flawed and Jinnah had formulated it as a sort of political revenge on the Congress leaders like Nehru who refused to take two Muslim League nominees in the U.P. cabinet after Muslim league lost 1937 elections and Nehru was responsible for this. Maulana Azad tried to persuade Nehru to take the two nominees but unfortunately Nehru did not budge. Some scholars suggest that Rafi Ahmed Kidwai, an influential Congress leader from U.P. prompted Nehru. Whatever the reason politically it was unwise not to take two Muslim league nominees. Maulana Azad has pointed this out and has criticized Nehru on this count in his political biography India Wins Freedom.

For Jinnah it was outright betrayal and he decisively turned against Congress and gradually it led Jinnah to propounding two nation theory. Thus two nation theory was a politically contingent proposition rather than any religiously grounded proposition. Had Nehru shown little political sagacity this theory would not have come into existence at all. And in no sense of the word Jinnah ever wanted to establish an Islamic state in Pakistan. Jinnah would not have even approved of Pakistan having Islam as an official religion. That was not his bent of mind. If one goes by Jinnah's speech in the Pakistan Constituent Assembly it is doubtful if he wanted even a Muslim state, let alone an Islamic state. He was all for a secular state in Pakistan.

Then if we call Jinnah communal in what sense can he be described as one? Or can he be? In those days when we were fighting for freedom of our country communalism was not opposite of secularism, but of nationalism. Anyone who was anti-national was described as communal. Thus if at all Jinnah could be described communal it is in this sense. And as pointed out above, Jinnah opted for partition not as a part of his conviction but as a result of political contingency.

Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru was responsible in a way as he was not very happy with the Cabinet Mission Plan as it would have resulted in weak centre as except defence, foreign policy and communication all residuary powers would have rested with the federating states. Both Nehru and Sardar Patel were not happy with this scheme. And as Azad has pointed out in his book Nehru, on being elected as president of the congress in 1946, gave a statement that Cabinet Mission Plan could be, if necessary, changed. This infuriated Jinnah as Muslim League had also accepted the Plan and a composite Government was formed after 1946 fall elections.

This finally drove Jinnah to accept nothing less than partition. The greatest culprit was British rulers as they also wanted India divided so that they could easily establish intelligence and military base in Pakistan to stem the tide of revolution which by then had become a certainty in China. Nehru Government would have never allowed such bases in United India. Lord Mount Batten got Nehru, through his wife Advina to endorse the partition plan.

Thus it would be seen that apart from Jinnah the British and Nehru were also responsible for partition of the country. In my opinion the greatest responsibility of partition lay on the British shoulder. They cleverly maneuvered the complex situation in a way to make partition a reality. Partition, as Maulana Azad also pointed out, was neither in the interest of India nor in the interest of Muslims themselves.

The ultimate result of partition is that Muslims of Indian sub-continent stand divided into three units and Kashmir problem is also result of this tragedy. And both the countries are spending billions of rupees on their armies and now such powerful interests have developed in keeping conflict between the two countries alive that all efforts for talks fail. Now the only solution is in confederation of nations of South Asia, with no visa and common currency.

If European countries could form a viable union despite the fact that they were at each others throats until late forties why can't we in South Asia?

Comment viewing options

Flat list - collapsedFlat list - expandedThreaded list - collapsedThreaded list - expanded

Date - newest firstDate - oldest first

10 comments per page30 comments per page50 comments per page70 comments per page90 comments per page150 comments per page200 comments per page250 comments per page300 comments per page

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Look at this Indian govt representative nuts !!!!!

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on 22 August 2009 - 5:36pm.

'Learn Hindi to understand Hinduism better'
Port-of-Spain, Aug 21: Learning Hindi helps to understand and practise Hinduism better, says an Indian diplomat. Indian High Commissioner Malay Mishra said here, "The study or the full appreciation of Hindi helps one to understand, practise and enhance Hinduism as one of the world's most major and relevant religions today."

The Indian High Commission has a network throughout Trinidad and Tobago to offer opportunities for everyone to learn, understand and practise Hindi. He was speaking on Tuesday at the 26th anniversary celebrations of the Edinburgh Hindu Temple, Chaguanas where Leela Jugmohan, Indra Juman, Suresh Jaisir and Mohan Persad were recipients of the temple's anniversary awards. Some 24 per cent out of a population of 1.3 million people are practising Hindus, and there are over 200 temples spread across the country. Mishra said, "Its (Hinduism) teaching is universal and cuts across ethnic, cultural, social or geographical limitations. Hinduism in inclusive and welcoming."

He said that Hinduism has three facets: mythology, philosophy and ritual, all of which combined make it eternal and outstanding. "One must delve in Hinduism for self-discovery and the full meaning and interpretation of life," he said. Pundit Ramesh Tiwari, a spiritual leader, said the Edinburgh Hindu Temple has always provided spiritual and social services to its devotees. "We have been able to do this with a dynamic team of Hindus. We understand that whatever education you might have acquired, if one does not have human kindness then all schooling and accomplishments amount to nothing. Service to humanity is one of the important virtues of a human being," Tiwari told. Hinduism was brought here by immigrants who came between 1845 and 1917 to work on the sugar plantations. Most of the immigrants came from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. (Agencies)

• reply

Brahmins have turn India into its 21st century 'slave soldiers

Submitted by Sallahuddin (not verified) on 25 August 2009 - 6:59pm.

Brahmins have turn India into US 21st century slave soldiers. These brahmins 2 % never fights but they are using the foot soldiers ( the OBC, BC, and the dalits ) into its 21st century 'slave soldiers. Slaves are enjoying the slavery. Muslims will never let it happen, and sooner or latter - many more changes will come to India.

• reply

Brahmins 21st century--Sallahuddin, get a life (and facts)

Submitted by gopi thomas (not verified) on 25 August 2009 - 10:53pm.

There are always comments amde on this site how the evil Brahmins are controlling everything - health, wealth, positions not allowing anything for anybody else.

I do not know which planet this guy Sallahuddin lives on. I can tell you that brahmins are very poor and totally powerless in kerala. They are studious, do well in high school, but their financial situation does not allow them to pursue higher studies. Most of thir parents work as temple priests, and unlike in Sallaluddins religion, temple priests do not carry any clout over other Hindus. In kerala, property and wealth is concentarted in christians followed by muslims, then may be the NAir sect of hindus followed by the Ezhava sect of hiindus. Brahmins will be in the lowest 30% in terms of "per capita" income.

Among the richest peopel in India, I would think Brahmins will be nowhere near the top 20 (I m not sure, just making a guess).

Brahmins economic sattus is not much different in otehr southern sattes.

What is this guy yacking about? 2% Brahmins controlling the rest..It will be interesting if somebody takes a tabulation of state cabinet ministers in the four southern indian states and see how many Brahmin ministers are in the four state cabinets..

Get a life man..

• reply

KERALA IS NOT WHOLE INDIA

Submitted by KASHIF (not verified) on 26 August 2009 - 1:31pm.

Hi Gopi,

Kerala is an exception. It does not depicts the situation of main stream India.

If u see la anti-hindutva ideologies n movements r very strong in Kerala- like Communist, Jamat-e-islami, Popular Front, Christanity - so it is an accepted fact that Kerala is one of the state where Manuvadis r very weak.
It does not mean that they r weak in other states like Tamilnadu , Maharashtra , karnataka, U.P, M.P , Bihar etc.

They r strong in these states. When somebody talks about INDIA , whole India is consdered there , NOT ONLY KERALA.

AND Yes they r very strong in DELHI, in CENTRAL GOVT.

I hope u now understand what we r telling.

• reply

Brahmins/21st ecntury- Khashif/Saluddin

Submitted by gopi thomas (not verified) on 26 August 2009 - 6:31pm.

Kahsshif

I was responding to Saluddin's statement that 2% Brahmins are controlling everybody else. I pointed to kerala to show that it simply is not true. You guys are always creating "phantom" enemies and problems.

You state, in other states "they are strong". Even if they are strong, what is wrong with that? Just like Christians (and Muslims) are strong in kerala, somebody else can be strong somewhere else..

And by the way, three Southern States (Andhra, TN, Kerala) have 7 muslim ministers in their cabinet; and no Brahmin minister.

I will be enlightened if somebody can tell me how, in current India, state by state, how Brahmins are controlling wealth, jobs, companies, etc..How many Brahmins are in the top 20 richest Indians? How many Brahmins are in the top 50 landowners?

Muslims in Bihar, UP, MP are faring bad. It is not like others are tarilblazing in those states. All are doing bad in those states.

I have used Kerala Christians as an example to be followed by Muslims for progress rather than constant bitching. As you imply in your note, Christians in Kerala did not campaign against Brahmins or try to "control" Brahmins (you imply some Jama Hhut and PDP and Christians and communism tried to control manu whatever -- what has Manu to do with this, is there a "school" teaching this manusmruthi you guys always complain about, if so which schools and colleges in India?

If one does not take personal responsibility for progress and development, one is destined to be doomed.

• reply

My msg for all "UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL"

Submitted by ZUBAIR (not verified) on 18 August 2009 - 1:30pm.

These are all because of Brahmins, They wrote scriptures and all Hindus are blindly believing those... Once they read & understand the all religious books they start to hate Hinduism(Brahmanism). Our leaders - lets only include the congress - have been power hungry eversince its inception. Nehru was a good freedom fighter but a rotton politician. He created several problems - partition, present J&K probs, our biased constitution, nasty political system, the list is endless...Any way the truth is something else, some people wanted to divide and rule the country in the name of religion from beginning (by the time British entered India) and still they r ruling in the same manner,Indian Muslims have suffered immensely due to the Congress manipulations.. read these books books and circulate among others as fast as u can -- http://www.skidmail.com/hindu/contents.htm#webmaster
http://asimiqbal2nd.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/o-you-hindu-awake.pdf
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Pantheon/4789/
There is so many movements have been failed in anti-Brahmanism read this -- http://www.ambedkar.org/gail/Dravidianmovement.h
tm
Hinduism is not religion read it -- http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/2-19-2004-50729.asp
Ask any question about Islam: http://www.islamicfinder.org/faq/list.php

Dear Muslim brothers, The 2% of people ruling 98% of Indians, once we come to know the truth we need to convey to every one, otherwise we will be culprit on the day of judgement... so let the truth explode....

I am an Indian not against to any religion..Don't reply before u read all the articles with given reference (ramayana, geeta, vedas etc.) SAVE MOTHERINDIA

• reply

My msg for all "UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL"

Submitted by ZUBAIR (not verified) on 18 August 2009 - 1:28pm.

These are all because of Brahmins, They wrote scriptures and all Hindus are blindly believing those... Once they read & understand the all religious books they start to hate Hinduism(Brahmanism). Our leaders - lets only include the congress - have been power hungry eversince its inception. Nehru was a good freedom fighter but a rotton politician. He created several problems - partition, present J&K probs, our biased constitution, nasty political system, the list is endless...Any way the truth is something else, some people wanted to divide and rule the country in the name of religion from beginning (by the time British entered India) and still they r ruling in the same manner,Indian Muslims have suffered immensely due to the Congress manipulations.. read these books books and circulate among others as fast as u can -- http://www.skidmail.com/hindu/contents.htm#webmaster
http://asimiqbal2nd.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/o-you-hindu-awake.pdf
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Pantheon/4789/
There is so many movements have been failed in anti-Brahmanism read this -- http://www.ambedkar.org/gail/Dravidianmovement.h
tm
Hinduism is not religion read it -- http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/2-19-2004-50729.asp
Ask any question about Islam: http://www.islamicfinder.org/faq/list.php

Dear Muslim brothers, The 2% of people ruling 98% of Indians, once we come to know the truth we need to convey to every one, otherwise we will be culprit on the day of judgement... so let the truth explode....

I am an Indian not against to any religion..Don't reply before u read all the articles with given reference (ramayana, geeta, vedas etc.) SAVE MOTHERINDIA

• reply

Partition was best for India- Dirt shifted to AFPAK

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on 17 August 2009 - 4:39pm.

Partition of India was the best thing that happened to India. Even with just 15% MUSLIMS, India is facing undue pressures for special treatment of the MUSLIMs and is even seeking developmental funds along religious lines. Had partition not happened, 50% of India population would have been Muslims- the combined MUSLIM population of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh is about 50Crore against 100 Crore people of all other religious groups- and India would have been entirely controlled by MUSLIMs as they would vote enbloc electing more MUSLIM MPs ensuring that a GOVT can NOT exist in India with out MUSLIM support.

However, it is quite unlikely that India would have remained a DEMOCRACY if what is happening in most ISLAMIC countries of the world like Saudi Arabia, other Gulf Countries,Pakistan, Bangladesh etc are any indication. India is a "secular democracy" only because of the Hindu Majority. The present plight of PAKISTAN and BANGLADESH are adequate indication of what would have happened to India had partition not occurred.

• reply

Yes partition was the best for India

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on 25 August 2009 - 11:22pm.

You are right partition was the best for India otherwise Hindus had been continuing thier lives again as slaves,the lives they were continuing before the establishment of British Raj in India.
Muslims would definetly rule and Brahimans would be treated as slaves?

• reply

Who is to blame?

Submitted by A South Asian (not verified) on 16 August 2009 - 6:36pm.

Dr Sahib! It is too simplistic to put blame on somebody else. British had been the occupation power since long and they had to go by their own designs. Despite whatever they planned and did, the first responsibility for division of India lies on none but Indians; the foremost on Hindu leaders for hailing from majority community. I think both Gandhi and Nehru had been responsible for this. If they had been a little more wise than communal and had paid any heed to what Jinnah or his followers were saying, the problem could have been resolved despite British plans, as you think. Nehru was trapped by the wife of Mountbatten. As a poet puts it, "Ba Khal-i-Hinduish bakhshad Samar Qand -o- Bukhara ra".

Anyhow, now Pakistan, Bangladesh and India are three separate realities. All must accept each other and must live in peace seeking prosperity in the comity of nations.
Good Luck!

• reply

Partition

Submitted by George (not verified) on 19 August 2009 - 7:31pm.

sir,

Your article is absoutely right. briatin given freedom to all their colonial states from 1939 to 1950. They lost lot in 2nd world war.they given the administration rights to local parties. Jinna was leading a secular life since his child hood, he cannot be a fanatic . But what about other leadrs wh allways say ram ram....and concentrating in creating a self image . The partition was right . now we have three independand nations , we must respect each other . We are working in gulf together with pakistanis , bangalis and Indians, we stay together, eat together we dont haVE ANY probloms ,we srespect each other . Only politicians are creating probloms for their benifit . they need seperation , they need probloms to loot

• reply

Partition was the best thing that happened to India

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on 17 August 2009 - 7:27am.

Partition was the best thing that happened to India. Had India not been partitioned the combined MUSLIM population of un-divided India would have been about 50 Crore - Indian Muslims+ PAKIS + BANGLADESHIS. The population of all other religious groups together would have been just 100 Crore. INDIA WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE SECULAR DEMOCRACY THAT IT IS TODAY- example of most undemocratic ISLAMIC COUNTRIES including Saudi Arabia, gulf countries, Pakistan and even Bangladesh is before us.

Even if India had some form of "democracy", MUSLIMs would have effectively controlled India as they vote selectively for MUSLIMS only. All the MUSLIM majority areas have elected only MUSLIMS and Malapuram in the "most literate KERALA" is no exception. So partition was the best thing that happened to India after 1098AD, when Muhammad or Ghor captured parts of India.

• reply

Dr Sahib! It is too

Submitted by A South Asian (not verified) on 16 August 2009 - 6:35pm.

Dr Sahib! It is too simplistic to put blame on somebody else. British had been the occupation power since long and they had to go by their own designs. Despite whatever they planned and did, the first responsibility for division of India lies on none but Indians; the foremost on Hindu leaders for hailing from majority community. I think both Gandhi and Nehru had been responsible for this. If they had been a little more wise than communal and had paid any heed to what Jinnah or his followers were saying, the problem could have been resolved despite British plans, as you think. Nehru was trapped by the wife of Mountbatten. As a poet puts it, "Ba Khal-i-Hinduish bakhshad Samar Qand -o- Bukhara ra".

Anyhow, now Pakistan, Bangladesh and India are three separate realities. All must accept each other and must live in peace seeking prosperity in the comity of nations.
Good Luck!

• reply

Have a different Views

Submitted by mohammad allam (not verified) on 15 August 2009 - 2:18pm.

The causes of partition of India is very complex to anlysis.There were many players who played crucial role in partition of India according to their interest.Among the players were the Hindu communlist,the Muslim communalist,the Imperialist,the Sikh communalist,the aristocratic class(include in this all the aristocratic secularist of Hindu,Muslim etc)and Beauracrcratic class.
About the role of the leaders it is very controversial to poit out finger on any body.Mr J.N.Nehru inspite of being not a religious person was heading a powerfull Indian class with sardar vallabh Patel.This powerfull class had vast interest in India.This class was in logger head with other emerging classes of India as well as trdaitional ruling class of India(see the percentage of employment of Indian muslims at the time of independence).Due to poltical compulsion in future India ,Nehru couldn't ignore this fact.We have done little research about the role of Powerful indian beaurcratic class in partition.
After seeing the role of the Imperial power particulary Britian in world politics one can find that whenever it ruled,it created the problem of partition.See the Middle East.The question is why Britian played the role of politics of Partition in muslim majority areas of the world?
The role of two nation theory is to malign the Hindu and Muslim for partition.This is a trick to divert the attention from the real design and hands from the poltics of partition.Unfortunately the so called secularist historian with communlist also singing this ragas in different tune.Is not in present India the same characteristics of two nation theory found?But why not a demand of the separation of nation(i mean the religious based culture or a particular identity).This means that there was power that brought two-nation theory to justify the partition and divert the attention of historians from the truth.

The role of jinnah in partition and Nehru needs extensive research.No historian is in final position to say that why an ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity (as Sarojini Naidu used to call Jinnah) turned into a sole leader of Partition?The persoanl rivalry could destablize the political formation of India but couldn't divide the nation.If this was possible then it means that the last stage of the British rule under Lord Batten was complete in anarchy.Then the question is who put India on the path of anarchy to divide?
The use of threat of two-nation theory by Jinnah was political gimmick to pressurize the congress to get more consession to strengthen the position of Muslim League among Indian Muslims for example Jinnah demand to accept Muslim League as sole representative of Indian Muslims. The case of UP,Interim Government all these show Jinnah works.Even his declaration of demand of Pakistan was a bully to congress.Jinnah did not realize that what he is doing today will bring tragedy. In Later years he was unable to control the move for Pakistan that he started.If he withdrew he got political death and if go then will get partition.And he opted for later option. This is the situation like RSS and BJP present position of Political game of Hindutwa.Even Allama Iqbal who accepted by the communalist as main ideologue of two –nation did not wish partition of India but a confederation of NWP (North West Provinces) with more and more power to these provinces on the basis of devaluation of power.
In the end I would like to say that the time is to look ahead by forgetting the past pain for the bliss of future as suggested by Asghar Ali Sahib.But is it possible with the presence of the vast chain of Sisunekatan historical writing and product?

• reply

Independence day = 1 million died & 10 million house displaced

Submitted by Singh (not verified) on 15 August 2009 - 2:02am.

India's Independence Day is celebrated on August 15 to commemorate its independence from British rule and its birth as a sovereign nation on that day in 1947. The day is celebrated all over the country and by a growing diaspora around the world. Pakistan became independent on the previous day. What is sometimes forgotten is that the period signifies the single largest human migration of people in modern history. Till today, there is no institutional memory of Partition: the State has not seen fit to construct any memorials, to mark any particular places - as has been done, say, in the case of Holocaust memorials, or memorials for the Vietnam war.

Website: http://www.PunjabPartition.com

• reply

Dear Asghar sb., You are

Submitted by Shoeb (not verified) on 14 August 2009 - 7:55pm.

Dear Asghar sb.,

You are correct in talking about the role of the british in India's partition into two religion based states. But my generation which is born post-partition and knows of this tragic event in the sense of history, fails to understand how stalwarts like Ganndhi, Nehru, Maulana Azad, Sardar Patel, Jinnah etc could let this tragedy happen. Were not british the very occupiers against whom the whole freedom struggle was meant to be? Didn't they have sense enough not to fall into the enemy's trap? After all which enemy even after deciding to withdraw from the occupied territories, would like to see its former colonies prosper and the partition ploy was a sure fire method to leave a festering sore on the psyche of the people in the indian subcontinent which continues bleeding to this day.

To me partition happened because of the monolithic egos of mainly two narcissistic personalities- Nehru and Jinnah, and the leaders of the time, went along willingly or unwillingly with their ego battles conveniently forgetting that the fate of millions of Hindus and Sikhs in the area to be made Pakistan and millions of muslims in then and today's Hindustan depended on them.

Ultimately, two 'secular' people are considered to be the foremost founding members of two nations-Pakistan, which doesn't go by the charade of secularism and is a theocratic state and India, which does in principle, through its constitution but rarely ever in action.

Whose loss is it?

• reply

My msg for all "UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL"

Submitted by ZUBAIR (not verified) on 18 August 2009 - 1:47pm.

These are all because of Brahmins, They wrote scriptures and all Hindus are blindly believing those... Once they read & understand the all religious books they start to hate Hinduism(Brahmanism). Our leaders - lets only include the congress - have been power hungry eversince its inception. Nehru was a good freedom fighter but a rotton politician. He created several problems - partition, present J&K probs, our biased constitution, nasty political system, the list is endless...Any way the truth is something else, some people wanted to divide and rule the country in the name of religion from beginning (by the time British entered India) and still they r ruling in the same manner,Indian Muslims have suffered immensely due to the Congress manipulations.. read these books books and circulate among others as fast as u can -- http://www.skidmail.com/hindu/contents.htm#webmaster
http://asimiqbal2nd.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/o-you-hindu-awake.pdf
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Pantheon/4789/
There is so many movements have been failed in anti-Brahmanism read this -- http://www.ambedkar.org/gail/Dravidianmovement.h
tm
Hinduism is not religion read it -- http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/2-19-2004-50729.asp
Ask any question about Islam: http://www.islamicfinder.org/faq/list.php

Dear Muslim brothers, The 2% of people ruling 98% of Indians, once we come to know the truth we need to convey to every one, otherwise we will be culprit on the day of judgement... so let the truth explode....

I am an Indian not against to any religion..Don't reply before u read all the articles with given reference (ramayana, geeta, vedas etc.) SAVE MOTHERINDIA

• reply

united we stand

Submitted by gopi thomas (not verified) on 18 August 2009 - 11:17pm.

Zubair

Are you saying Indian system is bad and the systems of Muslim countries - PAkistan, Somalia, Suadn, Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, Yemen, Egypt etc are better?

If Brahmins are so powerful and rich, how come their number of available seats- available to public merit- in educational isnstitutions get cut and cut every year?

I can tell you for sure that if you list the top 200 richest people in Kerala, there will not be a single Brahmin. It will be mostly Christians, followed by Muslims, followed by other Hindus,a nd not Brahmins. I can almost guarantee this!

It is high time Muslims stop complaining about all real and imaginary issues, and just get the butts off and get educated. And not madrasa education -- dont expect you can be a doctor or lawyer with MAdrasa education!

• reply

Thomas take care of your Church 'Madarsa'

Submitted by Jazbat Khan (not verified) on 23 August 2009 - 2:20am.

What is this non sense comparison of richest Christian, Muslims and Hindus. Either there are rich, middle class or below poverty line from every section of society. Better to worry for have not's is you are really Christian like Muslim helps poor Muslims in Madarssa. Many Madarssa educated get much better jobs in India, in University view their knowledge of being bi-lingual in English and Arabic, in Embassies, in Middle East, in US, in Japan even in UN. Your must be happy that those Madarssa educated are not attempting more in Civil Services exams other wise people like u would have bee crying more.

Brahman in Kerala?. What is this? From where in South India Brahman exists. Your irk and bias shows that you are not 'THOMAS' yet 'Amar, Akbar & Anthony' using maximum benefits sacrificing you religious identity and spread hate against Muslims. FYI, enough Muslims are educated and plenty of them learning in IT/MBA/Medical/Engineering/Mass-Com and Humanities. Please don't behave like 'hate-acacemies' of Shishu Mandirs or Vidya Mandirs. The students from Madarasa are more human loving, law abiding and patriotic to your 'Missionary Schools'.

• reply

Ramadan Mubarak

Submitted by Sallahuddin (not verified) on 22 August 2009 - 5:15pm.

Ramadan Mubarak to gopi thomas and Ak shingh and all the Islamphobic peoples and offcourse to all the Muslims of India and the world.

• reply

Dear Gopi.....Are u a indian?

Submitted by ZUBAIR (not verified) on 22 August 2009 - 9:56am.

Because I am worrying about India...but u r for other countries...It doesn't mean that they r wrong so we also!!! we should be a model for others, Again, I am not telling that the muslims r perfect, of course there r very few people who r following Islam properly & there r some countries which r following Islamic law & they r free from corruption and other wrong deeds...I am sorry if my previous comments hearts u people but please go through those links so u will come to know why I addressed Brahmins (not all of Brahmins). I am a friend of so many Hindus of all castes and I use to debate with them with very calm... Any how we Indians r brotherhoods lets think together for better future of India....Happy Ramzan ("The holy month").

• reply

ZUBAIR- aren't you happy that you are in INDIA and not AFPAK

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on 22 August 2009 - 9:11pm.

ZUBAIR- why are muslims in India so unhappy while Muslims who went to Pakistan are getting butchered by USA?? Has India ever used planes to BOMB any Indian- Muslims of Kashmir, Maoist, Manipur or Nagaland?? Aren't you happy that you are in INDIA rather than in AFPAK??? So remain happy. Gujrath is an aberration and poor people are in every religious group. Khush raha karo. Agar India me jabardast Na-khush he toh AFPAK chalo. Magar KHUSH RAHA KARO.

• reply

I am Happy & proud to be an Indian Muslim

Submitted by ZUBAIR (not verified) on 25 August 2009 - 12:14pm.

Did I speak about AFPAK or any other country?? & I never support AFPAK..I believe in Allah and always justify right deeds Anyhow if u r happy thats enough...but at least recognize the truth of Indian politicians, If u read this u will come to know whats happening India from dictates.....http://www.usislam.org/comparative/hinduawake.htm & http://asimiqbal2nd.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/o-you-hindu-awake.pdf

• reply

Zubair u may be happy but noyt proud

Submitted by gopi thomas (not verified) on 26 August 2009 - 1:05am.

Zubair, you may be happy, but not a proud Indian Muslim. if you were proud, you will not be compalining ceaselessly; throwing shit against everybody except Muslims, finding fantom enemies like Brahmins (as I said I know the situatioin of Brahmains in south india -- they are equally as bad situatiuon as you always talk that Muslims are in).

You are not proud Zubair. That a gigantic country with zillions of languages and customs and religion has started from scratch and become a world power -- this sis omething you dop not like. You want to destroy it by forgoing meritocracy, providing proportional stake etc.. We are a democracy, people choose the govt. Do you want India to be like PAkistan, Saudi Arbia, Somalia, Egypt, CAhd, Sudan...a failed state? or do you want India to achieve a higher economic and social level in say next 5-10 years? We cannot eb a China because China's people are not free. If we were like China, may be it would have been easier.

U have to decide whether you live for religion or is religion for life. Until that internal conflict is settled, there wont be progress, and there will only eb compalints. And then one starts killing brothers (like happening in PaAkistan), or killinhg kafirs or ahmadiyyas or shites or whoever one comes across. IS this type of life worth living?

Let me offer an example for the umpteenth time. Learn from the practices of christians in Kerala. How did they accomplish major achievements in spite of being a minority? And they never had reservatiosn or special treatments? It is worth exploring and implementing selected things that worked for them. otherwise, after 100 years, your great garndchildren will still complain about the phantom Brahmins
You guys are always l;ways

• reply

My msg for all "UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL"

Submitted by ZUBAIR (not verified) on 18 August 2009 - 1:34pm.

These are all because of Brahmins, They wrote scriptures and all Hindus are blindly believing those... Once they read & understand the all religious books they start to hate Hinduism(Brahmanism). Our leaders - lets only include the congress - have been power hungry eversince its inception. Nehru was a good freedom fighter but a rotton politician. He created several problems - partition, present J&K probs, our biased constitution, nasty political system, the list is endless...Any way the truth is something else, some people wanted to divide and rule the country in the name of religion from beginning (by the time British entered India) and still they r ruling in the same manner,Indian Muslims have suffered immensely due to the Congress manipulations.. read these books books and circulate among others as fast as u can -- http://www.skidmail.com/hindu/contents.htm#webmaster
http://asimiqbal2nd.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/o-you-hindu-awake.pdf
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Pantheon/4789/
There is so many movements have been failed in anti-Brahmanism read this -- http://www.ambedkar.org/gail/Dravidianmovement.h
tm
Hinduism is not religion read it -- http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/2-19-2004-50729.asp
Ask any question about Islam: http://www.islamicfinder.org/faq/list.php

Dear Muslim brothers, The 2% of people ruling 98% of Indians, once we come to know the truth we need to convey to every one, otherwise we will be culprit on the day of judgement... so let the truth explode....

I am an Indian not against to any religion..Don't reply before u read all the articles with given reference (ramayana, geeta, vedas etc.) SAVE MOTHERINDIA

• reply

Aftermath of the Partition

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on 15 August 2009 - 3:48am.

Good article.. But there is nothing to cherish about Indian democracy.. There are thousands of dalits, backward class people and muslims who are brutally discriminated under the veil of sham democracy since partition. The power has always remained with the upper class hindus while some muslims who were part of the establishment, were relegated to "yes men". Muslim leadership religuous or liberal have no recognition in India polity..

• reply

http://www.twocircles.net/2009aug14/nehru_jinah_and_partition.html

PAKISTAN
OR
THE PARTITION OF INDIA

BY
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar

"More brain, O Lord, more brain! or we shall mar,
Utterly this fair garden we might win."
(Quotation from the title page of Thoughts on Pakistan, 1st ed.)

~~~~~~~

INSCRIBED TO THE MEMORY
OF
RAMU
As a token of my appreciation of her goodness of heart, her nobility of mind and her purity of character
and also for the cool fortitude and readiness to suffer along with me which she showed
in those friendless days of want and worries which fell to our lot.
~~~~~~~

TABLE OF CONTENTS

[Editor's Introduction]

Preface to the Second Edition

Prologue

Introduction
 

PART I -- MUSLIM CASE FOR PAKISTAN

CHAPTER I -- What does the League Demand?

Part I [The Muslim League's Resolution of March 1940]
Part II [Unifying the North-West provinces is an age-old project]
Part III [The Congress itself has proposed to create Linguistic Provinces]

CHAPTER II -- A Nation Calling for a Home

[What is the definition of a "nation," and what "nations" can be found in India?]

CHAPTER III -- Escape from Degradation

[What grievances do Muslims have against their treatment by the Congress?]

PART II -- HINDU CASE AGAINST PAKISTAN

CHAPTER IV -- Break-up of Unity

[How substantial, in truth, is the unity between Hindus and Muslims?]

CHAPTER V -- Weakening of the Defences

Part I -- Question of Frontiers
Part II -- Question of Resources
Part III -- Question of Armed Forces

CHAPTER VI -- Pakistan and Communal Peace

Part I [The Communal Question in its "lesser intent"]
Part II [The Communal Question in its "greater intent"]
Part III [The real question is one of demarcation of boundaries]
Part IV [Will Punjabis and Bengalis agree to redraw their boundaries?]

PART III -- WHAT IF NOT PAKISTAN?

CHAPTER VII -- Hindu Alternative to Pakistan

Part I [Lala Hardayal's scheme for conversion in the North-West]
Part II [The stand of Mr. V. D. Savarkar and the Hindu Maha Sabha]
Part III [Mr. Gandhi's tenacious quest for Hindu-Muslim unity]
Part IV [The riot-torn history of Hindu-Muslim relations, 1920-1940]
Part V [Such barbaric mutual violence shows an utter lack of unity]

CHAPTER VIII -- Muslim Alternative to Pakistan

Part I [The proposed Hyderabad scheme of legislative reform is not promising]
Part II [The "Azad Muslim Conference" thinks along similar lines]

CHAPTER IX -- Lessons from Abroad

Part I [The case of Turkey shows a steady dismemberment and loss of territory]
Part II [The case of Czechoslovakia, a country which lasted only two decades]
Part III [Both were brought down by the growth of the spirit of nationalism]
Part IV [The force of nationalism, once unleashed, almost cannot be stopped]
Part V [Hindustan and Pakistan would be stronger, more homogeneous units]

PART IV -- PAKISTAN AND THE MALAISE

CHAPTER X -- Social Stagnation

Part I [Muslim Society is even more full of social evils than Hindu Society is]
Part II [Why there is no organized movement of social reform among the Muslims]
Part III [The Hindus emphasize nationalist politics and ignore the need for social reform]
Part IV [In a "communal malaise," both groups ignore the urgent claims of social justice]

CHAPTER XI -- Communal Aggression

[British sympathy encourages ever-increasing, politically calculated Muslim demands]

CHAPTER XII -- National Frustration

Part I [Can Hindus count on Muslims to show national rather than religious loyalty?]
Part II [Hindus really want Dominion status; Muslims really want independence]
Part III [The necessary national political loyalty is not present among Muslims]
Part IV [Muslim leaders' views, once nationalistic, have grown much less so over time]
Part V [The vision of Pakistan is powerful, and has been implicitly present for decades]
Part VI [Mutual antipathies have created a virus of dualism in the body politic]

PART V

CHAPTER XIII -- Must There be Pakistan?

Part I [The burden of proof on the advocates of Pakistan is a heavy one]
Part II [Is it really necessary to divide what has long been a single whole?]
Part III [Other nations have survived for long periods despite communal antagonisms]
Part IV [Cannot legitimate past grievances be redressed in some less drastic way?]
Part V [Cannot the many things shared between the two groups be emphasized?]
Part VI ['Hindu Raj' must be prevented at all costs, but is Pakistan the best means?]
Part VII [If Muslims truly and deeply desire Pakistan, their choice ought to be accepted]

CHAPTER XIV -- The Problems of Pakistan

Part I [Problems of border delineation and population transfer must be addressed]
Part II [What might we assume to be the borders of West and East Pakistan?]
Part III [Both Muslims and Hindus ignore the need for genuine self-determination]
Part IV [Punjab and Bengal would thus necessarily be subject to division]
Part V [A demand for regional self-determination must always be a two-edged sword]
Part VI [The problems of population transfer are solvable and need not detain us]

CHAPTER XV -- Who Can Decide?

Part I [Partition is a very possible contingency for which it's best to be prepared]
Part II [I offer this draft of a 'Government of India (Preliminary Provisions) Act']
Part III [My plan is community-based, and thus more realistic than the Cripps plan]
Part IV [My solution is borne out by the examination of similar cases elsewhere]

Epilogue -- [We need better statesmanship than Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Jinnah have shown]
 

TABLES

-- 003a -- Revenues raised by Provincial and Central Governments
-- 101a -- The Congress's Proposed Linguistic Provinces
-- 205a -- Resources of Pakistan
-- 205b -- Resources of Hindustan
-- 205c -- Areas of Indian Army Recruitment
-- 205d -- Areas of Recruitment During World War I
-- 205e -- Changes in the Composition of the Indian Infantry
-- 205f -- Changes in the Communal Composition of the Indian Army
-- 205g -- Communal Composition of the Indian Army in 1930
-- 205h -- Communal Percentages in Infantry and Cavalry, 1930
-- 205i -- Provincial Composition of the Indian Army, 1943
-- 205j -- Communal Composition of the Indian Army, 1943
-- 205k -- Contributions to the Central Exchequer from the Pakistan Area
-- 205l -- Contributions to the Central Exchequer from the Hindustan Area
-- 206a -- Muslim Population in Pakistan and Hindustan
-- 206b -- Distribution of Seats in the Central Legislature (Numbers)
-- 206c -- Distribution of Seats in the Central Legislature (Percentages)
-- 307a -- Casualties of the Riots in Sukkur, Sind, November 1939
-- 308a -- Proposed Hyderabad Scheme of Communal Reforms
-- 410a -- Married Females Aged 0-15 per 1000 Females of That Age
-- 411a -- Legislative Councils (Act of 1909): Communal Proportion between Hindus and Muslims
-- 411b -- Communal Composition of the Legislatures, 1919
-- 411c -- Representation of Muslims According to the Lucknow Pact, 1916
-- 411d -- Actual Weightage of Muslims According to the Lucknow Pact
 

APPENDICES

-- 01 -- Appendix I : Population of India by Communities
-- 02 -- Appendix II : Communal distribution of population by Minorities in the Provinces of British India
-- 03 -- Appendix III : Communal distribution of population by Minorities in the States
-- 04 -- Appendix IV : Communal distribution of population in the Punjab by Districts
-- 05 -- Appendix V : Communal distribution of population in Bengal by Districts
-- 06 -- Appendix VI : Communal distribution of population in Assam by Districts
-- 07 -- Appendix VII : Proportion of Muslim population in N.-W. F. Province by Districts
-- 08 -- Appendix VIII : Proportion of Muslim population in N.-W. F. Province by Towns
-- 09 -- Appendix IX : Proportion of Muslim population in Sind by Districts
-- 10 -- Appendix X : Proportion of Muslim population in Sind by Towns
-- 11 -- Appendix XI : Languages spoken by the Muslims of India
-- 12-- Appendix XII : Address by Muslims to Lord Minto, 1906, and Reply thereto
-- 13 -- Appendix XIII : Allocation of Seats under the Government of India Act, 1935, for the Lower House in each Provincial Legislature
-- 14 -- Appendix XIV : Allocation of Seats under the Government of India Act, 1935, for the Upper House in each Provincial Legislature
-- 15 -- Appendix XV : Allocation of Seats under the Government of India Act, 1935, for the Lower House of the Federal Legislature for British India by Province and by Community
-- 16 -- Appendix XVI : Allocation of Seats under the Government of India Act, 1935, for the Upper Chamber of the Federal Legislature for British India by Province and by Community
-- 17 -- Appendix XVI : Allocation of Seats under the Government of India Act, 1935, for the Upper Chamber of the Federal Legislature for British India by Province and by Community
-- 18 -- Appendix XVIII : Communal Award
-- 19 -- Appendix XIX : Supplementary Communal Award
-- 20 -- Appendix XX : The Poona Pact
-- 21 -- Appendix XXI : Comparative Statement of Minority Representation under the Government of India Act, 1935, in the Provincial Legislature
-- 22 -- Appendix XXII : Comparative Statement of Minority Representation under the Government of India Act, 1935, in the Central Legislature
-- 23 -- Appendix XXIII : Government of India Resolution of 1934 on Communal Representation of Minorities in the Services
-- 24 -- Appendix XXIV : Government of India Resolution of 1943 on Representation of the Scheduled Castes in the Services
-- 25-- Appendix XXV : The Cripps Proposals

ERRATA -- [corrections have now been incorporated into the text]

MAPS
-- Punjab -- Bengal & Assam -- India --

---

-- more of Dr. Ambedkar's work -- Glossary -- Map index -- fwp's main page --

On March 24th, 1947, Lord Mountbatten, facing the third successive interruption to his professional career in the Royal Navy, was sworn in as the twentieth and last Viceroy of india. He had been instructed and empowered by Mr Attlee, prime minister of Britain's post-war Labour Government, to achieve the earliest possible transfer of power to the Indian subcontinent. 144 days later, Mountbatten was to be sworn in again, but this time as the first Governor-General of an independent but partitioned India, having by a tour de force of diplomacy by discussion broken the deadlock ...

 

On the Transfer of Power in India by Suniti Kumar Ghosh 1 The transfer of power in India in 1947 brought a sense of "fulfillment" to the three parties to the settlement — the British raj, the Congress and the Muslim League. British Prime Minister Clement Attlee declared that it was "not the abdication but the fulfillment of Britain's mission in India, a sign of strength, and the vitality of the British Commonwealth." 1 Speaking on the Indian Independence Bill in the House of Lords, Lord Samuel, a Liberal leader, said, "This was not an hour of defeat but of fulfillment." 2 The same idea had been expressed a few days earlier in words shorn of rhetoric by Field Marshal Smuts, then Prime Minister of South Africa: "This does not look like quitting . . ." 3 The Indian Independence Act, passed by the British Parliament in the middle of July 1947 without a division, pleased its authors — Attlee, Bevin and their Labour Party colleagues — as well as the Tory leaders including Churchill, whom President Roosevelt had called "an unreconstructed Tory," "the last of the Victorians." 4 After the Mountbatten plan, proposing partition of India on religious lines and transfer of power on the basis of dominion status, had been agreed to by Congress and Muslim League, Alec Joyce of the India Office wired on 3 June 1947 to Mountbatten's press attache, Alan Campbell-Johnson: A packed House of Commons listened with intense interest to Prime Minister's announcement this afternoon. Proposals and first reaction from India undoubtedly created profound gratification among all Parties. Sense of unity and recognition of tremendous issues and possibilities involved were comparable only with most historic moments during war. . . . This has been a great day for us all. 5 Campbell-Johnson recorded that "the American reaction has been especially enthusiastic." 6 On their part the Indian leaders of both Congress and the Muslim League exuded happiness and gratitude. Rajendra. Prasad, President of the Indian Constituent Assembly, described the transfer of power as "the consummation and ful- fillment of the historic tradition and democratic ideals of the British race." 7 Later, on 16 May 1949, moving his resolution in the Indian Constituent Assembly for the ratification of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' decision to accept the "sovereign, independent republic" of India as a member of the Commonwealth of Nations of which the British King or Queen was the head, Jawaharlal Nehru, the lover of roses and rose-tinted phrases, said that from the "prickly thorn of frustration and despair, we have been able to pick the rose of fulfillment." 8 How was it that all the three parties supposed to be engaged in a grim struggle With one another retired from it as winners, victors! 2 The protagonists in the drama of the transfer of power are ____________________ 1 Cited in Michael Edwards, The Last Years of British India, (London, 1963 ) p. 181. 2 Alan Campbell-Johnson, Mission with Mountbatten, (London, 1951 ) p. 134. 3 N. Mansergh (Editor-in-Chief), Constitutional Relations Between Britain and India: The Transfer of Power 1942-7(Hereafter cited as T.O.P.), in 12 volumes (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1971-1983 ), X, p. 988. 4 Rooseveltand Churchill: Their Secret Wartime Correspondence (hereafter Roosevelt and Churchill), ed. by F. L. Loewenheim, H. D. Langley and M. Jonas , (London, 1975 ) p. 11. 5 Campbell-Johnson, op cit, p. 110. 6 Ibid, p. 114. 7 Ibid, p. 159; V. P. Menon, The Transfer of Power in India, (Bombay, 1957 ) p. 415. 8 Jawaharlal Nehru, Independence and After, (Delhi, 1949 ) p. 275. -30-

Questia Media America, Inc. www.questia.com

Publication Information: Article Title: On the Transfer of Power in India. Contributors: Suniti Kumar Ghosh - author. Journal Title: Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars. Volume: 17. Issue: 3. Publication Year: 1985. Page Number: 30.

What Mountbatten really did for India

RAMACHANDRA GUHA

In books written under his, or his family's supervision, a considerably glorified picture was presented of what Lord Mountbatten was said to have done in and for India. Are these claims right?

THE HINDU PHOTO LIBRARY

ON February 13, 1947, Lord Wavell, then Viceroy of India, received a telegram from the Prime Minister of England telling him that he had lost his job. The Labour Government in London had chosen Lord Mountbatten as his successor. That evening, Wavell wrote in his diary that Mountbatten was "an unexpected but a clever one from their (the Government's) point of view; and Dickie's personality may perhaps accomplish what I failed to do".

This was a comment that was as perceptive as it was generous. The Field Marshal and the Rear-Admiral were indeed very different kinds of men; one withdrawn, a connoisseur of poetry, choosing to keep his own counsel and his own company; the other flamboyant and dashing, a bon vivant and socialite who would much rather be seen with a glass of wine than a book in hand.

The journalist Pothan Joseph once remarked that Mountbatten tended to act as his "own Public Relations Officer". He was a pioneer in what we now call "spin" and "image management". Few men have taken so much interest in how history would judge them. In books written under his or his family's supervision, a considerably glorified picture was presented of what he was said to have done in and for India. It was claimed that without Mountbatten, freedom would not have come so soon; and that it would have come at a much higher cost. It was claimed that only Mountbatten could have got the Congress and the Muslim League to come to terms; and that only he could have got Jawaharlal Nehru and Vallabhbhai Patel to work together.

Some of these claims are highly exaggerated; others downright false. By the latter stages of the War the British knew that the time had come to leave India. As for the costs of freedom, a strong case can be made that by hastening the transfer of power, Mountbatten in fact made it less manageable; there weren't enough troops in place when the rioting escalated. As for the final concession to the Muslim League, after their success in the 1946 election (which Wavell called and supervised), it was clear to the Congress that they would have to accept some form of Partition. And as for the reconciliation between Nehru and Patel, it had all to do with the death of Mahatma Gandhi, and nothing to do with the intervention of the Viceroy.

Lord Mountbatten and his biographers have been so keen to give him credit where it is not due that they have tended to overlook what was his real contribution to India — the part he played in the integration of the princely states. The "Partition Plan" of June 3, 1947, which set out the principles of freedom and division, left unclear the position of the 500 odd princely states. These states had all recognised the British as the "paramount power". But now the British were leaving. Thus the more ambitious among the princes began, in the words of one respected scholar, "to luxuriate in wild dreams of independent power in an India of many partitions".

On July 9, 1947, Patel and Nehru both met the Viceroy, and asked him "what he was going to do to help India in connection with her most pressing problem — relations with the (Princely) States". Mountbatten agreed to make this matter "his primary consideration". Later the same day Gandhi came to meet Mountbatten. As the Viceroy recorded, the Mahatma "asked me to do everything in my power to ensure that the British did not leave a legacy of Balkanisation and disruption on August 15 by encouraging the States to declare their independence... ".

Mountbatten was being urged by the Congress Trinity to go out and bat for them against the princes. This he did most effectively, notably in a speech to the Chamber of Princes delivered on July 25, for which the Viceroy had decked out in all his finery, rows of military medals pinned upon his chest. He was, recalled an adoring assistant, "in full uniform, with an array of orders and decorations calculated to astonish even these parishioners in Princely pomp".

Mountbatten began by telling the princes that the Indian Independence Act had released "the States from all their obligations to the Crown". They were now technically independent, or, put another way, rudderless, on their own. The old links were broken, but "if nothing can be put in its place, only chaos can result — a chaos that "will hit the States first". He advised them therefore to forge relations with the new nation closest to them. As he brutally put it, "you cannot run away from the Dominion Government which is your neighbour any more than you can run away from the subjects for whose welfare you are responsible".

He told the princess that in the circumstances it was best they make peace with the Congress, and signed the Instrument of Accession. This would cede away Defence — but in any case the States would, by themselves, "be cut off from any source of supplies of up-to-date arms or weapons". It would cede away External Affairs, but the princes could "hardly want to go to the expense of having ambassadors or ministers or consuls in all these foreign countries". And it would also cede away Communications, but this was "really a means of maintaining the life-blood of the whole-sub-continent". The Congress offer, said the Viceroy, left the rulers "with great internal authority" while divesting them of subjects they could not deal with on their own.

Mountbatten's talk to the Chamber of Princes was a tour de force. It finally persuaded the princes that the British would no longer protect or patronise them, and that independence was a mirage. And this word was carried not by a rabble-rousing Congressman but by the Representative of the King-Emperor, who was a highly decorated military man, and of royal blood besides.

His speech prepared the way for the actual mechanics of the merging of the princely states with India. This process was supervised by Sardar Patel, and superbly executed by his Secretary at the Ministry of States, V.P. Menon. Some States proved to be more recalcitrant than others. Thus the ambitious Dewan of Travancore declared Independence; the impulsive young Maharaja of Jodhpur set about negotiating with Jinnah; and the wilful Nizam of Hyderabad demanded direct relations with the British Crown. Getting these States to join India involved a judicious mixture of the carrot and the stick: the first provided naturally by Mountbatten, the second, just as naturally, by Patel.

In 1950, the Government of India issued a booklet celebrating how 500 "centres of feudal autocracy" had, with little loss of life, been "converted into free and democratic unit of the Indian Union". Now, "for the first time, millions of people, accustomed to living in narrow, secluded groups in the States, became part of the larger life of India. They could now breathe the air of freedom and democracy pervading the whole nation".

As this booklet pointed out, the position of the princes in the Indian polity "afforded no parallel to or analogy with any institution known in history". Given the odds, and the opposition, the integration of these numerous and disparate States was indeed a staggering achievement.

Much of the work was done by Indians: by Patel, Menon, and others. But these Indians had as their indispensable ally that British PR man par excellence, Lord Mountbatten of Burma.

Ramachandra Guha is a historian and writer based in Bangalore.

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/mag/2003/10/12/stories/2003101200190300.htm

Editorial

EDITOR IS RIGHT: "SUNSET ON DALIT WORLD"

Modi mesmerism converts Gujarat educated Dalits into super Hindu heroes

NEERAV PATEL, NOTED DALIT POET OF GUJARAT, NO. 4-HEMANG PARK, VEJALPUR, AHMEDABAD - 380 051

Do you know why the Dalit Voice silver jubilee meeting at Ahmedabad (May 20-21, 2006) became such a big disappointment? (DV June 16, 2009 p.10: "Gujarat Dalits can be recovered with right social engineering").

Because, Dalits are now fully hinduised (enslaved) and becoming better Hindus than the Hindus themselves. And they are enjoying this illusion which leaders like Dr. Ambedkar and you call slavery. They are simply not interested in DV-like literature of emancipation. They, on the contrary, sneer at them. They are religiously observing and enjoying the ritual of garlanding the statue or photo of Dr. Ambedkar twice a year, having converted him into the 10th incarnation of god.

This simple reality at the grassroot level is ignored by our intellectuals like V.T. Rajshekar while churning out wishful action plans and strategies as recipes for instant revolution.

Today's (Sept.22) Times of India has a headline that Modi has made Ram and Hanuman ambassadors for Gujarat tourism.

TRIBALS USED TO KILL MUSLIMS

His plan already afoot for several years is to speed up hinduisation (enslavement) of the Gujarat tribals. They have made Shabari Dham in tribal Dangs region and are now planning to bring another tribal icon of Hanuman telling the tribals that he too was born among Gujarat tribals. A tourism plan called the "Rama trail" like Dandi yatra trek is coming up to tell the tribals that Ram and Hanuman had indeed trailed through these tribal places.

The poor and ignorant tribals take pride in this "Hindu heritage". They kill Muslims in riots and Dalit Christians during the Christmas thinking themselves guardians of Hinduism. And the biggest problem is not with these 'poor' and 'igorant' tribals and Dalits. The real problem is with their so-called "educated" and better-off sections that take the lead in proving themselves better Hindu and collaborating with the slave masters. Every other day a new Hindu vrat or katha or parayan or garba is organized and people flocking there in large numbers are the Dalits and tribals.

AMBEDKARITE CRIME

After the jamboree of Gayatri Pariwar, now is the turn of Prajapita Brahma Kumaris and our "educated" Dalit class is in the forefront, distributing its literature door to door, making pleas to attend and join the sect, appealing for donations and thus contributing a lion's share in its success. Only last night, I had a fight with a retired Dalit officer-turned petty trader who had come canvassing my house.And the people who are really working for the awareness raising of the Dalits are jeered and insulted. We organized a Bhim Katha of a young and unmarried radical Budhist called Anand Bhante in our locality so as to coincide with the hinduised Dalit's Ramapeer Yatra period. Because of our efforts, the programme was well attended but a section of "educated" Dalits who had links with BJP/VHP/RSS spread a rumour that the bhante was enjoying at the beaches of Goa with the money he collected from the audience at the meet. And that much is the respect our "educated" class of Dalits gives to our saviours — Budha and Dr. Ambedkar.

CASTE DIVIDE AMONG BUDHISTS

The tragedy is further compounded. There is a campaign run by Dalit Budhists in Gujarat for masss conversion on Dec.6. These are the very neo-converts who not only preserve their distinct and superior caste status but also promote their caste-specific interests in their day to day life, practice segregation and untouchability against their poor Dalit brethren who are hereditarily engaged in unclean professions. They least care about the preachings of Budha — that after conversion everybody loses his caste status and identity and becomes one as all the rivers mingle in the ocean and becomes one.

There is no real Sanghbhavna even after conversion. They have developed their own rituals and their own elite class of pundits — uttering some types of mumbo-jumbo in Pali on occasions like marriage as do the Brahmins in Sanskrit.

VICTIMS OF VIPASSANA

A new kind of superstition and new caste of Budhist is developing. The Budhist journals/leaflets and the neo-converts take pride in canvassing for Vipassana as the magic cure for all ills but not for Budha and Dr. Ambedkar.

DV IS RIGHT

The movement of Dalit literature in Gujarat is no better. Its leading magazines have long deviated from Ambedkar ideology — some of their editorial board members and contributors are active men of the terrorist RSS/BJP/VHP. The greatest irony is in having a VHP vice-president claiming himself to be the among first 5 Dalit-converts to Budhism. The Editor is right when he say 'India has become an intellectual desert' (V.T. Rajshekar, India's Intellectual Desert, DSA-1999) but you will be more right if you say Dalit India is an intellectual desert. I can see the sun is setting on Dalit India and people like you weeping in wilderness. So never ask the irritating question again: why the Ahmedabad meet failed? It failed because of our 'educated and well-off Dalit brethren who want to become better Hindus — yes, not only religiously but socially too, intact with its caste and class system. (neerav50@yahoo.co.in)

********************

DV proves right on

SUNSET ON THE DALIT WORLD

(The Second Partition of India)

Reprint of DV editorial of March 1, 2000

pp.16

Photocopy available Rs. 15

Blood-boiling history of Hindu India : Anti-Pakistan war-mongering has no takers

As this is written Brahminism and Islam, the centuries- old enemies (see DSA ref. p.5 bottom), are again on the collision course. However, a bloody nuclear war looming over the sub-continent has gone to background as India found itself friendless in the world.

In this war frenzy, the Pakistani Muslims were united but India's Hinduists looked weak and divided. Even the recent Islamic terrorist attack on Bombay has gone to background.

This is because the overwhelming productive labour (85%) of "Hindu India" is not only not Hindu but victim of Hinduism. Dr. Ambedkar had said all this. The Indian Govt. also knows it. That is why it is not ready to be swayed by the micro-minority war-mongers. The Manmohan Singh Govt. is hesitating though the war-mongering Brahminists are craving for "hate, revenge, blood and bomb".

Hindu logic: Not only the victims of Hinduism are producers of wealth but they are also advocates of peace. All producers need peace. It is only the consumers that crave for war. The Bahujans are so pre-occupied with their day-to-day drudgery, busy earning their daily bread that they are totally oblivious of the Hindu heroes' cry for war, blood and bomb.

This has been the unfortunate topsy-turvey situation in India where the producers have no voice at all. Their job is to only stand and wait. And then to do and die. This is the Hindu logic, said Dr. Ambedkar.

What is happening today is not new to students of history. Gujarati Bania M.K. Gandhi, blackmailing Babasaheb on "separate electorate" for Dalits by resorting to his fake fast-unto-death, had given a clear warning that the Untouchables could remain in India only as slaves of the ruling Hindus and at their mercy. This is continuing even to this day.

When the British were leaving India, the very same Brahminical rulers managed to partition the country at the cost of enormous bloodbath. And the creation of Islamic Pakistan gave a wonderful opportunity for the rulers to dub the majority Muslims who decided to remain in India as traitors and Pakistani agents.

Thirst for blood: How about 15 to 20% of the Indian Muslim population is reduced to grinding poverty, pushed to urban slums, daily facing war and violence was graphically depicted in the Sachar Committee report by an upper caste (Hindu). (DV Jan.16, 2007 p.9).

In 1971, the very same Brahminical rulers managed to get Pakistan divided by creating Bangladesh with the help of Mujibur Rahman.

The thirst of this micro-minority Brahminical Social Order for blood is limitless. The killing of over 3,000 Sikhs in cold blood in "Blue Star" (1984), the anti-Mandal war and violence (1991), the demolition of Babri Masjid (1992), the "Gujarat Genocide" killing over 2,500 Muslims. It is an endless story of killing and blood-letting.

When will their thirst for blood end?

There is no war hysteria in the vast countryside and even in the urban working class areas. In other words, the Bahujan Samaj — comprising the SC/ST/BCs and the Muslim/Christian/Sikhs (85%) — are busy doing their daily work and do not contribute to the current beating of war drums and the call for "blood-for-blood" revenge.

Tragedy of India: This hysteria exhibited through their "national" toilet papers and their television is confined to the micro-minority manuwadi upper castes who are not even 15% of our population. There are ever so many saner elements among the upper castes who do not share the call for hate, revenge, blood, bomb.

But the problem of Hindu India is though the govt. is elected by the Bahujans, the minority Brahminical forces control it. As they have the monopoly media, live in big cities and control the country's entire property and posts, their voice is alone heard.

And the tragedy of India is this unrepresentative, anti-social minority fascist voice is called the "public opinion". We are over 85%, but none cares for our voice.

Since the last over 60 years every govt. that came right from the Kashmiri Brahmin Nehru up to the Khatri Sikh Manmohan Singh (who is not even an elected leader), came to rule by the votes of the Bahujans and after getting elected it started serving the ruling class. The elected leaders also join the ruling class and concentrate only on implementing its agenda. The only agenda is to keep them poor, illiterate, diseased, toiling masses in perpetual misery.

Once  you  are  poor,  you  automatically remain uneducated and then inject in them all the Brahminical poison so that they permanently remain slaves of the Brahminical rulers.

This cycle of exploitation is continuing with the full blessings of the ruling Brahminical religion, their millions of holy men, their super rich temples, and their "sacred scriptures".

Dr. Ambedkar died a sad man: Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, the Father of India, had said all these hundreds of times and died a sad man because the ruling Brahminical order used the monster Mahatma to see that every warning given by Babasaheb is maligned, rejected and dug deep in the sands of history.

This is the tragic history of "independent India" which this very Mahatma handed over to the Hindu hounds and reduced us into permanent slavery. And converted India into a failed state.

If there is a war today it is the innocent, hard-working producers of wealth who will suffer and die. That is why our people are always peace-mongers. Only the Dalal Street Dagabhajis want war.

Religious hatred: The perpetrators of war frenzy are hiding the fact that they are motivated by religious hatred. The Brahminical toilet papers are experts in suppressing the truth. But even a child can make out that the Hindu hate-mongers are itching for war — which nobody in India wants except this ruling class. In the US, the Neocon hate-mongers (read zionist Jews) concocted the 9/11, managed to raise anti-Muslim hatred and forced President Bush to launch the "clash of civilisations", meaning a war on Islam. But what ultimately happened was the war consumed its very perpetrator. The booting of Bush at a Baghdad press conference symbolised how much Bush is hated not only in the Muslim world but all over the world and even inside America.

The religious hatred generated by the tiny Brahminical rulers of India resulted in the partition of India and hundreds of anti-Muslim riots — big and small. Yet the Brahminical thirst for blood is not quenched. They want more war, more violence, more blood, despite having not a single friendly neighbour but believing in the  goodwill of one single country, America, which itself is hesitating to support the Hindu hysteria.

Pakistan wins diplomatic battle: That means "Hindu India" has found itself lonely and isolated. A Brahminical daily DNA (Dec.27, 2008) even frankly admitted in its lead story saying "Pakistan wins". Because China, Saudi Arabia and even America which India approached asked India to stop sabre-rattling. The Bengali Brahmin Foreign Minister was spitting too much fire and whipping up a war hysteria. India has not a single friend in the world except America but even that became  unhelpful.

But on the other Pakistan, a small and weak country, won the first round. Going by the reports in the Brahminical media itself the entire Pakistani political, religious, military leadership, plus the media, stood as one man to fight "Hindu India". But inside India the Bengali Brahmin Foreign Minister and the Khatri Sikh PM spoke in different voices. The Bahujans who never hate Muslims refused to support their centuries-old Brahminical enemy.

India as a failed state: An offshoot of the current crisis is Gen. Kiyani, the Pakistan army chief, has emerged as the strongman much to the disappointment of the Indian rulers who fondly hoped the corrupt President Zardari would be favourable to India. Zardari has now gone to background in the current churning. Even Nawaz Shariff who earlier differed on some issues has fallen in line. This is another blow on the Brahminical face.

In contrast the opinion in India's ruling class itself is divided. Only the irresponsible Brahminical media is itching for war.

We have no hope in the Brahminical hate-mongers ever giving up their hate and their unending thirst for blood and more blood. Any student who has studied the tragic history of India will have to come to this conclusion.

Though India is called a democracy where the majority is supposed to rule, the Bahujan majority of toiling Indians have no voice because they are made slaves. India has already become a failed state, and as our "India Shining" regular column has revealed we as a country are being pushed backward and more backward.

The Brahminical ruling class not only lives in luxury but, as the latest Bombay terrorist attack has revealed, is ever eager to turn any incident to its advantage to further bludgeon the already bleeding Bahujans.

Why India has no revolution: Foreign observers are wondering why the toiling millions, unable to bear the pain of exploitation, are not revolting. Yes. This is a good question which we have answered many times.

Revolution will come only when the oppressed people become conscious of their exploitation and get angry. Here in India the people no doubt are in great pain. But they are not getting angry because they don't know who is causing this pain. The Hindu rulers have so effectively mesmerised the suffering masses and convinced them that their suffering is because of their own destiny. This Hindu poison injected deep into their veins has convinced them that their suffering is their own making. They are made so unthinking that they can't identify the enemy-oppressor even when he is standing right in front of him and siphoning off his blood — even as he falls dead in this painless (Hindu) operation. Dr. Ambedkar has said all these.

Letters of blood: Except Dalit Voice, we have not even a single media to bring this to the notice of the victims of this painless operation.

This is the tragic, blood-curdling history of Hindu India. This history has been repeating — endlessly centuries after century.

If any good-hearted, far-sighted, impartial, noble historian were to come in future, she or he can write the sordid, atrophied, violent, criminal past of India only in letters of blood. (Dec.Jan.1, 2009)

(Hindu Serpent vs. Muslim Mongoose, DSA-2007, Rs. 25).

http://www.dalitvoice.org/Templates/jan_a2009/editorial.htm

Just as zionism is killing zionist Israel, "Jews of India" can never, ever convert India into Hindu Rashtra

The 60-year-old monstrous zionist state of Israel, forged in fraud and boiled in blood, is doomed to die. This is the picture we get as the hated Jewish state celebrates its 60th birthday in May 2008.

The zionist state's 60th birthday is relevant to us because our country ruled by the "Jews of India" is also 61 years old and there is a powerful move to bring the two into a tight embrace with disastrous consequences to the limping and lingering Bahujans of India.

Israel's Arab citizens, who form a fifth of its population, are treated as second-class citizens though Israel claims to be the best democratic state in the world. It is one of the richest countries in the world, a nuclear power, with the world's sole super power, USA, at its beck and call showering dollars and weapons whenever sought. All the zionist-controlled European countries like UK, Germany, France provide full security from any hostile neighbours. Over and above all this the Western world's zionist-controlled media always paints a glorious picture of Israel whatever may be its crimes.

Gloomy future: With everything so favourable what is the situation inside Israel on its birthday? It is chaos, confusion, anarchy. More than anything the Israelis themselves are worried about their uncertain future. Thinking Jews are not even getting a sound sleep in the night.

On the top of all this the very existence of Israel is threatened by the Iranian bomb in the making and two deadly "terrorist" neighbours —Hizbollah on one side and Hamas on another — are out to crush Israel like a bed bug. Such is the all-round hatred the zionists have generated in the hearts of Muslims and all other fair-minded citizens the world-over.

Israel cares a damn to the United Nations and never bothered to implement even a single binding resolution of the world organisation. How can it considered a civilised state?

Racism inside: Apart from the Arab-Israelis living in the country, treated as enemy within, the Jewish nation is practising racism against its own Jewish citizens. The Jewish immigrants from Russia, India and Ethiopean Black Falashas (Jews) are segregated and treated as a second-class citizens.

Ashkenazi Jews comprise Israel's ruling class like the "Jews of India" enforcing the world's worst form of racism against the country's Untouchables forming 20% of its population.

While in the next-door enemy country of Palestine, the population of Arabs is simply exploding, the Jewish population is dwindling. Such a "demographic threat" is more serious than the Iranian bomb which can be countered and fought. But what can Jews, who cannot produce children, do if the swelling population of Palestinians produces reckless human bombs which the cowardly Jews cannot counter?

Democracy-mongers taunting China: More than anything else, Israel is having a chaotic political set-up. It has 12 parties in the existing parliament. The Jews claim, like the "Jews of India", to be the world's brainiest people but no govt. in Israel can last for two years. Each govt. is a coalition of several parties. So much so, Israel has become ungovernable. Differences between parties are so serious that no unanimity is possible even on a crucial issue. The hawks demand all-out attack on Gaza strip and Hamas. Such an attack will make the angry Palestinians to suspect Fatah Party chief, President Mahmoud Abbas, an American stooge, whose govt. will be the immediate casualty. If Abbas goes or killed revolutionary Hamas will take over and that means for Israel a jump from frying pan into fire.

The great democracy-mongers of the West, who teach lessons in democracy to China, are blind supporters of the anti-democratic Israel which is governed by its religion, zionism.

Israel is the only country in the world which has combined religion and nationality. Israel is only for Jews. Its religion is zionism. Is there any other state in the country which imposes such a condition? Can a racist country be democratic? What right America and the West have to teach democracy to China?

Of course, the Hindu terrorist party of RSS also wants to convert India into a Hindu Rashtra. But the 20% Muslim and 5% Sikhs and Christians, plus the non-Hindu 20% Untouchables (Dalits) will never allow it.

Self-destructive state: Even in Israel there so many "secular" Jews who are opposed to Israel being made a zionist state. But right now Israel is only for Jews and zionism its official ideology.

It is this dangerous ideology that makes Israel a self-destructive state. Zionism will kill the zionist Israel. Hindu terrorist leaders itching to convert India into Hindu Rashtra, please note.

India's Brahminical rulers are great admirers of zionist Israel. Several secret agreements have been signed between the two, including defence pacts covering even the Muslim state of Kashmir. India's intelligence is intimately collaborating with Israel, apart from merging its commercial interests. Several high level delegations including political visits have been made.

Brahminism caused Holocaust: We fully understand the Brahminical anxiety to follow the zionist state and also blindly copy how it could "break the backbone" of the Muslims. "Terrorism" (read Muslim) has united the Jews and "Jews of India" in a tight embrace.

But we the victims of Brahminism in India would like to remind the Jews that these "Jews of India" were the very people who once engineered the rise of German nazis and caused the mass murder of Jews in the so-called Holocaust. (Leon Poliakov, Aryan Myth, 1977, New American Library, New York).

Being rulers of India they can do whatever they want in the Brahminical interests. Because the Brahminical people consider themselves to be the "Jews of India".

Israel no model for India: But the similarity ends there. Israel is a tiny speck compared to gigantic India both in area and population. Not only that. India has the world's largest virile Muslim population (next to Indonesia) who will never, ever allow India to be yanked to the zionist state.

Besides, India has hundreds of distinct ethnic identities not only different from the pure Aryan Brahmins, who are a micro-minority of 2%, but their very blood enemies.

"Caste identity" weapon: India is a country of pure Dravidians and Adi-Dravidas who fought the Aryan Brahminists throughout history. Please read the book, History of Hindu Imperialism by an upper caste Hindu monk, Swami Dharma Thirtha, for centuries of blood feud between invading Brahminists and the indigenous Indians.

In other words, India has over 85% hostile people inside its bosom who will never, ever allow to convert it into a Hindu Rashtra. Remember this.

The mere money, media and other strategic power it enjoys may help the Brahminical myth-makers to dazzle and entertain the fools willing to be fooled — mainly the 10 to 15% upper caste (Hindu) "literates". But the other 85% oppressed nationalities, with their powerful "caste identity" weapon in their hands, will never, ever allow them to impose their Brahminical dictatorship.

The problem with the RSS and other Hindu imperialists is they only talk of "Hindu unity" but they don't have any answer to the serious internal contradictions facing the "Hindu unity".

The indigenous SC/ST/BCs are not Hindu and were never Hindu. Even if taken for granted they are Hindu, how to forge unity when they are divided into thousands of castes (ethnic identity)? The RSS merely talks of "Hindu unity" but in action it is breaking the unity, by strengthening the caste system (the other name for Hinduism), which is the supreme hurdle to any "Hindu unity". The Brahminical silence on caste system is because their Hindu super-structure stands on the solid structure of different castes arranged on the basis of ascending order of reverence and descending degree of contempt.

Hurdles to Hindu Rashtra: Breaking this centuries-old caste system will automatically topple the supreme Brahmin sitting atop this deathless structure of caste system which is the other name for Hinduism.

We have cited only some of the most important hurdles to constitute India into a Hindu Rashtra. There are ever so many other hurdles of Muslims and other religious minorities, the north-south divide, the deep distrust within the three top dwija apex-castes of Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and the hatred of the shudras (10%) who are part of the four-fold caste system. Plus the Mangoloid tribal distrust.

The Brahmins who are driving this ramshackle goda gadi (horse-driven cart) are distrusted by their own Dwija underdog like the Vaishyas and Kshatriyas. Brahmins themselves are not united except in looting us.

If these are the many internal contradictions, then there are very many ferocious external contradictions: like the ever-waiting hostile neighbours surrounding the "Hindu nation" — all untied to bite and butcher the Hindu hound.

Chaddi boys turn into Maoists: The RSS and its camp followers know all these. Yet they think they can "manage" the internal contradictions on the lines of the "Prachanda revolution" in the Himalayan Nepal. That is how many of the RSS chaddi boys are showing greater interest in the Manuwadi marxist movement and rushing to Nepal to learn from Prachanda's proclivities.

You can take it from us this beef-eating Brahmin Prachanda will be thrown out within an year by the very indigenous toiling people of Nepal who groomed him.

So, which ever way the Brahminists look, darkness is staring at them because anything planned to destroy Justice and Truth is bound to boomerang. George W. Bush is the latest proof.

In this centuries-old blood-feud between the Brahminists and the Bahujans, India is torn to pieces and made mincemeat. Yes. This is true. Brahminists in desperation are finding a vicarious pleasure in seeing their Hindu Rashtra is neither living nor dead. We are fully aware of the Brahminical conspiracy to push India into greater and much greater misery, starvation and deprivation. Yet we will not yield.

The centuries old tug of war will continue.

DV Feb.16 2008 p.21: "Jews descended from Brahmins not vicee-versa", & p. 23: "Jews of India get closer to Jews".

DV Edit Nov.1, 2007: "Jews of India getting closer to Jews at a time when America is collapsing".

DV Oct.16, 2007 p.21: "12 top American zionists wh can destroy the world", p.22: "Ahmadinejad confirms DV report n 9/11" & p. 23: "Zionist-controlled ?US using India to attack Pakistan & Afghanistan".

DV Edit Dec.1, 2006: "As dollar sinks & America gets weaker, Jewish capital may shift to India".

DV Jan.16, 1993 p.3: "Marxism, a zionist invention to dominate the world: Karl Marx a hired writer", p.5: "Aryan origin of zionist thoughts" & p.6: "Sensational facts on world domination by zionists".

DV April 1, 2008 p.6: "Hamas bravery rattles zionists".

DV July 16, 2007 p. 12: "DV supports revolutionary Hamas & assures victory to Palestinians".

DV July 1, 2006 p.19: "Abbas as stooge of Israel".

DV March 1, 2006 p. 5: "Israeli tail wags US dog".

DV Edit Feb.16, 2006: "Shift Israel to America" Zionist state threatned by deadly enemies all around" & p. 5: "Hamas victory a death blow to Israel".

DV Feb.1, 2006 p. 5: "Curse of Muslims kills killer Sharon".

DV Dec.16, 2005 p.8: 'Racism within Israel?"

DV March 16, 2005 p.7: "US-imposed peace pact collapses".

DV Jan.1, 2005 p.15: "Abbas dissapoints Palestinians?"

DV Aug.16, 2004 p.6: "Palestine: Meaning of New World Order".

DV April 16, 2004 p.9: "Palestine must get ready for wholesale jehad against zionists".

DV March 1, 2004 p.9: "When Nature itself supports Palestinians why stop Intifada?"

DV Jan.1, 2004 p.18: "Cheering news for Palestinians".

DV Oct.16, 2003 p.5: "Arafat's martyrdom may lead to clash of civilisations".

DV Sept.16, 2003 p.15: "DV proves right on Palestine road map".

http://www.dalitvoice.org/Templates/may_a2008/editorial.htm

Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

The Right Honourable  The Earl Mountbatten of Burma  KG, GCB, OM, GCSI, GCIE, GCVO, DSO, PC
24th Viceroy of India
In office 12 February 1947 – 15 August 1947
Monarch	George VI, Emperor of India
Prime Minister	Clement Attlee
Preceded by	Archibald Wavell
Succeeded by	Title extinguished on Independence of India and Pakistan Himself (as Governor General of India) Muhammad Ali Jinnah (Governor General of Pakistan)
Governor General of India
In office 15 August 1947 – 21 June 1948
Monarch	George VI of India
Prime Minister	Jawaharlal Nehru
Preceded by	Himself (as Viceroy of India)
Succeeded by	C. Rajagopalachari
Born	25 June 1900(1900-06-25) Frogmore House, Windsor, Berkshire
Died	27 August 1979 (aged 79) Sligo Bay, County Sligo, Republic of Ireland
Spouse(s)	Edwina Ashley
Children	Patricia, Pamela
Profession	Admiral of the Fleet
Religion	Anglican

Admiral of the Fleet Louis Francis Albert Victor Nicholas Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma KG, GCB, OM, GCSI, GCIE, GCVO, DSO, PC , né Prince Louis of Battenberg (25 June 1900 – 27 August 1979) was a British admiral and statesman of German descent, and an uncle of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. He was the last Viceroy of the British Indian Empire (1947) and the first Governor-General of the independent Union of India (1947–48), from which the modern Republic of India would emerge in 1950. From 1954 until 1959 he was the First Sea Lord, a position that had been held by his father, Prince Louis of Battenberg, some forty years earlier. In 1979 Mountbatten was assassinated by the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA), who planted a bomb in his boat at Mullaghmore, County Sligo in the Republic of Ireland.

Contents [hide] 1 Ancestry 2 Early life 3 Career 3.1 Early career 3.2 Second World War 3.3 Last Viceroy 3.4 Career after India and Pakistan 3.5 Alleged plots against Harold Wilson 4 Personal life 4.1 Marriage 4.2 Daughter as heir 4.3 Mentorship of Prince of Wales 5 Death 6 Funeral 7 Styles from birth to death 8 Popular culture 9 Honours 9.1 Arms 10 See also 11 Notes 12 Further references 13 Further reading 14 External links

[edit] Ancestry

Mountbatten was born as His Serene Highness Prince Louis of Battenberg, although his German styles and titles were dropped in 1917. He was the youngest child and the second son of Prince Louis of Battenberg and his wife Princess Victoria of Hesse and by Rhine. His maternal grandparents were Ludwig IV, Grand Duke of Hesse and by Rhine and Princess Alice of the United Kingdom, who was a daughter of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. His paternal grandparents were Prince Alexander of Hesse and Princess Julia of Battenberg. His paternal grandparents' marriage was morganatic, because his grandmother was not of royal lineage; as a result, he and his father were styled "Serene Highness" rather than "Royal Highness," were not eligible to be titled Princes of Hesse and were given the less desirable Battenberg title. His siblings were Princess Andrew of Greece and Denmark (mother of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh), Queen Louise of Sweden, and George Mountbatten, 2nd Marquess of Milford Haven.^[1]

His father's forty-five year career reached its pinnacle in 1912 when he was appointed as First Sea Lord in the Admiralty. However, two years later in 1914, due to the growing anti-German sentiments that swept across Europe during the first few months of World War I and a series of lost battles at sea, Prince Louis felt it was his duty to step down from the position.^[2] In 1917, when the Royal Family stopped using their German names and titles, Prince Louis of Battenberg became Louis Mountbatten, and was created Marquess of Milford Haven. His second son acquired the courtesy style Lord Louis Mountbatten and was known as Lord Louis informally until his death notwithstanding his being granted a viscountcy in recognition of his wartime service in the Far East and an earldom for his role in the transition of India from British dependency to sovereign state.

[edit] Early life

Mountbatten was home schooled for the first ten years of his life. He was then sent to Lockers Park Prep School and finally he followed his older brother to the Naval Cadet School.In childhood he visited the Imperial Court of Russia at St Petersburg and became intimate with the doomed Russian Imperial Family; in later life he was called upon authoritatively to rebut claims by pretenders to be the supposedly surviving Grand Duchess Anastasia. As a young man he had romantic feelings towards Anastasia's sister, the Grand Duchess Maria, and until the end of his life he kept her photograph at his bedside. After his nephew's change of name and engagement to the future Queen, he is alleged to have referred to the United Kingdom's dynasty as the future "House of Mountbatten", whereupon the Dowager Queen Mary reportedly refused to have anything to do with "that Battenberg nonsense", and the name of the Royal house remains Windsor by subsequent Royal decree — this can, however, be changed on the Monarch's wishes. After the marriage of Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, it was decreed that their non-royal descendants were to bear the (maiden) surname "Mountbatten-Windsor".

[show] v • d • e Ancestors of Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma

16. Louis I, Grand Duke of Hesse and by Rhine               8. Louis II, Grand Duke of Hesse and by Rhine                       17. Landgravine Louise of Hesse-Darmstadt               4. Prince Alexander of Hesse and by Rhine                             18. Charles Louis, Hereditary Prince of Baden               9. Princess Wilhelmine of Baden                       19. Landgravine Amalie of Hesse-Darmstadt               2. Prince Louis of Battenberg                                   20. Count Friedrich Carl Emanuel Hauke               10. Count John Maurice Hauke                       21. Maria Salomé Schweppenhäuser               5. Countess Julia Hauke                             22. Franz Anton Leopold de la Fontaine               11. Sophie de la Fontaine                       23. Maria Theresia Kornély               1. Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma                                         24. Louis II, Grand Duke of Hesse and by Rhine (= 8)               12. Prince Karl of Hesse and by Rhine                       25. Princess Wilhelmine of Baden (= 9)               6. Louis IV, Grand Duke of Hesse and by Rhine                             26. Prince William of Prussia               13. Princess Elizabeth of Prussia                       27. Landgravine Marie Anna of Hesse-Homburg               3. Princess Victoria of Hesse and by Rhine                                   28. Ernest I, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha               14. Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha                       29. Princess Louise of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg               7. Princess Alice of the United Kingdom                             30. Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Strathearn               15. Victoria of the United Kingdom                       31. Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld

[edit] Career

[edit] Early career

Lord Mountbatten served in the Royal Navy as a midshipman during World War I. After his service, he attended Christ's College, Cambridge for two terms where he studied engineering in a program that was specially designed for ex-servicemen. During his time at Cambridge, Mountbatten had to balance his studies with the robust social life he enjoyed as a member of Christ's College. In 1922, Mountbatten accompanied Edward, Prince of Wales, on a royal tour of India. It was during this trip that he met and proposed to his wife-to-be Edwina Ashley. They wed on 18 July, 1922. Edward and Mountbatten formed a close friendship during the trip but their bond deteriorated during the Abdication Crisis. Mountbatten's loyalties between the wider Royal Family and the throne, on the one hand, and the then-King, on the other, were tested. Mountbatten came down firmly on the side of Prince Albert, the Duke of York, who was to assume the throne as George VI in his brother's place. Pursuing his interests in technological development and gadgetry, Mountbatten joined the Portsmouth Signal School in 1924 and then went on to briefly study electronics at Greenwich before returning to military service. In 1926, Mountbatten was appointed to Assistant Fleet Wireless and Signals Officer of the Mediterranean Fleet under the command of Admiral Sir Roger Keyes. Lord Mountbatten returned to the Signal School in 1929 as Senior Wireless Instructor. In 1931, he was again called back to military service when he was appointed Fleet Wireless Officer to the Mediterranean Fleet. It was during this time that he founded a Signal School in Malta and became acquainted with all the radio operators in the fleet. In 1934, Mountbatten was appointed to his first command. His ship was a new destroyer which he was to sail to Singapore and exchange for an older ship. He successfully brought the older ship back to port in Malta. By 1936, Mountbatten had been appointed to the Admiralty at Whitehall as a member of the Fleet Air Arm^[3].

[edit] Second World War

Lord Louis Mountbatten, Supreme Allied Commander, seen during his tour of the Arakan Front in February 1944.

When war broke out in 1939, Mountbatten was moved to active service as commander of the 5th Destroyer Flotilla from aboard his ship the HMS Kelly, which was famous for its many daring exploits^[3]. In early May 1940, Mountbatten led a British convoy in through the fog to evacuate the Allied forces participating in the Namsos Campaign. It was also in 1940 that he invented the Mountbatten Pink naval camouflage pigment. His ship was sunk in May 1941 during the Battle of Crete.

In August 1941 Mountbatten was appointed captain of HMS Illustrious which lay in Norfolk, Virginia for repairs following action at Malta in the Mediterranean in January. During this period of relative inactivity he paid a flying visit to Pearl Harbor, where he was not impressed with the poor state of readiness and a general lack of co-operation between the US Navy and US Army, including the absence of a joint HQ.

Mountbatten was a favorite of Winston Churchill (although after 1948 Churchill never spoke to him again since he was famously annoyed with Mountbatten's later role in the independence of India and Pakistan), and on 27 October 1941 Mountbatten replaced Roger Keyes as Chief of Combined Operations. His duties in this role consisted of planning commando raids across the English Channel and inventing new technical aids to assist with opposed landings^[3]. Mountbatten was in large part responsible for the planning and organization of The Raid at St. Nazaire in mid 1942: an operation resulting in the putting into disuse of one of the most heavily defended docks in Nazi-occupied France until well after war's end, the ramifications of which greatly contributed to allied supremacy in the Battle of the Atlantic. He personally pushed through the disastrous Dieppe Raid of 19 August 1942 (which certain elements of the Allied military, notably Field Marshal Montgomery, felt was ill-conceived from the start). The raid on Dieppe was widely considered to be a disaster, with casualties (including those wounded and/or taken prisoner) numbering in the thousands, the great majority of them Canadians. Historian Brian Loring Villa concluded that Mountbatten conducted the raid without authority, but that his intention to do so was known to several of his superiors, who took no action to stop him^[4]. Three noteworthy technical achievements of Mountbatten and his staff include: (1) the construction of an underwater oil pipeline from the English coast to Normandy, (2) an artificial harbor constructed of concrete caissons and sunken ships, and (3) the development of amphibious Tank-Landing Ships^[3]. Another project that Mountbatten proposed to Churchill was Project Habakkuk. It was to be a massive and impregnable 600 meter aircraft carrier made from reinforced ice or "Pykrete." Habakkuk never was actualised due to its enormous price tag.^[3]

Mountbatten claimed that the lessons learned from the Dieppe Raid were necessary for planning the Normandy invasion on D-Day nearly two years later. However, military historians such as former Royal Marine Julian Thompson have written that these lessons should not have needed a debacle such as Dieppe to be recognised.^[5] Nevertheless, as a direct result of the failings of the Dieppe raid, The British made several innovations - most notably Hobart's Funnies - innovations which, in the course of the Normandy Landings, undoubtedly saved many lives on those three beach heads upon which commonwealth soldiers were landing (Gold Beach, Juno Beach, and Sword Beach).

As a result of the Dieppe raid, Mountbatten became a controversial figure in Canada,^[6] with the Royal Canadian Legion distancing itself from him during his visits there during his later career; his relations with Canadian veterans "remained frosty".^[7] Nevertheless, a Royal Canadian Sea Cadet corps (RCSCC #134 Admiral Mountbatten in Sudbury, Ontario) was named after him in 1946.

In October 1943, Churchill appointed Mountbatten the Supreme Allied Commander South East Asia Command. His less practical ideas were sidelined by an experienced planning staff led by Lt-Col. James Allason, though some, such as a proposal to launch an amphibious assault near Rangoon, got as far as Churchill before being quashed.^[8] He would hold the post until the South East Asia Command (SEAC) was disbanded in 1946.

During his time as Supreme Allied Commander of the Southeast Asia Theatre, his command oversaw the recapture of Burma from the Japanese by General William Slim. Here, he worked closely with esteemed American general Albert Coady Wedemeyer. His diplomatic handling of General "Vinegar Joe" Stilwell -- his deputy and also the officer commanding the American China Burma India Theatre -- and Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, leader of the Chinese Nationalist forces, was as gifted as that of General Eisenhower with General Montgomery and Winston Churchill. A personal high point was the reception of the Japanese surrender in Singapore when British troops returned to the island to receive the formal surrender of Japanese forces in the region led by General Itagaki Seishiro on 12 September 1945, codenamed Operation Tiderace.

[edit] Last Viceroy

Transfer of power, Viceroy's House, New Delhi, 14 August 1947. Mountbatten and Nehru at microphone; Edwina standing at throne

His experience in the region and in particular his perceived Labour sympathies at that time led to Clement Attlee appointing him Viceroy of India after the war. In his position as Viceroy, Mountbatten oversaw the granting of independence to the Partitioned India as India and Pakistan (In subsequent years, pre-Independence India has often been referred to as "British India." Prior to Partition and Independence, "British India" referred to those parts of India which were directly administered by the British, as opposed to those portions of pre-Independence India which were under the control of the Indian princes.)

He developed a strong relationship with the Indian princes who were said to have considerable confidence in him, and on the basis of his relationship with the British monarchy persuaded most of them to accede to the new states of India and Pakistan. This was vitally important in the lead-up to Indian independence, though ultimately post-Independence India and Pakistan abolished their prerogatives. It has never been made clear, and no Mountbatten biographies mention the issue, whether Mountbatten was deliberately or inadvertently enticing the Indian princes into acceding to their soon-oblivion.

Mountbatten quickly decided that a unified India was an unachievable goal and he resigned himself to accept a plan that called for the partitioning of an independent India and Pakistan^[3].The general atmosphere surrounding the presence of Mountbatten in India was one of pressing urgency. Even the British government felt the need for the process of independence for India had to be quickly advanced^[9]. With such feelings surrounding the situation, the mind frame of Mountbatten being determined to provide a rapid independence for India is understandable. Mountbatten was steadfast and insistent on the swift and efficient action of transferring power from the British to the Indians. However such narrowly, focused determination did provide the impression the British were serious about actually giving India independence. Mountbatten was adamant about creating a set date for the transference of power from the British to the Indians. He felt if a date or timeline was not set, there would be a higher level of distrust towards him and the British government because the lack of such a plan would cause the Indians to think the British wanted to draw out the process so they could stay and impose their authority for longer^[10] . Such a thought process demonstrates either the British awareness of Indian desires or lack of the capacity to sustain colony as large and populous as India thus the urgency to give independence.

Gandhi in his struggle for freedom for India was emphatic in his message of gaining and maintaining a united India. The sentiment was successful for a while to rally people around the cause for freedom. However when the prospect of actually having freedom and independence within reach, sentiments took a different turn. When Mountbatten was sent to India, he was sent with the instructions of providing independence to a united India however if the situation changes just do what it takes to get Britain out promptly with minimal reputational damage^[11] . Although there was emphasis on having a united India as a result of the transference of power, the weighted importance given to Britain escaping with their noses clean deemed to be a higher priority which in turn affected the way negotiations took place when independence was discussed, especially between divided parties of Hindus and Muslims. Mountbatten was fond of Nehru and his liberal outlook for the country^[12] . However it was a different emotion expressed when he dealt with Jinnah, "…Mountbatten used strong language in describing Jinnah"^[13] Mountbatten did try to advocate for a united India and was almost successful at persuading Jinnah to maintain a united India because of the inconvenience of segregated portioned of Bengal and Punjab amongst those specific states^[14]. But Jinnah was unyielding at the insistence of a separate state being Pakistan even if it does have an uneven population and geographical shape due to the partitioning of Bengal and Punjab^[14]. Jinnah had the similar focused determination as Mountbatten in terms of the goals they wanted to achieve both being very different, yet Mountbatten was aware of the power which Jinnah possessed " "If it could be said that any single man held the future of India in the palm of his hand in 1947," said the viceroy, "that man was Mohammed Ali Jinnah,"^[15] . Slowly the other Indian party leaders were coming to accept the stance of Jinnah; Gandhi was more or less the only one fighting for a united India close to the official independence of India^[16]. With the submitting to the idea of partition by other Indian leaders, this made the process of Indian independence gather speed in the proceedings which made life simpler for Mountbatten at the time. The levels of simplicity provided by the Indian leaders lowered the need for Mountbatten to fight for and gain a united India.

After Independence (midnight of 14 August/15 August 1947, celebrated on the 14th in Pakistan and the 15th in India) he remained in New Delhi for ten months, serving as the first of independent India's two governors general until June 1948 (the monarchy being abolished in 1950 and the office of governor general of India replaced with a non-executive presidency.) Notwithstanding extremely effective self-promotion during his lifetime as to his own part in Indian independence — notably in the television series "The Life and Times of Admiral of the Fleet Lord Mountbatten of Burma", produced by his son-in-law Lord Brabourne, and Dominique Lapierre and Larry Collins's rather sensationalised Freedom at Midnight (as to which he was the main informant) — his record is seen as mixed; one view is that he hastened the independence process unduly, foreseeing vast disruption and loss of life and not wanting this to occur on the British watch, but thereby actually causing it to occur, especially during the partition of the Punjab, but also to a lesser extent, in Bengal.^[17]

John Kenneth Galbraith, the Canadian-American Harvard University economist, who advised governments of India during the 1950s, became an intimate of Nehru and served as the American ambassador from 1961–63, was a particularly harsh critic of Mountbatten in this regard. The horrific casualties of the partition of the Punjab are luridly described in Collins' and LaPierre's Freedom at Midnight, as to which Mountbatten was the principal informant, and more latterly in Bapsi Sidhwa's novel Ice Candy Man (published in the USA as Cracking India), made into the film Earth.

[edit] Career after India and Pakistan

After India, Mountbatten served from 1948–1950 as commander of a cruiser squadron in the Mediterranean Fleet. He then went on to serve as Fourth Sea Lord in the Admiralty from 1950–52 and then returned to the Mediterranean Fleet in 1952 to serve as Naval Commander-in-chief for three years. Mountbatten served his final posting in the Admiralty as First Sea Lord from 1955–59, the position which his father had held some forty years prior. This was the first time in Royal Naval history that a father and son had gained so high a rank ^[18].

In his biography of Mountbatten, Philip Ziegler notes on his ambitious character:

"His vanity, though child-like, was monstrous, his ambition unbridled. The truth, in his hands, was swiftly converted from what it was, to what it should have been. He sought to rewrite history with cavalier indifference to the facts to magnify his own achievements. There was a time when I became so enraged by what I began to feel was his determination to hoodwink me that I found it necessary to place on my desk a notice saying: REMEMBER, IN SPITE OF EVERYTHING, HE WAS A GREAT MAN."^[19]

While serving as First Sea Lord, his primary concerns dealt with devising plans on how the Royal Navy would keep shipping lanes open in the event that Britain was hit with a nuclear attack. Today this seems of minor importance but at the time few people comprehended the potential limitless destruction nuclear weapons possess and the ongoing dangers posed by the fallout. Military commanders had no need to understand the physics involved in a nuclear explosion. This becomes evident when Mountbatten had to be reassured that the fission reactions from the Bikini Atoll tests would not spread through the oceans and blow up the planet.^[20] As Mountbatten became more familiar with this new form of weaponry, he increasingly grew opposed to their use in combat yet at the same time he realised the potential nuclear energy had, especially with regards to submarines. Mountbatten clearly expresses his feelings towards the use of nukes in combat in his article "A Military Commander Surveys The Nuclear Arms Race," which was published shortly after his death in International Security in the winter of 1979–80.^[21] After leaving the Admiralty, Lord Mountbatten took the position of Chief of the Defense Staff. He served in this post for six years during which he was able to consolidate the three service departments of the military branch into a single Ministry of Defence.

Mountbatten was appointed the first Lord Lieutenant of the Isle of Wight following that county's creation in 1974. He kept the position until his death.

Mountbatten took great pride in enhancing intercultural understanding and in 1984, with his eldest daughter as the patron, the Mountbatten Internship Programme^[22] was developed to allow young adults the opportunity to enhance their intercultural appreciation and experience by spending time abroad.

From 1967 until 1978, Mountbatten became president of the United World Colleges Organisation, then represented by a single college: that of Atlantic College in South Wales. Mountbatten supported the United World Colleges and encouraged heads of state, politicians and personalities throughout the world to share his interest. Under Mountbatten's presidency and personal involvement, the United World College of South East Asia was established in Singapore in 1971, followed by the UWC of the Pacific (now known as Pearson College) in Victoria, Canada in 1974. In 1978, Lord Mountbatten of Burma passed the Presidency to his great-nephew, HRH The Prince of Wales.^[23]

[edit] Alleged plots against Harold Wilson

Peter Wright, in his book Spycatcher, claimed that in 1967 Mountbatten attended a private meeting with press baron and MI5 agent Cecil King, and the Government's chief scientific adviser, Solly Zuckerman. King and Peter Wright were members of a group of thirty MI5 officers who wanted to stage a coup against the then crisis-stricken Labour Government of Harold Wilson, and King allegedly used the meeting to urge Mountbatten to become the leader of a Government of national salvation. Solly Zuckerman pointed out that it was treason, and the idea came to nothing because of Mountbatten's reluctance to act.^[24]

In 2006 the BBC documentary The Plot Against Harold Wilson alleged that there had been another plot involving Mountbatten to oust Wilson during his second term in office (1974-76). The period was characterised by high inflation, increasing unemployment and widespread industrial unrest. The alleged plot centred around right-wing former military figures who were supposedly building private armies to counter the perceived threat from trade unions and the Soviet Union. They believed that the Labour Party, which is partly funded by affiliated trade unions, was unable and unwilling to counter these developments and that Wilson was either a Soviet agent or at the very least a Communist sympathiser, claims Wilson strongly denied. The documentary alleged that a coup plot was planned to overthrow Wilson and replace him with Mountbatten using the private armies and sympathisers in the military and MI5. The documentary stated that Mountbatten and other members of the British Royal Family supported the plot and were involved in its planning.^[25]

Wilson had long believed that there had been an MI5 sponsored plan to overthrow him. This suspicion was heightened in 1974 when the Army occupied Heathrow Airport on the grounds that it was training for a possible IRA terrorist action there. Marcia Falkender, a senior aide and intimate friend of Wilson, asserted that the Prime Minister hadn't been informed of the exercise and that it was ordered as a practice-run for a military takeover. Wilson was also convinced that a small group of right-wing MI5 officers were conducting a smear campaign against him. Such allegations had previously been attributed to Wilson's paranoia, not least because in 1988, Peter Wright admitted that the allegations in his book were "unreliable" and greatly exaggerated.^[26][27] However the BBC documentary interviewed several new witnesses who gave new credibility to the allegations.

Crucially, the first official history of MI5, Defence of the Realm published in 2009, tacitly confirmed that there was a plot against Wilson and that MI5 did have a file on him. Yet it also made clear that the plot was in no way official and that any activity centred around a small group of discontented officers. This much had already been confirmed by former cabinet secretary Lord Hunt, who concluded in a secret inquiry conducted in 1996 that, "There is absolutely no doubt at all that a few, a very few, malcontents in MI5 . . . a lot of them like Peter Wright who were rightwing, malicious and had serious personal grudges – gave vent to these and spread damaging malicious stories about that Labour government."^[28]

Mountbatten's role in the plotting remains unclear. At the very least he appears to have associated with people who were greatly concerned about the country in the 1970s and were prepared to consider acting against the Government. It also seems certain that he shared their concerns. However, even though the BBC documentary alleged that he had offered his services to the coup plotters, it cannot be confirmed that he actually would have led a coup had it come about. It is notable that any plots that were discussed never actually took place, perhaps because the number of people involved was so small that any chances of success were slim.

[edit] Personal life

[edit] Marriage

Mountbatten's nickname among family and friends was "Dickie," notable in that "Richard" was not among his given names. This was because his great-grandmother, Queen Victoria, suggested the nickname of "Nicky", however it got mixed up with the many Nickys of the Russian Imperial Family ("Nicky" was particularly used to refer to Nicholas II, the last Tsar) so they changed it to Dickie. Mountbatten was married on 18 July 1922 to Edwina Cynthia Annette Ashley, daughter of Wilfred William Ashley, later 1st Baron Mount Temple, himself a grandson of the 7th Earl of Shaftesbury. She was the favourite granddaughter of the Edwardian magnate Sir Ernest Cassel and the principal heir to his fortune. There followed a glamorous honeymoon tour of European courts and America which famously included a visit with Douglas Fairbanks, Mary Pickford and Charlie Chaplin in Hollywood, Chaplin creating a widely seen home movie "Nice and Easy", featuring the talents of Fairbanks, Pickford, Chaplin and the Mountbattens. They had two daughters: Patricia Mountbatten, 2nd Countess Mountbatten of Burma (born on 14 February 1924), and Lady Pamela Carmen Louise (Hicks) (born on 19 April 1929).

The couple, in some ways, seemed incompatible from the beginning. Lord Mountbatten's obsession with being organised led him to keep a very close watch on Edwina and he demanded her constant attention. Having no real hobby or passions and living the lifestyle of royalty, Edwina spent most of her time partying with the British and Indian elite, going on cruises and secluding herself at the couple's country house on weekends. Even with growing unhappiness on both their parts, Louis refused to get a divorce fearing that it would hinder his climb up the military command chain. There were charges of infidelity against both. Edwina's numerous affairs led Louis to pursue a relationship with a French woman named Yola Letellier. From this point forward their marriage disintegrated into constant accusations and suspicions. Throughout the 1930s both readily admitted to numerous affairs. World War II gave Edwina the opportunity to focus on something other than Louis' infidelity. She joined the St. John's Ambulance Brigade as an administrator. This role gave Edwina the legacy of being a heroine of the Partition Period because of her efforts to ease the pain and suffering of the people in the Punjab.

It has been well documented that Edwina and India's first PM Jawaharlal Nehru became intimate friends after Indian Independence. During the summers, she would frequent the PM's house so she could lounge about on his veranda during the hot Delhi days. Personal correspondence between the two reveals a satisfying yet frustrating relationship. Edwina states in one of her letters "Nothing that we did or felt would ever be allowed to come between you and your work or me and mine -- because that would spoil everything."^[29] Despite this, it is still debated whether or not their relationship became physical. Both Mountbatten daughters have candidly acknowledged that their mother had a fiery temperament and was not always supportive of her husband when jealousy of his high profile overbore a sense of their having common cause. Lady Mountbatten died on 21 February 1960 at the age of 58 while in North Borneo inspecting medical facilities. Her death is thought to have been caused by a heart condition.

Until his assassination in 1979, Mountbatten kept a photograph of his cousin Grand Duchess Maria Nikolaevna of Russia, beside his bed in memory of the crush he once had upon her.^[30]

[edit] Daughter as heir

Since Mountbatten had no sons, when he was created Viscount on 23 August 1946, then Earl and Baron on 28 October 1947, the Letters Patent were drafted such that the titles would pass to the female line and its male issue. This was at his firm insistence: his relationship with his elder daughter had always been particularly close and it was his special wish that she succeed to the title in her own right. There was longstanding precedent for such remainders for military commanders: past examples included the 1st Viscount Nelson and the 1st Earl Roberts.

[edit] Mentorship of Prince of Wales

Mountbatten was a strong influence in the upbringing of his great-nephew, The Prince of Wales, and later as a mentor—"Honorary Grandfather" and "Honorary Grandson", they fondly called each other according to the Jonathan Dimbleby biography of the Prince—though according to both the Ziegler biography of Mountbatten and the Dimbleby biography of the Prince the results may have been mixed. He from time to time strongly upbraided the Prince for showing tendencies towards the idle pleasure-seeking dilettantism of his predecessor as Prince of Wales, King Edward VIII, later known as the Duke of Windsor, whom Mountbatten had known well in their youth. Yet he also encouraged the Prince to enjoy the bachelor life while he could and then to marry a young and inexperienced girl so as to ensure a stable married life.^[31]

Mountbatten's qualification for offering advice to this particular heir to the throne was unique; it was he who had arranged the visit of George VI and Queen Elizabeth to Dartmouth Royal Naval College on 22 July 1939, taking care to include the young Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret in the invitation, but assigning his nephew, Cadet Prince Philip of Greece, to keep them amused while their parents toured the facility. This was the first recorded meeting of Charles's future parents.^[32] But a few months later, Mountbatten's efforts nearly came to naught when he received a letter from his sister Alice in Athens informing him that Philip was visiting her and had agreed to permanently repatriate to Greece. Within days, Philip received a command from his cousin and sovereign, King George II of the Hellenes, to resume his naval career in Britain which, though given without explanation, the young prince obeyed.^[33]

Christ in Triumph over Darkness and Evil by Gabriel Loire (1982) at St. George's Cathedral, Cape Town, South Africa, in memory of Lord Mountbatten.

In 1974 Mountbatten began corresponding with Charles about a potential marriage to his granddaughter, Hon. Amanda Knatchbull.^[34] It was about this time he also recommended that the 25-year-old prince get on with sowing some wild oats.^[34] Charles dutifully wrote to Amanda's mother (who was also his godmother), Lady Brabourne, about his interest. Her answer was supportive, but advised him that she thought her daughter still rather young to be courted.^[35]

Four years later Mountbatten secured an invitation for himself and Amanda to accompany Charles on his planned 1980 tour of India.^[36] Their fathers promptly objected. Prince Philip thought that the Indian public's reception would more likely reflect response to the uncle than to the nephew. Lord Brabourne counselled that the intense scrutiny of the press would be more likely to drive Mountbatten's godson and granddaughter apart than together.^[35]

Charles was re-scheduled to tour India alone, but Mountbatten did not live to the planned date of departure. When Charles finally did propose marriage to Amanda, later in 1979, the circumstances were tragically changed, and she refused him.^[35]

[edit] Death

Mountbatten usually holidayed at his summer home in Mullaghmore, County Sligo, a small seaside village between Bundoran, County Donegal and Sligo, County Sligo on the northwest coast of Ireland. Bundoran was a popular holiday destination for volunteers of the IRA, many of whom were aware of Mountbatten's presence and movements in Mullaghmore.^{[citation needed]} Despite security advice and warnings from the Garda Síochána, on 27 August 1979, Mountbatten went lobster-potting in a thirty-foot (10 m) wooden boat, the Shadow V, which had been moored in the harbour at Mullaghmore. An IRA member named Thomas McMahon had slipped on to the unguarded boat that night and attached a radio-controlled fifty-pound (23 kg) bomb. When Mountbatten was on the boat en route to Donegal Bay, an unknown person detonated the bomb from shore. McMahon had been arrested earlier at a Garda checkpoint between Longford and Granard. Mountbatten, then aged 79, was seriously wounded and died soon after the blast by drowning while unconscious in the bay. Others killed in the blast were Nicholas Knatchbull, his elder daughter's 14-year-old son; Paul Maxwell, a 15-year-old youth from County Fermanagh who was working as a crew member; and Baroness Brabourne, his elder daughter's 83-year-old mother-in-law who was seriously injured in the explosion, and died from her injuries the following day.^[37] Nicholas Knatchbull's mother and father, along with his twin brother Timothy, survived the explosion but were seriously injured.

McMahon was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder on 23 November 1979.

Sinn Féin vice-president Gerry Adams said of Mountbatten's death:

The IRA gave clear reasons for the execution. I think it is unfortunate that anyone has to be killed, but the furor created by Mountbatten's death showed up the hypocritical attitude of the media establishment. As a member of the House of Lords, Mountbatten was an emotional figure in both British and Irish politics. What the IRA did to him is what Mountbatten had been doing all his life to other people; and with his war record I don't think he could have objected to dying in what was clearly a war situation. He knew the danger involved in coming to this country. In my opinion, the IRA achieved its objective: people started paying attention to what was happening in Ireland.^[38]

On the same day Mountbatten was assassinated, the IRA also ambushed and killed eighteen British Army soldiers, sixteen of them from the Parachute Regiment at Warrenpoint, County Down in what became known as the Warrenpoint ambush. After this action, graffiti proclaiming "Bloody Sunday's Not Forgotten, We Got Eighteen And Mountbatten" was seen in some Republican areas in Ireland.

Prince Charles took Mountbatten's death particularly hard, remarking to friends that things were never the same after losing his mentor.^[39] It has recently been revealed that Mountbatten had been favourable towards the eventual reunification of Ireland.^[40][41]

[edit] Funeral

Mountbatten's grave at Romsey Abbey

The President of Ireland, Patrick Hillery, and the Taoiseach, Jack Lynch, attended a memorial service for Mountbatten in St. Patrick's Cathedral in Dublin. Mountbatten was buried in Romsey Abbey after a televised funeral in Westminster Abbey which he himself had comprehensively planned.^[42]

On 23 November 1979, Thomas McMahon was convicted of murder for his part in the bombing. He was released in 1998 under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement.^[43][44]

On hearing of Mountbatten's death, the then Master of the Queen's Music, Malcolm Williamson, was moved to write the Lament in Memory of Lord Mountbatten of Burma for violin and string orchestra. One of the most poignant of tributes paid to Mountbatten, the 11-minute work was given its first performance on 5 May 1980 by the Scottish Baroque Ensemble, conducted by Leonard Friedman.^[45]

[edit] Styles from birth to death

• His Serene Highness Prince Louis of Battenberg (1900–1917)
  • German: Durchlaucht Prinz Ludwig Franz Albrecht Viktor Nicholas Georg von Battenberg
• Louis Mountbatten (1917)
• Lord Louis Mountbatten (1917–1920)
• Lord Louis Mountbatten, MVO (1920–1922)
• Lord Louis Mountbatten, KCVO (1921–1937)
• Lord Louis Mountbatten, GCVO (1937–1941)
• Lord Louis Mountbatten, GCVO, DSO (1941–1943)
• Lord Louis Mountbatten, GCVO, CB, DSO (1943–1946)
• The Right Honourable The Viscount Mountbatten of Burma, KG, GCVO, KCB, DSO (1946–1947)
• The Right Honourable The Viscount Mountbatten of Burma, KG, GCVO, KCB, DSO, PC (1947)
• The Right Honourable The Earl Mountbatten of Burma, KG, GCSI, GCIE, GCVO, KCB, DSO, PC (1947–1955)
• The Right Honourable The Earl Mountbatten of Burma, KG, GCB, GCSI, GCIE, GCVO, DSO, PC (1955–1965)
• The Right Honourable The Earl Mountbatten of Burma, KG, GCB, OM, GCSI, GCIE, GCVO, DSO, PC (1965–1979)

[edit] Popular culture

Lord Mountbatten (played by Christopher Owen) appears in the 2008 film The Bank Job, telling the story of a government-approved bank robbery in the 1970s. In a covert rendezvous at Paddington station, Mountbatten is portrayed as the representative of the British government and gives the robbers documents guaranteeing immunity from prosecution, in exchange for naked photographs of Princess Margaret, potentially embarrassing to the Royal Family. Mountbatten quips "I haven't had this much excitement since the war".^[46]

In 1986, Masterpiece Theatre put on The Mountbatten: The Last Viceroy, starring Nichol Williamson and Janet Suzman as Lord and Lady Mountbatten. It focused on the India years and hinted at Lady Mountbatten's relationship with Nehru.

In his song Post World War Two Blues, published on the LP Past, Present and Future from 1973, singer and songwriter Al Stewart has a reference to Mountbatten's controversy with Winston Churchill about India.

Mountbatten was due to feature in the recently canceled film Indian Summer which was to cover his time as Viceroy of India, and potentially the affair between his wife and Nehru. It was to be loosely based on the book Indian Summer: The Secret history of the end of an empire by Alex von Tunzelmann.^[47]

Lord Mountbatten was played by David Warner in the 2008 television film In Love with Barbara, a biopic of the romantic novelist Barbara Cartland which was shown on BBC Four in the United Kingdom.

The Mountbatten School was opened in his name in 1969 on land that originally used to be part of the Broadlands Estate in Whitenap, Romsey.

The School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences at Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh is named after him.

Benny Hill told a famous joke which went, "What's white and flies?" "Lord Mountbatten's Plimsol"

In The Simpsons Dead Putting Society episode, when Bart and Todd decide to call the final round a draw and split the prize, one of the tournament announcers says "This is the most stirring display of gallantry and sportsmanship since Mountbatten gave India back to the Punjabs."

[edit] Honours

• 1937: Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order – GCVO (1920: MVO, 1922: KCVO)
• 1941: Distinguished Service Order – DSO
• 1943: Knight of Justice of St John – KJStJ
• 1946: Knight of the Garter – KG
• 1947: Knight Grand Commander of the Star of India – GCSI
• 1947: Knight Grand Commander of the Indian Empire – GCIE
• 1955: Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath – GCB (1943: CB, 1945: KCB)
• 1956: Grand Commander of the Order of Thiri Thudhamma (Burma)
• 1965: Member of the Order of Merit – OM

A road in South-Eastern Singapore was named Mountbatten Road, in honour of Louis Mountbatten.

[edit] Arms

Arms of Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma Notes The arms of the Earl of Burma consist of: Crest Crests of Hesse modified and Battenberg. Helm Helms of Hesse modified and Battenberg. Escutcheon Within the Garter, Quarterly, 1st and 4th, Hesse modified; 2nd and 3rd, Battenberg; charged at the honour point with an inescutcheon of the Royal arms with a label of three points argent, the centre point charged with a rose gules and each of the others with an ermine spot sable (Princess Alice, his grandmother).[48] Supporters Two Lions queue fourchee and crowned all or.

[edit] See also

• Mountbatten internship programme

[edit] Notes

1. ^ Burke's Guide to the Royal Family: edited by Hugh Montgomery-Massingberd, p. 303.
2. ^ Lord Zuckerman,Earl Mountbatten of Burma, K.G., O.M. 25 June 1900-27 August 1979, in Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society, Vol. 27 (Nov., 1981), pp 355-364. Accessed 13/05/2009 at www.jstor.org/stable/769876
3. ^ ^{a b c d e f} Zuckerman,Earl Mountbatten of Burma, K.G., O.M. 25 June 1900-27 August 1979
4. ^ Villa, Brian Loring (1989). Unauthorized Action: Mountbatten and the Dieppe Raid. Toronto: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195408047. 
5. ^ Thompson, Julian (2001) [2000]. "14. The Mediterranean and Atlantic, 1941–1942". The Royal Marines: from Sea Soldiers to a Special Force (Paperback ed.). London: Pan Books. pp. 263–9. ISBN 0-330-37702-7. 
6. ^ Villa, Brian Loring (1989). Unauthorized Action: Mountbatten and the Dieppe Raid. Toronto: Oxford University Press. pp. 240–241. ISBN 0195408047. 
7. ^ "Who Was Responsible For Dieppe?" CBC Archives, broadcast 9 September 1962. Retrieved 1 August 2007.
8. ^ The Hot Seat", James Allason, Blackthorn, London 2006.
9. ^ Ziegler, Philip, MOUNTBATTEN: INCLUDING HIS YEARS AS THE LAST VICEROY OF INDIA, (New York: Knopf, 1985)
10. ^ Ziegler, MOUNTBATTEN: INCLUDING HIS YEARS AS THE LAST VICEROY OF INDIA, 355
11. ^ Ziegler, MOUNTBATTEN: INCLUDING HIS YEARS AS THE LAST VICEROY OF INDIA, 359
12. ^ SarDesai, D.R, INDIA: THE DEFINITIVE HISTORY (Boulder: Westview Press, 2008), 309-313
13. ^ SarDesai, INDIA: THE DEFINITIVE HISTORY , 309
14. ^ ^{a b} Greenberg, Jonathan D. "Generations of Memory: Remembering Partition in India/Pakistan and Israel/Palestine." Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East 25, no.1 (2005): 89. Project MUSE
15. ^ SarDesai,, INDIA: THE DEFINITIVE HISTORY , 309
16. ^ Ziegler, MOUNTBATTEN: INCLUDING HIS YEARS AS THE LAST VICEROY OF INDIA, 373
17. ^ See, e.g., Wolpert, Stanley (2006). Shameful Flight: The Last Years of the British Empire in India.
18. ^ Patton, Allyson, Broadlands: Lord Mountbatten's Country Home in British Heritage, Vol. 26, Issue 1,March 2005, pp. 14-17. Accessed from Academic Search Complete on 13/05/2009.
19. ^ Ziegler, Philip Mountbatten New York, 1985. pp 17
20. ^ Zuckerman, 363.
21. ^ Mountbatten, Louis, "A Military Commander Surveys The Nuclear Arms Race," International Security, Vol. 4 No. 3 Winter 1979-1980, MIT Press. pp. 3-5
22. ^ http://www.mountbatten.org
23. ^ "History". UWC. http://www.uwc.org/about_history.html. 
24. ^ "House of Commons, Hansard: 10 January 1996 Column 287.". http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199596/cmhansrd/vo950110/debtext/60110-43.htm. 
25. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4789060.stm
26. ^ "Spies like us, The Guardian: 11 September 2001". http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2001/sep/11/freedomofinformation.media. 
27. ^ "Top 50 Political Scandals, The Spectator". http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/3756033/part_5/top-50-political-scandals-part-one.thtml. 
28. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/oct/10/defence-of-the-realm-mi5
29. ^ Bailey, Katherine, "India's Last Vicereine," British Heritage, Vol. 21, Issue 3, Apr/May 2000, pp. 16
30. ^ King and Wilson (2003), p. 49
31. ^ Junor, Penny (2005). "The Duty of an Heir". The Firm: the troubled life of the House of Windsor. New York: Thomas Dunne Books. pp. 72. ISBN 9780312352745. OCLC 59360110. http://books.google.com/books?id=e_f6-ZPQuKAC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=%22sow+his+wild+oats+and+have+as+many+affairs+as+he+can%22&source=web&ots=QUIBPMyIW5&sig=YTst6G_-qsFaAaOw9D7HwYj8jAA#PPA72,M1. Retrieved 2007-05-13. 
32. ^ Edwards, Phil (2000-10-31). "The Real Prince Philip" (TV documentary). Real Lives: channel 4's portrait gallery. Channel 4. http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/R/real_lives/prince_philip.html. Retrieved 2007-05-12. 
33. ^ Vickers, Hugo (2000). Alice, Princess Andrew of Greece. London: Hamish Hamilton. pp. 281. ISBN 0-241-13686-5. 
34. ^ ^{a b} Dimbleby, Jonathan (1994). The Prince of Wales: A Biography. New York: William Morrow and Company. pp. 204–206. 
35. ^ ^{a b c} Dimbleby, Jonathan (1994). The Prince of Wales: A Biography. New York: William Morrow and Company. pp. 263–265. 
36. ^ Dimbleby, Jonathan (1994). The Prince of Wales: A Biography. New York: William Morrow and Company. pp. 263. 
37. ^ Patton, Allyson, "Broadlands: Lord Mountbatten's Country Home," British Heritage March 2005, Vol. 26 Issue 1, pp. 14-17.
38. ^ Louisa Wright (19 November 1979). "It is "Clearly a War Situation"". TIME. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,948791-1,00.html. Retrieved 2007-09-02. 
39. ^ Royal by Robert Lacey, 2002.
40. ^ [1]
41. ^ [2]
42. ^ Hugo, Vickers (November 1989), "The Man Who Was Never Wrong", Royalty Monthly: 42 
43. ^ IRA bomb kills Lord Mountbatten — BBC News On This Day
44. ^ A Secret History of the IRA, Ed Moloney, 2002. (PB) ISBN 0-393-32502-4 (HB) ISBN 0-71-399665-X p.176
45. ^ Malcolm Williamson Obituary The Independent, 4 March 2003
46. ^ The Bank Job is Sweaty and Suspenseful - TIME
47. ^ Indian Summer: story of the Mountbattens - Times Online
48. ^ Lee, Brian (1999). British Royal Bookplates. Aldershot: Scolar Press. p. 15, 135 & 136. ISBN 0859078830. 

[edit] Further references

See also: David Leigh, "The Wilson Plot: The Intelligence Services and the Discrediting of a Prime Minister 1945–1976", London: Heinemann, 1988

[edit] Further reading

• Philip Ziegler, Mountbatten: the official biography, (Collins, 1985)
• Richard Hough, Mountbatten; Hero of our time, (Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1980)
• The Life and Times of Lord Mountbatten (Hutchinson, 1968)

• Andrew Roberts Eminent Churchillians, (Phoenix Press, 1994).
• Dominique Lapierre and Larry Collins Freedom at Midnight, (Collins, 1975).
• Robert Lacey Royal (2002)
• A.N. Wilson After the Victorians: 1901–1953, (Hutchinson, 2005)
• Jon Latimer Burma: The Forgotten War, (John Murray, 2004)
• Montgomery-Massingberd, Hugh (editor), Burke's Guide to the Royal Family, Burke's Peerage, London, 1973, ISBN 0220662223
• Tony Heathcote The British Admirals of the Fleet 1734–1995, (Pen & Sword Ltd, 2002), ISBN 0 85052 835 6
• Timothy Knatchbull From a Clear Blue Sky: Surviving the Mountbatten Bomb, (Hutchinson 2009). A personal account by Mountbatten's surviving twin grandson.

[edit] External links

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma

• mountbattenofburma.com - Tribute & Memorial website to Louis, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma
• Combined Ops
• Interaction with German U-Boat U-35 officers
• The Mountbatten Assassination: A retrospective
• The Mountbatten School, Romsey- http://www.mountbatten.hants.sch.uk/home/index.php

Government offices
Preceded by The Viscount Wavell	Viceroy of India 1947	Office abolished
	Governor-General of India 1947–1948	Succeeded by C. Rajagopalachari
		Succeeded by Muhammad Ali Jinnah as Governor-General of Pakistan
Military offices
Preceded by New title	Supreme Commander South East Asia Theatre 1943–1946	Succeeded by Disbanded
Preceded by Herbert Packer	Fourth Sea Lord 1950–1952	Succeeded by Sydney Raw
Preceded by Sir John Edelsten	Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean 1952-1954	Succeeded by Sir Guy Grantham
Preceded by Sir Rhoderick McGrigor	First Sea Lord 1955–1959	Succeeded by Sir Charles Lambe
Preceded by Sir William Dickson	Chief of the Defence Staff 1959–1965	Succeeded by Sir Richard Hull
Preceded by Rustu Erdelhun	Chairman of the NATO Military Committee 1960–1961	Succeeded by Lyman L. Lemnitzer
Academic offices
Preceded by ?	President of the United World Colleges 1967–1978	Succeeded by The Prince of Wales
Honorary titles
New title	Lord Lieutenant of the Isle of Wight 1974–1979	Succeeded by Sir John Nicholson
Peerage of the United Kingdom
New creation	Earl Mountbatten of Burma 1947–1979	Succeeded by Patricia Mountbatten
	Viscount Mountbatten of Burma 1946–1979

[show] v • d • e First Sea Lords of the Royal Navy Admiral of the Fleet The Earl Howe · Sir Peter Parker · Prince William, Duke of Clarence First Naval Lords (1828–1904) Sir George Cockburn · Sir Thomas Hardy · The Hon. George Dundas · Charles Adam · Sir George Cockburn · Sir Charles Adam · Sir George Cockburn · Sir William Parker · Sir Charles Adam · James Dundas · The Hon. Maurice Berkeley · Hyde Parker · The Hon. Maurice Berkeley · The Hon. Sir Richard Dundas · William Martin · The Hon. Sir Richard Dundas · The Hon. Sir Frederick Grey · Sir Alexander Milne · Sir Sydney Dacres · Sir Alexander Milne · Sir Hastings Yelverton · George Wellesley · Sir Astley Key · Sir Arthur Hood · Lord John Hay · Sir Arthur Hood · Sir Richard Hamilton · Sir Anthony Hoskins · Sir Frederick Richards · Lord Walter Kerr First Sea Lords (1904–present) Sir John Fisher · Sir Arthur Wilson · Sir Francis Bridgeman · Prince Louis of Battenberg · The Lord Fisher · Sir Henry Jackson · Sir John Jellicoe · Sir Rosslyn Wemyss · The Earl Beatty · Sir Charles Madden, Bt · Sir Frederick Field · The Lord Chatfield · Sir Roger Backhouse · Sir Dudley Pound · The Lord Cunningham of Hyndhope · Sir John Cunningham · The Lord Fraser of North Cape · Sir Rhoderick McGrigor · The Earl Mountbatten of Burma · Sir Charles Lambe · Sir Caspar John · Sir David Luce · Sir Varyl Begg · Sir Michael Le Fanu · Sir Peter Hill-Norton · Sir Michael Pollock · Sir Edward Ashmore · Sir Terence Lewin · Sir Henry Leach · Sir John Fieldhouse · Sir William Staveley · Sir Julian Oswald · Sir Benjamin Bathurst · Sir Jock Slater · Sir Michael Boyce · Sir Nigel Essenhigh · Sir Alan West · Sir Jonathon Band · Sir Mark Stanhope

[show] v • d • e Viceroys of India East India Company (1773–1858) Warren Hastings (1774–85) · Sir John MacPherson (1785–86) · The Marquess Cornwallis (1786–93) · The Lord Teignmouth (1793–98) · Sir Alured Clarke (1798) · The Marquess Wellesley (1798–1805) · The Marquess Cornwallis (1805) · Sir George Barlow, Bt (1805–07) · The Earl of Minto (1807–13) · The Marquess of Hastings (1813–23) · John Adam (1823) · The Earl Amherst (1823–28) · William Butterworth Bayley (1828) · Lord William Bentinck (1828–35) · Sir Charles Metcalfe (1835–36) · The Earl of Auckland (1836–42) · The Earl of Ellenborough (1842–44) · William Wilberforce Bird (1844) · The Viscount Hardinge (1844–48) · The Marquess of Dalhousie (1848–56) · The Viscount Canning (1856–58) British Government1 (1858–1947) The Earl Canning (1858–62) · The Earl of Elgin (1862–63) · The Lord Napier of Magdala (1863) · Sir William Denison (1863–64) · The Lord Lawrence (1864–69) · The Earl of Mayo (1869–72) · Sir John Strachey (1872) · The Lord Napier (1872) · The Earl of Northbrook (1872–76) · The Earl of Lytton (1876–80) · Marquess of Ripon (1880–84) · The Marquess of Dufferin and Ava (1884–88) · The Marquess of Lansdowne (1888–94) · The Earl of Elgin (1894–99) · The Lord Curzon of Kedleston (1899–1905) · The Earl of Minto (1905–10) · The Lord Hardinge of Penshurst (1910–16) · The Lord Chelmsford (1916–21) · The Earl of Reading (1921–26) · The Lord Irwin (1926–31) · The Earl of Willingdon (1931–36) · The Marquess of Linlithgow (1936–43) · The Viscount Wavell (1943–47) · The Viscount Mountbatten of Burma (1947) After Indian  independence2 The Viscount Mountbatten of Burma (1947–48) · Chakravarthi Rajagopalachari (1948–50) After Pakistani  independence3 Muhammad Ali Jinnah (1947–48) · Sir Khawaja Nazimuddin (1948–51) · Ghulam Muhammad (1951–55) · Iskander Mirza (1955–56) 1 Following the 1857 Sepoy Mutiny. 2 As representatives of George VI in his rôle as King of India (1947–50). 3 As representatives of George VI and then Elizabeth II in their rôles as King and Queen of Pakistan, respectively.

[show] v • d • e Indian independence movement History Colonisation · East India Company · British India · French India · Portuguese India · Plassey · Buxar · Anglo-Mysore Wars · Anglo-Maratha Wars (First · Second · Third) · Polygar War · Vellore Mutiny · First Anglo-Sikh War · Second Anglo-Sikh War · Rebellion of 1857 · British Raj  · more Philosophies and ideologies Indian nationalism · Swaraj · Hindu nationalism · Gandhism · Satyagraha · Indian Muslim nationalism · Swadeshi · Socialism · Khilafat Movement Events and movements Partition of Bengal · Revolutionaries · Delhi-Lahore Conspiracy · The Indian Sociologist · The Sedetious conspiracy · Champaran and Kheda · Rowlatt Committee · Rowlatt Bills · Jallianwala Bagh Massacre · Non-Cooperation · Qissa Khwani bazaar massacre · Flag Satyagraha · Bardoli · 1928 Protests · Nehru Report · Purna Swaraj · Salt Satyagraha · Round table conferences · Act of 1935 · Legion Freies Indien · Cripps' mission · Quit India · Indian National Army · Tiger Legion · Bombay Mutiny · Coup d'État de Yanaon · Provisional Government of India Organisations Indian National Congress · Anushilan Samiti · Jugantar · Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh · India House · Berlin Committee · Ghadar · Home Rule · Khaksar Tehrik · Khudai Khidmatgar · Hindustan Republican Association · Swaraj Party · Indian Independence League · Azad Hind · more Social reformers Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi · Rahul Sankrityayan · Mahatma Jyotirao Phule · Gopal Ganesh Agarkar · Shahu Maharaj · Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar · Dhondo Keshav Karve · Vitthal Ramji Shinde · Mahadev Govind Ranade · Swami Dayananda Saraswati · Ramakrishna  · Swami Vivekananda · Vinoba Bhave · Baba Amte · Ram Mohan Roy · Gopal Hari Deshmukh Indian leaders and activists Puli Thevar · Yashwantrao Holkar · Rahul Sankrityayan · Veerapandiya Kattabomman · Sangolli Rayanna · Baba Ram Singh · Mangal Pandey · Veer Kunwar Singh · Rae Ahmed Nawaz Khan Kharal‎ · Rani of Jhansi · Bahadur Shah Zafar · Bal Gangadhar Tilak · Gopal Krishna Gokhale · Dadabhai Naoroji · Bhikaiji Cama · Shyamji Krishna Varma · Annie Besant · Har Dayal · Subramanya Bharathi · Lala Lajpat Rai · Bipin Chandra Pal · Rash Behari Bose · Chittaranjan Das · Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan · Maulana Azad · Chandrasekhar Azad · Rajaji · Bhagat Singh · Sarojini Naidu · Purushottam Das Tandon · Alluri Sitaramaraju · M. Ali Jinnah · Sardar Patel · Vakkom Majeed · Subhash Chandra Bose · Jawaharlal Nehru · Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi · Allama Mashriqi · Akkamma Cherian · Swadeshabhimani Ramakrishna Pillai · more British leaders Robert Clive · James Outram · Dalhousie · Irwin · Linlithgow · Wavell · Stafford Cripps · Mountbatten · more Independence Cabinet Mission · Indian Independence Act · Partition of India · Political integration · Constitution · Republic of India

[show] v • d • e Battenberg family 1st Generation Marie, Princess Gustav of Erbach-Schönberg · Louis, Marquess of Milford Haven · Alexander, Prince of Bulgaria · Prince Henry · Prince Francis Joseph 2nd Generation Alice, Princess Andrew of Greece and Denmark · Alexander, Marquess of Carisbrooke · Victoria Eugenie, Queen of Spain · Prince Leopold · Louise, Queen of Sweden · Prince Maurice · George, Marquess of Milford Haven · Louis, Earl Mountbatten of Burma 3rd Generation Lady Tatiana Mountbatten · David, Marquess of Milford Haven · Lady Iris Mountbatten · Patricia, Countess Mountbatten of Burma · Lady Pamela Hicks 4th Generation George, Marquess of Milford Haven · Lord Ivar Mountbatten 5th Generation Lady Tatiana Mountbatten · Henry, Earl of Medina · Ella Mountbatten · Alexandra Mountbatten · Louise Mountbatten

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Mountbatten,_1st_Earl_Mountbatten_of_Burma"

Categories: 1900 births | 1979 deaths | Administrators in British India | Alumni of Christ's College, Cambridge | Assassinated British politicians | Assassinated royalty | British people murdered abroad | British terrorism victims | Companions of the Distinguished Service Order | Deaths by improvised explosive device | Earls in the Peerage of the United Kingdom | English people of German descent | British people of Polish descent | Fellows of the Royal Society | First Sea Lords | Governors-General of India | House of Battenberg | Knights Grand Commander of the Order of the Indian Empire | Knights Grand Commander of the Order of the Star of India | Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath | Knights Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order | Knights of Justice of the Order of St John | Knights of the Garter | Grand Croix of the Légion d'honneur | Legion of Frontiersmen members | Lord Lieutenants of the Isle of Wight | Lords of the Admiralty | Members of the Order of Merit | Members of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom | Military of Singapore under British rule | Pakistan Movement | People from Windsor, Berkshire | People killed by the Provisional Irish Republican Army | People murdered in the Republic of Ireland | Presidents of the British Computer Society | Royal Navy admirals of the fleet | Royal Navy World War II admirals | Terrorism deaths in the Republic of Ireland | Viceroys of India | Younger sons of marquesses | 20th-century viceregal rulers in Asia