India, Pakistan : re-opening the wounds of Partition

August 19, 2009

Was it necessary to divide India and Pakistan ? Was Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, really the obdurate Muslim leader who forced Partition along religious lines in 1947 or was he pushed into it by leaders of India’s Congress party, especially first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru.

A new book by former Indian foreign minister Jaswant Singh re-opens that painful, blood-soaked chapter whose price the region is still paying more than 60 years on.

Singh, a leader of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, challenges the widely-held belief in India that it was Jinnah’s insistence on a  separate homeland for Muslims that forced the breakup of India and the mayhem that accompanied it.

Jinnah, an impeccably secular leader, didn’t start with this, he argues in the book “Jinnah – India, Partition, Independence.”

What Jinnah said, in the tumultuous years before Britain finally left the subcontinent, was that he wanted  ”space in a reassuring system” for Muslims so that they didn’t get engulfed in a Hindu-majority India, Singh says.

A federal structure that would have given Muslims a certain amount of autonomy, a sort of a Pakistan within India, may well have worked. But Nehru shot it down, believing in a highly centralised polity , influenced as he was by the prevailing Western, European socialist thought of the time.

“”Consistently he stood in the way of a federal India until 1947 when it became a partitioned India,” Singh told CNN-IBN in an interview . If the Congress had accepted a decentralised federal state, then a “united India was clearly ours to attain,” he says.

Jinnah has too long been demonised by Indian society. “I think we misunderstood him because we needed to create a demon.  We needed a demon because in the 20th century, the most telling event in the sub-continent was the Partition of the country.”

Strong words these and especially coming from a leader on the Hindu right. Not surprisingly, members of his party have distanced themselves from Singh’s revision of history. The Congress party, of course, would have none of it , accusing Singh of denigrating the country’s first prime minister while eulogising Pakistan’s first head of state.

Pakistan has welcomed Singh’s attempt to review the role of  the  “Quaid-i-Azam or Great Leader as Jinnah is known.

The Daily Times in an editorial said the book was an important Indian revision of a highly demonised Muslim leader and held hope for the future. if India and Pakistan could agree on their history a bit more, perhaps that may be the starting point of a more lasting detente ?

[Photographs of Pakistani helicopters flying past a portrait of Jinnah 2)children lay flowers at a portrait of Nehru and 3) former foreign minister Jaswant Singh)

Comments

Cheap Publicity – Thats what this is all about.Jaswant doesn’t seems to have enjoyed limelight for a while and this seems to be a mean time to bask in.I appreciate his efforts in being loyal to his party where by he criticize’s the Congress at the expense of changing Jinnah’s perspectives here. Since he couldn’t take the pressure, he has retracted back from his book and advised it to be taken as a academic book without making conclusions. So much for a joke. Creating Pakistan was a debacle and has been a blunder, couldn’t agree more with the current migrane.

Posted by Praveen | Report as abusive
 

Peace,I look at present day Pakistan and wonder what peace is there to ever exist. West Pakistanis were racist and prejudiced towards East Pakistanis. Do you remember: Udhr tum, ider hum by Z. Bhutto? Not forgetting the over 3 million refugees that fled from the genocide in East Pakistan and the thousands butchered. In India our fear of your Islamic terrorism came true with the Mumbai attacks by 10 ordinary Pakistanis trained as commandos killing all non-Muslims. Jinnah certainly did not vision that his co-called Land Of the Pure would be used as a recruiting and training ground for Islamic terrorism.You have lot of nerve to call Gandhi a Hindu exremeist.-This man ‘refused’ to eat until the violence between Hindus and Muslims that happened due to partition stopped.-This man was EMULATED by the late Dr. Martin Luther King Junior for civil rights in the USA that has finally cumulated in the democratic election of a black President of the USA. Who since 1948 has emulated your Jinnah?Kashmir is an integral part of India. It was YOU Pakistanis who threw out (and murdered) the Kashmiri Pundits in order to expand your grand Islamic vision. Muslims are being crushed and humiliated by the Taliban in Pakistan that Pakistan happily nutured for future use against India.Jinnah certainy did not vision that you would be living on US aid and IMF loans. Now the hand that feeds you is enemy number one.You can write and talk forever about what a great man Junnah was, but that is certainly not going to help Pakistan get back on track.

Posted by bulletfish | Report as abusive
 

I think the reaction of Jaswant Singh’s book clearly shows that Indians are too touchy and opinionated. Singh’s book exploring one dimension of the national history has in fact exposed the historical bias prominent among Indians.http://thetrajectory.com/blogs/? p=769

 

If Europe can reunite, Beriln wall can be fallen, why not united India? Food for thought!

Posted by Amir | Report as abusive
 

Really ? Reopening partition wounds ? Seriously how many people are there who can remember exactly to reopen to wounds ?Praveen, why would someone work for 5 years to get cheap publicity. if something comes out of 5 years it is certainly not cheap. besides if jaswant a BJP guy wants cheap publicity he won’t do it this way.So if jaswant did something pro hindu you would call him a hindu fanatic, if he said something good about a muslim man you call him cheap or re opening wounds.

Posted by vivek | Report as abusive
 

Jaswant Sigh is free to have his views on Jinnah, just like anyone else—but why now so late, he could have written earlier.Nothing is black and white. Jinnah and Nehru were power hungry leaders and saying Nehru was responsible will be demonizing Nehru.”Pakistan” concept was not Nehru’s idea. Even if Jinnah had to agree to Nehru’s idea of the political system, was that not worth saving millions of lives. Perhaps Jinnah did not have that vision, as Salman Rushdie says in his book “Shame” Salman Rushdie wrote: “…Pakistan may be described as a failure of the dreaming mind… Perhaps the place was just insufficiently imagined…” Is there a doubt that India will care less of Shia/Sunni divide than Pakistan.@Jinnah wanted ”space in a reassuring system” for Muslims so that they didn’t get engulfed in a Hindu-majority India—-Well, they will not be engulfed unless they feel so. Evidence is India has Sikhs with ~2% population and is ruled by a Sikh–2nd term continuous Sikh PM Singh. If Sikhs could, why not Muslims. Jinnah was secular so long as Muslims rule. It is ridiculous to give autonomy to people of particular religion. Jinnah’s this concept meant Muslim/non-Muslims divide forever.________________________________ ________________Peace:You are calling Nehru and Gandhi as extremists. I am not surprised–perhaps you are schooled by Zia’s distorted history.here is from Dawn by Jawed Naqvi:“How many schoolchildren or even adult Pakistanis know the reason why Gandhi became the target of Godse’s sinister plot? That fact is that before he was killed, Gandhi was protesting against the refusal by the Indian government to transfer Rs550 million it owed Pakistan.”“He got India to release the money and broke his fast, not unaware that his support for Pakistan could cost him his life. So that was at least part of the reason why they killed him.”

Posted by rajeev | Report as abusive
 

well said J.singh keep it upAlways speak Truth*

 

It is unfortunate that BJP a Political Party supposedly with some values and Conviction behaved so irresponsibly with Jashwant Singh who has spoken out the truth about JinnahNow this is the one another poor decision by BJP leadership. If one sees BJP as a company or organization, It is the worst leaded company I have ever seen. No sense of decisions’ making. I really would no wonder if this party breaks up completely. I am a BJP supporter (Not at all for its Hindu Image), but it is very unfortunate to see such weak decision making. Who is the sitting at the epicentre of this decision making process??? RSS??? or it is the frustation of defeat???? BJP must re correct its decision by quickly calling him (Mr. Jaswant Singh) back into the party

Posted by SOS Rudresh,France | Report as abusive
 

Its really Sad… and exposes that BJP is a party of reccessive and undemocratic nature.

Posted by sachin | Report as abusive
 

If partition had not happened, the following events and changes would have happened:1. Mumbai would not have become as big as it is today, drawing so much talent. Karachi and Lahore would have taken a huge piece of the pie.2. Bollywood would have been completely dominated by elite Muslims. Even now, the best talent in Bollywood has been Muslims (lyricists, singers, actors, script writers and so on).3. There would be extremist Muslim parties who would still be engaged in violent duels with extremist Hindu parties.4. Terrorism as we know of it today, would not be burning the sub-continent the way it has been doing.5. Central Asia and Afghanistan would have had much better history and life standard.6. China would not be messing with the grand Indian nation.7. India would have been much more colorful.8. India’s cricket would be completely be dominated by players from Lahore, Karachi and Mumbai areas. And India would have fielded the best cricket team in the world from 1940s.9. All those millions who died in East Pakistan would have lived.10. All those who died during partition would have lived.11. Probably Karachi would have been the financial capital of the sub-continent.12. Congress party would not have ruled India the way it did until the late 1980s and socialism would not have survived the way it did for 40 odd years.13. Pakistan Now or Never blog would not exist.In all, life would have been much better. India would have been enriched by those who did not have to leave everything and migrate due to partition.But then, there is a darker side to everything.

 

Lets read the book and then comment. Jaswant Singh may have unannounced intentions but what if he does have a genuine point.All emotions are irrational and fear more so then others. We cant imagine the fears that Muslims may have had during the partition.Let’s read it and see if there is anything to learn from it.

Posted by Abhijit | Report as abusive
 

Peace you said:”This is the first time that the truth is spoken withi the boundaries of india, and it also exposed inida’s so called secularism approach, a senior polition is now expelled from his own political party, Bharati Janata Party (BJP) only for showing the true and positive image of the founder of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the man of principle and integrity who, as stated in the subject book realised that Muslims will be crushed and humilated if they remain under the leadership of fanatics and hindu extrtemist like Nehru and Ghandi….and that fear came true in Gujrat, Allahabad and Kashmir.”–> I can respect Pakistani’s and some muslims alike respecting Jinnah as a hero, but please do not make him into some sort of saint and Gandhi and Nehru into religious extremists, because historically that is not correct, they were actually quite inclusive, secular, democratic and men of high esteem. Mr. Jinnah, like many national heroes, had his share of trysts with other women, drank alcohol and indulged in other things as well, despite that he did do what he wanted to do, but please do not bring religious sainthood on the man, he was not saint, nor any sort of pacifist.It is a fallacy, at least from my father’s experience that muslims were being humiliated. In my father’s village, Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims got along fine, spoke each other’s language and even recognized what was important to the other’s religion, without ostracizing each other. People were getting a long well, 99% of the time. Then one day, Pakistani Jeeps and large transport trucks rolled into village with Armed gunman and yelled at the Muslims to “go to your country…we have our own country”. A lot of muslims said, we are not going with you, India is our home. I am the second generation child of Indian Diaspora in a western country and know muslims from Pakistan and Muslims from India. Both are devoutly religious, but there is a huge difference between them.The ones from Pakistan seem very inwards, don’t mix with other peoples, generally look down on non-muslims, all have Satellite dishes to keep getting a daily diet of anti-western news and never like to play golf. The muslims from India are very friendly, mix well, are quick to learn, think for themselves, seem happier and enjoy life a lot more, while still being devout muslims and even still attend yearly Christmas parties, as it is not so much a religious event as it is a social one. This is but one example of the divergence of Muslim culture that has arisen from Mr. Jinnah’s experiment.In my experience, I don’t think that forming Pakistan from India has benefited Muslims and has been to their detriment in terms of lost potential and limited exposure to other ways of doing things and perceiving matters. As an outsider, Indian Muslims appear to be much happier, honest, do not backstab anybody, friendly, cheery, greater sense of humanity in their eyes and are productive human beings than those from Pakistan. This is just a personal observation over a period of 10 years, before I even knew the history of Pakistan. I am sure there are exceptions, but this is an empirical observation, non-scientific. I am just trying to make a point out of Mr. Jinnah’s experiment and have viewed that Pakistani’ are not really and truly happier human beings, having had their own country.

Posted by Global Watcher | Report as abusive
 

Peace:You should change your screen name from ‘Peace’ to ‘Belligerent Pakistani’ because your mindset seems to be anything but peaceful.

Posted by Asif Khan | Report as abusive
 

Well done Mr. Jaswant Singh telling the truth at last to indians blinded by the prejudicial propoganda by congress and bjp politicians,so that they can foolaround the people to get elected.That’s why the demonised Quide-Azam Mohmad Ali Jinah.The people of india should see them selves who was the Hero and who were the demons.

Posted by Sardar Khan. | Report as abusive
 

It’s a shame that such open views albeit not popular are shot down without much consideration. J. Singh has opened up a sensitive topic for whatever reason – personal or political. A leader does not need to be perfect to become great, and for that reason history needs to be clarified as it shapes the future.

 

Its high time we accept ineptitude of Mr.Jawaharlal Nehru.Accept the fact that he divided this country for his and his family’s greed.Why didn’t the government declassify indo-china war files,I’ll tell you why because your beloved chacha’s strategy had blown up bigtime by a foolish mallu who was a whatever foolishminister at that time.Kudos to Jaswant Singh for exposing this farce called Nehru and the so called god-sent family sent to save India.Congress should dissolved immediately as per mahatma gandhi’s wishes.

Posted by Karthik | Report as abusive
 

Jinnah was one of the important leader before independence. He was a parliamentarian rather then a mass leader who can influence a lot of people. If that was the case was n’t some one else is to be blame for giving in his demand for separate state .Jaswant singh in his book not squarely blame any person for partition. It was a collective failure of then great leader of India who could not predict the fallout of partition. I request every Indian to first research ,read, analyze before coming to any conclusion. A great democracy can only be survive if it allows free flow of ideas , if we as Indian are not been able to achieve this I am afraid we would never be able to become great nation.

Posted by shishir | Report as abusive
 

Peace,Read neutral history. Not the one that you are being taught in Pakistan.This type of book can only be written and discussed in a free and open country like India.You call Gandhi a hindu fanatic and extremist.Read more about him on the internet at least before you make such comments. Jinnah was a moderate muslim who wanted Pakistan to be secular state.But what is Pakistan today? Minorities were 24% in Pakistan in 1947. Today there are less than 4%. Where have they gone ? Emigrated or Eliminated? Do not worry about the state of muslims in India.They are capable of looking after themselves.You should travel to India and see how they coexist with other religionists.You should be worrying about muslims in Pakistan like the Blauch and the Pashtuns who are being targeted by the Punjabi military.Actually history is repeating itself. It is the same military that killed a million Bengali muslims in 1971.

Posted by Aman | Report as abusive
 

All that matters is the fact that there are now two counries and they are poles apart in ideology and thier chosen future directions.Dont start these topics about how the two nation thoery was flawed and that partition shouldnt have happened.Why is there sudden urge to revisit the partition specially now that India is set to regain its position in the world and Pakistan is staring at countdown on a 62+ year old time bomob???Jinaah’s own daughter renounced his two nation theory and so did all the the muslims who stayed with Republic of India, and then there were those like Abdul gafar khan and the Balochs who got unfairly caught up in this partition.For all those who followed the Shia Muhammad Ali Jinnah, I have just one thing to say.Enjoy your Sunni Wahabi Islamic Republic of Pakistan!

Posted by indian1127 | Report as abusive
 

I can only say to Mr. Jaswant Singh, Thank you sir! Yes, true if India and Pakistan can agree on their history things will improve. No doubt the hawks both in opposition and government they belong to Congress or BJP will certainly lynch Jaswant Singh, but the man has spoken the truth. In the last years of British rule, it was the selfishness and insensitive behavior of Indian Congress leaders that led the Muslim League leaders to go all out in their demand for a muslim homeland; “Pakistan”.But now we cannot look back, Pakistan is now a reality. Both India and Pakistan must respect each other and people of two countries should have an opportunity to interact with each other. This is only way to establish good relations between the two nations.

Posted by Umair | Report as abusive
 

There must be some truth to what he’s saying. He has nothing to gain in saying it, but that he may calm his conscience in that he’s finally told the truth.

Posted by nip | Report as abusive
 

Wondering if this is an attempt on the part of Jaswant Singh to start people talking about a renegotiation of the entire relationship between India and Pakistan. Or even, perhaps, something even more historic…

Posted by Alethia | Report as abusive
 

First Mr. Advani and now Mr. jaswant Singh come out to tell the facts. How long “Ugly Fanatic Hindu Extremists” will hide the truth? Well done Mr. Mohammad Ali Jinnah!The World will see at least ten more Mini Pakistan emerging from India sooner or later.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that the sub-continent would have fared far better as a united federlist state than the mess that’s there today. The sheer economic power of the region combined with the lack of inter-state rivalvry (that exists today) would have made it the leading nation of the developed world from day one and a power to be reckoned well before the 90s (when Indian finally shed its socialist shackles).Think about the benefits. A million lives would have been saved since partition would not have occurred. What is Pakistan today would have benefited from a better functioning government, real democracy, and an army that stays out of politics. Minority rights for respective minorities (hindus in what is Pakistan today and muslims in what is India today) would have also been greatly advanced since as a percentage muslims would equal about a third of the national population in this scenario, while the muslim majority areas would have remained muslim and today’s India would have been less Hindu. The muslims of a united sub-continent would have become the king maker minority with every party courting their votes. No politician can ignore a third of the electorate.I reject the argument posted by some, like Peace, that Gujarat or Allahabad or Kashmir is evidence that there could never be a united India. Kashmir would not be a relevant topic to begin with if there was a united India. Keep in mind that Gujarat is analogous to Pakistan’s abuse of minorities (which is worse because it’s legal and institutionalized). Suggesting that Muslims need a state because of incidents like Gujarat, would also make valid the argument that Pakistani Christians needs a state because of incidents like Gojra. In sum, that kind of ignorant viewpoint is a recipe for balkanization. And it’s exactly what is at the root of many troubles in Pakistan (except here it’s pseudo-ethnic not religious separatism) and in India (suffering from religious and ethnic separatism). Everyone wants their own state because at some point or another they were the victim of some abuse at the other hands of another (yet they’ll conveniently ignore the occasions they’ve heaped abuse on another minority). Simple logic would show the falsehood of this argument. Would the Muslim areas of Punjab be any different if it were under a united India today (excepting the transferred populations of partition)? In fact some areas of Pakistan would have been far better off. For example, there would be no mohajirs to stoke tensions in Karachi.It is depressing to think of what could have been. A united subcontinent would have been a global superpower which could not be denied. All this being said, I would never agree to merging the countries today. History has taken its course and the die has been cast. Each nation will now have to pay its price for the mistake of its forefathers.The best that can be hoped for today is some kind of peace and an eventual economic union. As a first step the ignorance and visceral hatred (as witnessed by comments like the one made by Peace) have to be put to bed. Prosperity for over a billion and a half people is at stake.

Posted by Keith | Report as abusive
 

First Mr. Advani and now Mr. jaswant Singh come out to tell the facts. How long “Ugly Fanatic Hindu Extremists” will hide the truth? Well done Mr. Mohammad Ali Jinnah!The World will see at least ten more Mini Pakistan emerging from India sooner or later.- Posted by MZMRidiculous comment. Are you really that ignorant and hateful? It could just as easily be said that Pakistan will see another two Bangladesh’s emerge from Pakistan first. After all, history is repeating itself, with a Punjabi dominated Army attacking a minority ethnic group (Pashtuns on one side, Balochis on the other). You should worry about that before carping some off-topic praise for Jinnah.

Posted by Keith | Report as abusive
 

Mauryan:The real genius of Jaswant Singh is that he has brought into the light a very simple truth that was right in front of everyone’s eyes all these 62 years: That if the Muslims of India (and Pakistan)(and Bangladesh) can secure an equitable deal for themselves, they would have (and still will) support a more loosely united country.Forward looking Indian and Pakistani leaders and common citizens, it’s never too late – why don’t you go for it!Miracles do occur…Forgiveness heals all wounds…

Posted by Alethia | Report as abusive
 

Not sure what all the fuss is about! Both view poins on Jinnah are correct because they describe Jinnah at 2 different stages of his evolution.It is very true Jinnah started as a secularist, but then became a virulent communalist, hate monger since the power derived from this was intoxicating to him. The outcome is here for every one to see.He was a religious exclusivist, who didn’t practice the religion, but used the identity provided by the religion to whip up communal passions and divided the people.You cannot create a state such as Pakistan consiting of multiple ethnicities on the claim you cannot co-exist as people belonging to a different religion. That exactly what he did.Jaswant Singh has indulged in a stunt to make some quick bucks rehashing Pak version that —-Jinnah didn’t want partition, but it was forced upon him by the inflexibility of Nehru, etc, etc.The truth is accepting Jinnah’s demands would have been disastrous, and the whole India would be a mega pakistan today. Thanks to Nehru for rejecting Jinnah’s half-baked ideas of TNT.This author has more accurately portrayed the history of partition…worth reading…Pakistan’s jihadi politics rooted in India partitionBy Sunil DuttaTuesday, August 18, 2009http://www.venturacountystar.com/new s/2009/aug/18/pakistans-jihadi-politics- rooted-in-india/

 

It is hard to digest to see some people are anti-India, that too when you are in India. It is unfair if I ask the other country-men to love India, but us.Life is not something like you will be always praised, some abuse may come, go, stay, but that all are part and parcel of our life. If you claim that you have never been abused by your own people, then it is fair to cry against others. I hope at some instances, you would have been pained by your own (if this is what you think.)people.I think, it is only in your mind that you are minority/majority. You should accept that sometime minority are abused by their own minority and majority abused by the same majority. When you can forgive and forget about what your own people have done, why don’t with the other ones.I don’t know how long this is going to happen. I had a thought that days have changed a lot, but nothing it seems.

Posted by gbi | Report as abusive
 

Interesting discussion is now going on about this issue! Some are truly well-thought out comments, some gibberish, as it always happen in a public forum. Now, let me clearly admit that few of the points that I had in mind has already been stated by various folks, yet it won’t hurt to recapitulate for a quick one-stop review:1. Jinnah was not a devout Muslim – implied fact, he had something else in his mind when he pushed for separation of this great country beside the well being of his co-religious fellows.2. Jinnah’s proposal of having a semi or full autonomy was impractical and would be evident to anyone with a bit of common sense – a country as veritable as India can not afford to allow this, creating a precedent and initiating a cascading effect of encouraging many other sub-groups to demand the same. The result would have been either constant turmoil and bloodshed or in the worst-case scenario, a break-up into insignificant pieces of land, not a united big power.3. The vision of Jinnah was blinded by his obstinate, egoistic attitude that completely ignored the body count in the process of partitioning. A great leader put the interest and well being his fellow people at the foremost in making any kind of planning or execution of a plan. Jinnah apparently didn’t do that.4. If Jinnah was truly so smart, he, along with some few selected other, could have found a more creative way to ensure Muslim’s safety and progress rather than taking the ultimate and drastic measure. He might have been smart, but not that wise, as Pakistanis claim!!!5. Already correctly said by someone that India would have been much stronger due to bigger size, lesser expenses incurred for defending itself from one of it’s own former parts.6. Muslims of India would have a much greater influence in the process of nation building and political games with over 30% share of the population.7. At the height of heated altercation, no Hindu in India would have been able to tell a fellow country man, who happens to be a Muslim, to go to Pakistan, if they don’t like India!!! (even though this is rare, but yet even one incident is also unwarranted and could have been clearly avoided altogether).Now look at what Pakistan has done…1. Killed and raped over 1 million people of the same religion in Bangladesh (not to mention, India, the Hindu majority country sheltered hundreds of thousands of these Muslim Refugees for over 8 months, feed them, trained them and helped them gain their independence from a murderous Army, not a small fit for 3rd world country with dozens of problems of it’s own and pathetic poverty level at that time!) Does any one need to remind the Pakistani Government that the primary responsibility of a Government is to protect it’s own citizen, not to methodically and systemically slaughter them!!!2. Pakistan, for a really long time, robbed it’s own people of the democracy and freedom and this country yet to reach at a respectable level in this regard (as compared to it’s neighbor India).3. Set example of intolerance by driving the minority out of their country, that can be very easily used by extremist Hindu as a pretext to create communal tension and fanning bad feeling about Muslims in India (even the most ordinary person also know that in every nation, there are bad apples, extremist and crazies, the question is – what is the percentage? The lower the better…fact: in India it is lower, in Pakistan higher)4. Jinnah wanted to help Muslims by giving them a gift of freedom in a separate country. But the haunting question is – what he thought about the ones left behind in India!!! Left behind even weaker and even a smaller minority (only imagine if India wasn’t a democracy, and instead become something like Pakistan, what would have happened to these folks!)5. Last but not least, by leaving the country of Pakistan in hands of many immoral, scoundrel leaders, many of them happened to be Military dictators, Jinnah sowed the seed of existence of a completely failed country – this in itself degrade the case and credentials of their fellow Muslims in India, who can never claim very strongly with empirical evidence that they are indeed a great nation by themselves. Indian Hindus can rightly say to them “look how good you are, you can’t even live happily with your own kind, don’t respect the rights of people of your own religion, so for God’s sake, stop blaming us”).Ironically, more than 60 years back Pakistan got into a situation when they didn’t have enough fund to pay salary to it’s Government Employees. Today, after all these years and after all these bravado and Nuclear Bomb, Pakistan still need money from USA to pay for it’s military!I only hope within next 60 years this country will learn a bit of a lesson and firmly shake the hand of a country, India, which can be it’s best friend, in good time and bad!!! Don’t have to go too far for a proof, see how they Indians voted for and loved a singer, Amanat Ali, from Pakistan in a national singing competition and let him grab the 3rd place out of so many others, Hindu, Muslim and Christians! Look how they voted and loved Raja Hasan! Show me a proof that you can match this in your country, and I will delete this opinion of mine…Yes, there is another option, if Pakistan can become truly democratic, control the violence, become self-sufficient in self-reliant economically and establish rule of law, regain respect among the International community, apologize to Bangladeshis for the murder and rape … but isn’t that a little too long a list? May be, but it is up to people of Pakistan to decide! What do I know? I am just an Indian Muslim…

Posted by GA Babu | Report as abusive
 

I would like to add that the subject of partition of India was also attempted by H.M Seervai, great jurist and authority on Indian constitutiona and if we go through the said book, late Jinnah appeared to me as a secular leader in his initial days. Initially late Jinnah seemed to had advocated for a distance between religion and politics. He was not in agreement with the views of Mahatma Gandhi in many matters including Khilafat movement. If we read and analyse historical events, it is possible to draw an inferance, late Jinnah, undoutedly a shrewd politician had taken stand for partition because the politics prevailed then. At the same time, it is necessary to see what were the endeavors of the then Indian leaders (congress leaders)for united India and also steps they have taken to dispel the doubts and apprehensions of some of the people who supported and vouched for seperate statehood. In any case now the subject of causes for partition of India is a matter to be commented by historians so let it be discussed and Mr. Singh has also made an attempt. After all those are his views.

 

“That if the Muslims of India (and Pakistan)(and Bangladesh) can secure an equitable deal for themselves, they would have (and still will) support a more loosely united country.” Althea.I probably understand where you are coming from but it does seem to me that you have limited experience about the conditions of Muslims in India. Please remember that milions upon millions of Muslims decided for themselves in 1947 that there was an equitable deal for themselves in India and decided to stay on and continue to stay here. I could go on…….It is truly amazing to read some of the comments here, as if Jaswant Singh has proved that the creation of Pakistan was the best thing to have happened and that only Nehru and he alone was to blame. I think India, with all its failings, corruption, shady politicians and its poverty has somehow emerged stronger and progressed and is moving on and Im grateful for it. The record of both countries is there for all to see.As to what could have happened, people are entitled to fly their own kites.

Posted by Dara | Report as abusive
 

I realise this is a sensitive issue and in many ways goes to the heart of the India-Pakistan divide. But let’s try and not attack each other. We want to advance the discussion, not launc into diatribes against another country, people or religion.I’m afraid I will filter out all comment that is offensive.

Posted by Sanjeev Miglani | Report as abusive
 

Rajeev, I go along with what you said. Both Jinnah and Nehru had massive egoes, wanted absolute power for themselves or parties, were unbending to each other and could never see eye to eye on most matters. While Nehru was suave and charismatic; Jinnah, as per most of his biographers was more reserved and came across as cold. Both, however, appeared to be dedicated to their beliefs in themselves, were men of personal integrity and were unbending with fiery tempers. Had partition not happened and these two had to coexist in government there would have been no peace.Not having read Jaswant Singh’s book one hesitates to comment. But it does seem as if he has done his own research and come to his own conclusions. The way to refute those conclusions is by offering counter arguments and debating the issue. To take an ideological line on the subject seems like shooting the messenger.Personally I feel that revisiting the why and how of partition is best left to genuine historians. Perhaps that is what Jaswant Singh has attempted.

Posted by Dara | Report as abusive
 

All that happened to Jaswant Singh after writing his opinions says much about Indian democracy and dilemas.

Posted by Ijaz | Report as abusive
 

I am the second generation child of Indian Diaspora in a western country and know muslims from Pakistan and Muslims from India. Both are devoutly religious, but there is a huge difference between them.The ones from Pakistan seem very inwards, don’t mix with other peoples, generally look down on non-muslims,-Global WatcherI have had experiences like this too on many occasions. When I was at university, a Pakistani PhD student moved into our student residence. When his other Pakistani friends came round, we would make small talk, even if I just went to get milk from the kitchen. However, it was always about one-up-manship. If I mentioned something, they felt the need to say something even better. This PhD student would look at me sympathetically.One another occasion I was waiting at a bus stop. A guy approached me and asks me if I am Pakistani. I told him no and he walks away disgusted. I followed him discreetly. He went up to someone else and asked for directions, in English.

Posted by bulletfish | Report as abusive
 

A team of energy experts will arrive on Thursday to evaluate the situation and seek technical details, the US envoy said, adding that Washington was engaging many international financial institutions, including Exim Bank and the US Trade and Development Agency, the IMF, the ADB and the World Bank. The private sector would be critical in all the efforts, he said.(Dawn, 20/08/2009)I would love to hear Jinnah’s remarks if his precious Pakistan had to rely so heavily on their number one enemy to fix ‘most’ of their problems. LOL

Posted by bulletfish | Report as abusive
 

>>>All that happened to Jaswant Singh after writing his opinions says much about Indian democracy and dilemas.- Posted by Ijaz <<<<This is what I would call typical pak loser mindset! If there had been a pak author writing a book pointing out partition was a dumb idea, he would not keep his head on his shoulders. His family and village would have been bombed.I frequently see comments in various blogs from paks about the “plight” of muslims in India. Who reduced them from a 40% minority to 12% minority? And where are the Hindus in Pakistan?——And someone from outside the subcontinent has written muslims in south asia are looking for an equitable deal!!Do the Hindus,Sikhs, Buddhists, Christians, Jains, atheists in South Asia deserve an “equitable” deal too? Or this special “equitable” deal should be available to only one group in an unlimited fashion?If the theory that muslim backwardness is due to “Hindu opression” is true the “free” muslim countries of Pakistan and Bangladesh should have raced ahead of India in prosperity and development. Where are they?

 

I suggest that anyone interested in truth regarding the transfer of power 1942-1947 should read the book “Partition of India – Legend and Reality” written by H.M. Seervai, Advocate General of Maharashtra, 1957 to 1974. Mr. Seervai has expressed the same views as Mr. Jaswanth Singh.In 1967, Prime Minister Harold Wilson ordered the release of official documents dealing with the transfer of power. A committee of independent historians was formed under the able leadership of Prof. Mansergh which resulted in publishing of 12 volumes of documents. Mr. Seervai’s book presents important quotes documented in these volumes and clearly show how M. A. Jinnah tried his level best till 1946 (Cabinet Mission Plan) to avoid the partition of India (Jinnah was known as the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity).In 1985, Dr. Ayesha Jalal researched these 12 volumes and based on this research published her book “The Sole Spokesman”, which argued that “It was the Congress that insisted on partition and Muslim League was against it”. The obstinate and arrogant attitude of the Congress resulted in Jinnah asking for independent Pakistan (considered a bargaining tool).Being a secular leader, Jinnah refused to use the religion card until the “direct action” call of 1946. In comparison, Mahatma Gandhi used religion from the beginning. Upon his arrival from South Africa, he addresses Jinnah (head of reception committee) as a Mohammadan, even though secular Jinnah was representing both Hindus & Muslims then.

Posted by Nasir Khan | Report as abusive
 

This article should have been on India: A Billion Aspirations. Anyways,I haven’t read the book, so it will be too early for me to comment on what Jaswant Singh has written.My views on the subject are as follows:1. No one is a saint. British India was divided into India and Pakistan because of the power struggle between Nehru and Jinnah.2. Jinnah was a much better leader than Nehru, who survived on Gandhi’s charisma rather than on his own.3. Initially Jinnah was indeed a secular person who wanted a decentralised but unified India whereas Nehru wanted a unified and centralised India. It was this reluctance on the part of congress and Nehru to give more power to states that eventually led Jinnah to distance himself from congress.4. Later on Jinnah is clearly to be blamed for becoming the spokesperson for the formation of Pakistan, either as a pressure tactics in the hope of getting a more decentralised India or as a cunning way of retaining power and not being subordinate to anyone is a matter of debate.5. He dreamt of a secular state as evidenced in various speeches not the one Pakistan has become today. So the demand of forming Pakistan as a Muslim dominated Secular state next to a Hindu dominated secular state is somewhat perplexing. The only answer could be power struggle. And anyways, he wasn’t a very devout muslim and had himself married a Parsi.6. Had the congress accepted a decentralised India then probably we would have had a much faster growth than we have had till now and there wouldn’t have been so many problems in the neighborhood.7. Now Pakistan is a reality and we will have to accept it. May be in near future we can be like EU but a unified India seems impossible to me as of now.8. As for vision, I don’t know Pakistan has failed while India has grown so by that yardstick may be Nehru was right. But then who knows? Jinnah didn’t get much time to do what he intend to do.

Posted by Aman | Report as abusive
 

@Personally I feel that revisiting the why and how of partition is best left to genuine historians. Perhaps that is what Jaswant Singh has attempted.-DaraDara: True.I wish that Jinnah did not die soon after partition and lived to steer his country. Jinnah had a perception/dream of pakistan but he did not perhaps realize the shear paucity of enough leaders to realize that dream; rather there were enough to do turn his dream into nightmare. One cannot help notice that some Muslims leaders rejected lahore Pakistan resolution and equal number of Muslim population (who stayed on in India)-who disagreed with the Pakistan concept. Well I will beleive for now that all happens for the best.We will have to wait and read J. Singh’s book. But sich a poor decision by BJP by expelling Singh for his views. What the hell are they doing? whom are they are trying to please by doing this. They got to bring him back for their own sake.On a different note, I notice that founding fathers of the India–Jinnah and Nehru—were liberals. Jinnah drank and ate pork and Nehru was agnostic. So is also the case with US founding fathers–Thomas Jefferson, Benjimen Franklin, John Adams were Atheist/Agnostic.

Posted by rajeev | Report as abusive
 

Correction:On a different note, I notice that founding fathers of PAKISTAN and India–Jinnah and Nehru—were liberals.

Posted by rajeev | Report as abusive
 

Somebody said:All that happened to Jaswant Singh after writing his opinions says much about Indian democracy and dilemas.Yeah, we issue Fatwa on the head of anyone who dares to have opinion other than our own. We also call it conspiracy theory crafter by hindu-zionists.

Posted by Seth | Report as abusive
 

Jaswant wanted sensationalism in his preretirement stage and he got what he wanted. Brits are wise enough to document events/ debates and more so to archive these historical documents. Some enthusiastic deshis living in London will certainly visit the libraries to dig out the facts. Soon we will see challengers appearing with a plethora of supporting old publications on TV and print media . Indians may be poor but not stupid to blindly believe a book without getting their facts verified. Another possibility is that they be ignoring it altogether as absurd as it sounds and let it die its own quick death. I sincerely hope somebody living in good old London will spend a few hours during weekends and come out with a well researched paper.Iam surprised at the (naïve) wishful thinking of some posters projecting a fairy tale version of an imaginary undivided India. For an overwhelming number of Indians Pak and Bangla are just like Nepal and Sri Lanka. Its all about mutual trade, travel, student exchange and good relations. And yes, more importantly, we want all the neighbors to prosper and excel which will be only beneficial to us.

 

Nehru and Jinnah, both do not deserve any kind of praise or respect for what they have done. After working on a common cause trying to achieve independence against the British, selfishness prevailed. Each wanted to lead their people based on religious segregation, and hence we have the religion bordering India and Pakistan, not fences, or military.Once the British left happily leaving Nehru and Jinnah to fight over their lands, it was about time the downfall of India (the then India & Pakistan) started. Jinnah, although obdurate and curt, was however better off than Nehru. How? Pakistan is all muslims, India is not all Muslims or Hindus? Jinnah pulled that off well.If you ask me, I would say getting independence from the British was a curse, not an achievement. Look at what it did to us, and we still undergo the effects of it (namely, poverty, selfish-ness, dominance, corruption). We praise Gandhi a lot for what he did, burn foreign objects (against embracing different cultures), inspiring the usage of chakra (no machines, no advances in technologies), no to foreign languages (illiteracy), preaching non-violence (prone to further attacks). To all this Gandhi would now say, “I cant believe people blindly followed me on this and couldnt see the positive side of it”. Gandhi was more concerned about the present, and the past, and aiming becoming an iconic figure. He never wondered what the future would bring us, when we continue to follow his age-old principles and watch the rest of the world advances and thinks logically.Nathuram Godse could think like I’m right now, at that time. He had to bring down a one-man, blind preaching show. And he said before his death sentence, that you all will understand all this in the future. Also he was strongly against partition. Assassinating Gandhi was however a little to late, it was Nehru who was the perfect target at that time.Had common sense prevailed, we would have built an alliance with the British, and work towards building the economy, education, etc.. which would have eliminated, mainly poverty, rather than watching them leave our country (India & Pakistan) all trashed up and creating religious battles.P.S.: Gandhi did not bring us independence. The British were apprehensive of a major threat looming large from the Aazad Hind force (Indian National Army) lead by one of the true, greatest men of all times, Subhash Chandra Bose.

Posted by indian | Report as abusive
 

The reaction from BJP and the State of Gujrat just confirms what Jaswant Singh is trying to say in his book. Jinnah on his own could not have created Pakistan. Nehru by rejecting Jinnahs offer dealt a death blow to a very sensitive issue of the demands of muslims.In fact what Jaswant Singh has written is not a new revelation. It was all along discussed by many historians. Jaswant Singh has just written a very timely book reminding us that we should not forget that the partition, with all its carnage and human miseries was a result of insensitivities on the part of certain congress leaders. Many believe the partition would have been avoided if C.R.Das would have been the leader of congress for a much longer period. It was easier to stop Jinnah to have his demand of Pakistan overturned than to convince Nehru of a federal India. Surprisingly , both Jinnah and Nehru were western educated, secular. The partition was neither a western, nor secular in idea.

Posted by Arshad Khan | Report as abusive
 

Its hilarious that J singh paints Sardar Patel in bad light, especially latters commitment towards national integration and unity. Its common knowledge that, as Indias First Home Minister, Patel went after rebellious provinces, sultans and princes of the tiny fiefdoms and successfully integrated them into the republic. BJP declared the reason for their unhappiness, as writing lies about Patel and not so much about writing nice words about Jinnah. For their part congress also pointed out that Jaswant had humiliated Nehru without any historical basis. In other words contrary to what some bloggers were ranting here, no one took a stand on Jinnah issue seriously one way or the other, I conclude.I Hope historians will present the facts and clarify the controversy raised by the book soon.

 

Jaswant Singh’s views & opinions are nothing more than the personal outlook of an individual. Nobody knows exactly what happened back then. All accounts by Indians or Pakistanis are unverifiable & unsubstantiated. Indians have always vilified Jinnah & Pakistanis have returned the favor by doing the same to Gandhi & Nehru. The truth is that both Nehru & Jinnah were neither the heroes nor the villains that they were made out to be. They were both uncompromising, manipulative, & egoistic individuals, who were driven by personal ambition, more than anything else. The only difference is that while Nehru lived long enough to build a political dynasty for his family & strengthen India’s democracy & institutions, Jinnah wasn’t able to do much as he died within a year of Independence.Anyways, who really cares about this unverifiable account by Mr. Singh! It’s been 62 years & what really matters is the present. The debate about who was responsible for the partition or what could’ve/should’ve/would’ve happened if there was no partition, is an exercise in futility. We need to live in the present & try to resolve all issues in a civil & peaceful manner & not by terrorism via ‘non-state actors’. The factual reality of today is that while Gandhi & Nehru’s India is rapidly moving forward, Jinnah’s Pakistan has become a ‘Failed State’.

Posted by Mortal | Report as abusive
 

It needs to be remembered that till the time very close to 1947,Muslim league was not a popular party in Punjab or Sindh or the North-West Frontier Province. It is very ironical that the area that comprises Pakistan today did not voice a political need for such a country till almost 1947.Here is the text from the Lahore resolution of 1940, that first for Pakistan:”No constitutional plan would be workable or acceptable to the Muslims unless geographical contiguous units are demarcated into regions which should be so constituted with such territorial readjustments as may be necessary. That the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in majority as in the North-Western and Eastern zones of India should be grouped to constitute independent states in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign.”Please note the last few lines that talk about:INDEPENDENT states in which the constituent units shall be AUTONOMOUS and SOVEREIGN.”The main actors at the Lahore conference that passed this resolution were themselves hazy, unsure and in fact in some cases unwilling to pass this resolution.The wording was kept deliberately vague to facilitate an agreement, and later became the justification for another partition of the country when Bangladesh was formed.Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, the popular Pashtun leader didn’t support the partition.The strongest support for the demand for partition came from areas like my state Uttar Pradesh, then United Provinces, and my city Lucknow where Muslims were in a minority. The Muslim majority areas like Western Punjab couldnt be bothered with it till very late.The demand and the act of partition was for some a millenarian dream, for others ambition, for yet others an administrative solution to an administrative problem, for a few the great game of controlling the middle east and central Asia, for some a catharsis of getting on with living their dreams, for some a tragedy of vivisection.For me, born thirty three years after the act, it is a tragedy of curtailed possibilities. I would love to see the land for which our ancestors on both sides of the border fought and bled and sweat.The partition wounds can not be reopened because they always have been open and festering. We have three armies and two nuclear powers today when we could have done with one.

Posted by Vipul Tripathi | Report as abusive
 

Maybe now, N. Sharif can recipricate the offer and write a book about how wonderful M.K. Gandhi was.It would be intersting to read. However, what a previous blogger wrote has been proven true over and over again. If N. Sharif wrote a book complementing Gandhi, then he and his family would be either driven out of Pakistan or murdered.When Jemima Kahn (Imran Khan’s ex-wife) ‘once’ stated that she liked reading Salman Rushdie’s novels, there were protests.

Posted by bulletfish | Report as abusive
 

Reading some of the comments from readers from both sides of the subcontinent on this subject, is very revealing. There are liberals and tolerant readers on both sides. But the virulence of those holding extreme views is disturbing. How can for example some Gujratis or Mahrattas claim themselves to be the only absolute authority on past affairs of India when they take the liberty to condemn en block the muslims. The same applies to some sections of Pakistanis who just say things without having any idea about hindus. Is it not ridiculous that after over 60 years of indendence some are still breathing fire on each other. Was the blood shed by millions not enough to quench their thirst for spreading hate.Interestingly this phenomena of hatred prevails only on the subcontinent. I consider myself priviliged to have been born in East Africa where we did not have this malicious habit of hating people on religious issues and nowhere outside the subcontinenet do muslims and hindus fight each other. So what is it that makes some muslims and hindus so virulent and disturb the peace and calm so many millions?. Vallabbhai Patel was indeed a great Indian but he was fallible. He made mistakes. So what is wrong in criticising him when you are criticising other leaders.

Posted by Arshad Khan | Report as abusive
 

@Its hilarious that J singh paints Sardar Patel in bad light, especially latters commitment towards national integration and unity. Its common knowledge that, as Indias First Home Minister, Patel went after rebellious provinces, sultans and princes of the tiny fiefdoms and successfully integrated them into the republic.”-posted by AzadAzad: May I ask you what is meant by “singh paints Sardar Patel in bad light”. I assume no one here has read the book and it is unclear what J. Singh mentioned in the book about Patel that made BJP so angry as to expel him from the party and ban his book in BJP-ruled Gujrat. I appreciate other BJP ruled states that did not feel the need to ban the book, if I am updated with my information. It is Modi special and also due to state from where Sardar Patel hailed from. Even Advani agrees that Patel banned RSS, but he says “Patel banned at the behest of Nehru”, but Patel did ban RSS. Jasawnt Singh as I read in the news asks BJP to counter what he cited sepcifically in the book about BJP. Azad, do you think Jaswant Singh would not agree with you and me about Patel’s contribution to India, including what you mentioned about unification of India. he will know more what we do not know.Any way, the mighty Sardar Patel who said this will be above all this collective narrow mindedness of BJP and its peripheral parties:“I cannot speak anything but the truth. I cannot turn back on my duty, just to please some one.”BJP et al should quit these shenanigons and focus on banning Ram Sena and other such emerging diseases that in reality are going to kill India. Freedom fighters Gandhi-Nehru-Patel or Jinnah have their differences, but they have taken care of the country and given it on platter to us.Banning the book in Gujrat is sad and depressing. Nothing explains that, even that Patel is from Gujrat.

Posted by rajeev | Report as abusive
 

its sad to see that BOTH muslim and hindu leaders allowed the british to divide india the way they did. can you just imagine if there was never a divide. islamic extremisim would’ve never infected the region the way it has. at least not to this extent. this divide was one of the sources that fueled the fire which created extremist groups in both pakistan and india amongst both muslims and hindus. if only we could’ve just survived together a little bit longer. we see what the british are today. a weak, small and irrelvent nation that has become america’s waiter.

Posted by hassan | Report as abusive
 

@Jaswant wanted sensationalism in his preretirement stage and he got what he wanted.”-posted by AzadAzad: That’s huge allegation on the guy and is based upon your perception. who cares what he wants, but definitely I care what he has to say about our freedom fighters. Even if what u r saying is true, finally it boils down to facing what Singh mentioned about him in the book. BJP has not done so. Also why do you say “it is hilarious that J singh paints Sardar Patel in bad light, especially latters commitment towards national integration and unity.” I doubt J Singh questions Sardar Patel’s contributions to India; he must be pretty dumb if he does. Singh asked in the news reports “There is a mention of Sardar Patel some seven to eight times in the book. I don’t know which particular part aggrieved the party. They have not clarified, they have still not clarified this.”Adavni says the same thing except he puts the gun on Nehru’s shoulders by saying “Patel banned RSS at the behest of Nehru”.BJP must quit these shenanigans and let people have their views. Yes actually they do when they distance themeselves from the ridiculous activities of Ram Sena in South. They should have the courage to put on leash Senas–Ram or Shiv–if they are worth their salt. It is easy to ban a book-big deal!

Posted by rajeev | Report as abusive
 

Nasir Khan, you said:”In 1985, Dr. Ayesha Jalal researched these 12 volumes and based on this research published her book “The Sole Spokesman”, which argued that “It was the Congress that insisted on partition and Muslim League was against it”. The obstinate and arrogant attitude of the Congress resulted in Jinnah asking for independent Pakistan (considered a bargaining tool).Being a secular leader, Jinnah refused to use the religion card until the “direct action” call of 1946. In comparison, Mahatma Gandhi used religion from the beginning. Upon his arrival from South Africa, he addresses Jinnah (head of reception committee) as a Mohammadan, even though secular Jinnah was representing both Hindus & Muslims then.”–>Nasir, my father was a masters teacher in Indian History and you said the same thing he told me, that Jinnah did not want partition and was probably pushed into playing the religious card.What was going on at that time, is that Jinnah, had a much greater conquest in mind, he wanted to re-affirm Islamic Rule on all of India, once the British left, despite the thinly veiled secular facade he was showing publicly. Lord Mountbatten, apparently after deep consultations and thought, leveraged his influence over Congress and they were insisting on Partition, because they felt for the future of India and Hindus itself, that they would be slaughtered, genocided en-masse and living like second class citizens on their own blood ancestral home-land, if India succumbed to Islamic rule once again.The British having felt sorry for Indians and hindus, as they were pacifists and a peaceful culture and trying to do their best at ensuring the future safety of India, its culture, its traditions and its people from being annihilated by force, murder, execution and preventing the repeat injustices of the past thrust upon Hindus, by Muslims, did what they had to prevent India going backwards another 2000years and undoing all the work left by the British and decimating Hindu Culture itself.The grand scale of brutality, atrocities, bloody slaughter, rape, looting and Hindu genocide is well documented, even by Islamic scholars. The Hindu Kush mountains in Pakistan, means “Hindu Slaughter”. Many Hindu shrines, thousands of years old, were smashed, urinated on, desecrated and mosques put up there, where there were Hindu temples or Buddhist temples.The British knew history would repeat itself, if they left. If Jinnah was given power by the British over the whole of India, a decades long genocide of Hindus and their culture would have ensued on the Indian continent relatively speaking, making Rwanda or the Jewish Holocaust appear insignificantly small in comparison. On that basis, it perhaps was better that partition happened.The sad fact here is that most muslims in Pakistan don’t acknowledge the wholesale genocides, looting and raping that took place decade after decade on the Indian subcontinent, against their own blood ancestors and casually dismiss them as fables, despite documented history. Most Pakistani’s won’t even acknowledge that their own Punjabi Elite Military Mafia Junta in uniforms committed a systematic modern day grand scale, well organized genocide in Bangladesh against their own people and the “lower human” people in much greater numbers, the Hindus, which also well documented.The few Pakistani’s that acknowledge the historical genocides on Hindus, are cruelly and inhumanly unrepentant, un-compassionate and don and sport it proudly that they ruled over Hindus, desecrated and humiliated them, because they are lower human beings that deserve what they got, because they revere a different God. I challenge any Pakistani here to refute that and I don’t believe I will get any comments on that since most Pakistanis probably agree with that.Imagine, if India, had of been left as one and Jinnah was given power by the British, democracy would never have come to India. India would have been known as ground zero for genocide and terrorist central of the world. Al-Qaeda would have been centered in India and the map would look a lot different today.India is enjoying much progress and respect in the world and coming into its own skin as a Global Superpower. India has demonstrated that it is a stable, secular, plural, religiously inclusive democracy, unlike Pakistan, which is the exact opposite. India has persevered, been exploited by the British, Mughals, split several times, but the steel and resolve of the Indian spirit braves on, is solid and will never be shattered and India will continue to progress itself through honest means, hard work, ingenuity, patience and perseverance.Given India’s overall progress and Pakistan’s lack of it, perhaps partition was a good thing.

Posted by Global Watcher | Report as abusive
 

Those looking for the truth regarding who said what and who shared responsibility for the partition of India should read the book “Partition of India – Legend and Reality” written by H.M.Seervai, advocate general of Maharashtra form 1957 to 1974. Mr Jaswanth Singh has re-iterated what is already documented in these volumes.This book is based on the 12 volumes written by a team of independent historians under the able leadership of Prof. Mansergh, once Prime Minister Harold Wilson ordered in 1967 that the documents related to independence should be made public, rather than 1999.

Posted by Nasir Khan | Report as abusive
 

Bulletfish, you said:”Maybe now, N. Sharif can recipricate the offer and write a book about how wonderful M.K. Gandhi was.It would be intersting to read. However, what a previous blogger wrote has been proven true over and over again. If N. Sharif wrote a book complementing Gandhi, then he and his family would be either driven out of Pakistan or murdered.When Jemima Kahn (Imran Khan’s ex-wife) ‘once’ stated that she liked reading Salman Rushdie’s novels, there were protests.”–> The State of Pakistan is complicit in killings of minorities and gives tacit approval of them by allowing people who speak some sense to be murdered.It is awful and animal-like how a normal group of people can instantly turn, without any proof, into butchers and murderers on a drop of a dime against non-muslims, if there is even any hearsay about blasphemy. The authorities in Pakistan and police really don’t care about justice for minorities there. They are more than happy to see them disappear and dwindle to nothing as this suits their religious and political ideals.

Posted by Global Watcher | Report as abusive
 

India before 1947 was a geographic entity held together by British power. When the Brits left, British India broke up. Those who claim the subcontinent is one nation have always been wrong. I come from northwestern Pakistan, I have nothing culturally or religiosly common with someone in South India or Assam or even Sri Lanka.The breakup of British India was inevitable.

 

@ Fellow Indians,The partition happened and there has to be a collective blame for it. Be it Nehru, Patel or Jinnah. Everyone agrees that till 1936 Jinnah was secular and had worked hard for Hindu Muslim unity. It was only after that he become sectarian. What changed him was probably greed for power for himself and congress’s reluctance to give him political space. As we all say “Ek Mayan Mein Do Talwar Nahi Reh Sakte”. So Nehru and Jinnah couldn’t have stayed together.But yes the direct action of 1946 can never be acceptable and Jinnah is clearly to be blamed for it. It was this direct action which has led to so much bitterness in the sub-continent.@Amir Ali,India is a land of diversities and We are justifiably proud of it. We have a saying in Hindi “Kos Kos Par Badale Pani Char Kos Par Bani” Which means: Every Km the water changes and every four kms language.So ofcourse if you are travelling from Northwest Pakistan to South India, then there will be differences, but then I guess you haven’t been to Hyderabad. :) And the only seat Muslim League (India) has won is in Kerala.I am not even going into History when from Gandhar(Kandhar) to Sri Lanka, there was cultural continuity.

Posted by Aman | Report as abusive
 

@India before 1947 was a geographic entity held together by British power. …..I come from northwestern Pakistan, I have nothing culturally or religiosly common with someone in South India or Assam or even Sri Lanka.”The breakup of British India was inevitable.- Posted by Aamir AliMr Ali: That sounds like the basis of splitting current Pakistan into at least 4-5 pieces because ethnic differences are so huge that religion does not bind them. Am I right?So the solution is not to look for the differences, it is in finding the commonalities.

Posted by Hmmm... | Report as abusive
 

Every body has their opinions and its OK to give opinions but what BJP did shows that still they dont wanna listen other than what they want………. in that respect Jaswant is right when Jinnah saw Congress is not taking care of minorities in India so what else he can do………. and people like? nehru were offcourse ware not balanced personlity between Hindu and Muslims…………. so thumbs up for jaswant Singh

Posted by kashif | Report as abusive
 

funny part is that in his book he said that? nehru and patel are responsible for creation of Pakistan…Guess we should hang their photos here in Pakistan…hahah thts hilarious

Posted by oshi47 | Report as abusive
 

No respect in india for the people who speaks about the truth. narrow minded country and fake democracy INDIA? is.

Posted by reuters lover | Report as abusive
 

i think that pakistan should be one with India n both countries should have Peace as wished by Gandhi, he was great!!

Posted by Ali Johnson | Report as abusive
 

I was born in pakistan, and raised up in America. I think that if more people marry in different cultures, the better the world will be! there will be no war, all is needed is peace! as Marcus Tullius Cicero says “An unjust peace is better than a just war.”

Posted by Ali Johnson | Report as abusive
 

Mr. Singh can now migrate to Pakistan and try his political fortunes there. Pakistan loves him.

 

Well. This topic and similar ones are discussed for so long now.Let bygones be bygones.India should care only about itself and it allies or friends, try to reach a developed nation status. For the rest of the neighbors let them fight their own problems.Come on! Why should we worry about ow Pakistan came to being? or who made it. We should get on with our lives. Why should we worry about what leaders 60 years back felt about one another? It is their opinion.Krishna

Posted by Krishna | Report as abusive
 

Global Watcher writes:”The British having felt sorry for Indians and hindus, as they were pacifists and a peaceful culture and trying to do their best at ensuring the future safety of India, its culture, its traditions and its people from being annihilated by force, murder, execution and preventing the repeat injustices of the past thrust upon Hindus, by Muslims, did what they had to prevent India going backwards another 2000years and undoing all the work left by the British and decimating Hindu Culture itself”.—- By calling the British a pacifist & peaceful culture shows either your ignorance of history or your willingness to twist history for your convenience. Are you unaware of examples like “Jallianwala Bagh” (in Amritsar) where hundreds of unarmed innocent men, women and children were brutally massacred by the British General Dyer. The firing lasted for 10 to 15 minutes until they ran out of ammunition.By rambling on and on with your conspiracy theories regarding Jinnah does not make you right. Theories like “that they would be slaughtered, genocided en-masse etc etc”. I feel the 150 million muslims living in India would be extremely offended by your theories. It reminds me of Maulana A.K. Azad who forwarded his solution to the Hindu-Muslim issue to Gandhi in a letter dated 2 August, 1945, which stated that it was necessary to remove the fears of Muslims which were genuine (this was being said by Azad, leader of Congress from 1939 to 1946).Another historical fact is that Lord Mountbatten delayed the publishing of the Radcliffe awards until after relinquishing power which had been completed with great effort by 9 August, 1947. This delay resulted in no authority being around when the mass movement of people started. The massacres which followed (from both sides), was a direct result of this delay which was caused by Mountbatten.

Posted by Nasir Khan | Report as abusive
 

RajeevFirst, Book Ban-That’s the official reason announced- Patel. A relevant story- During his previous term Narendra Modi had declared an all out war wth MMSinghs Delhi admn on narmada river issue in particular and water issue in general. The entire State Congress assembly and parliamentary contingent (of Gujarat) joined their State ( BJP) govt unconditionally and made a ruckus in Delhi. The center was forced to reverse its position. State Govt won hands down.Moral- it was a Gujarat issue then, not a party issue. The same analogy applies today on the book ban. Entire Guj. State congress unit supporting the ban changes the complexion here, removing the innocent till proven guilty proverb any place. Apparently both BJP and Cong parties in the state had a clear understanding with backdoor discussions that went on ‘while the wold slept’ and came to the conclusion (speculation). Result is that state Congress party again stood solidly behind the state Govts decision to ban the book, thus vindicating Narendra Modi and dispelling all the vitriolic myths against this committed worker of their state. In fact state and central leadership of congress have openly parted ways on book ban issue. Narendra M plays his cards well and reads fellow gujjus minds very well. Official reasons for ban was, again the piece on Sardar Patel, who comes second only to Gandhi in stature in Gujarat. Is ban a national party leadership decision? Hell. No. Karnataka has announced that there won’t be any ban. (as you kindly noted yourself) Personally I don’t support the ban, I say, let people write what they want, why boost (paradox!) the sales by a ban.Next, Expulsion-J Singh was expelled as he denigrated (in the book) the stature of some icons of India, raising questions about their integrity/motives. This is the final assault on the party ideology, because behind closed doors lately, he was picking on other contemporary tall party figures for some time, maybe he desired a stronger role than he currently enjoys (say, Advanis job ?). It’s a political party after all. His utterance demeaning the party and its leaders in the last 2 days on TV explains his mindset. You guessed it right- He has a plans for his next book! At 71, what party he will jump to, any gusses? I still hope some Delhiites and Londoners will visit the libraries to pull out old literature and provide us with facts.Rajeev, in a lighter vein, J Singh was just asked to retire, he refused and he was promptly fired. Remember colin Powell, fired and later went and supported a democrat candidate. Politicians. Cheers.

 

Indians and Pakistanis should put any bad history behind them and move into the light of today.What is the difference if India and Pakistan (and Bangladesh) are different countries? They can still be united by the commonalites of culture. In fact, speaking of Bangladesh, there appears to be little or no friction between it and India. And they are separate countries divided at Partition. It don’t hear anyone complaining about Bangladesh being a separate country.And that kind of amity can also happen between India and Pakistan.Tell me of any Pakistani who is a Muslim who had a choice between asociating with an Indian or a Middle Eastern Muslim as to eating habits, movie preferences, music or social and family etiquette. Which choice would he/she make? Hands down-an Indian. And the same goes for any Indian with that kind of a choice. And the same goes for any European with that choice (and, by the way, Europe is divided into many countries).So the two countries are separate. For 62 years. So what!Get over it and move on.

Posted by Alethia | Report as abusive
 

@Our Dear next door Pakistani friends,Mr. Jaswant Singh is still alive, operating freely, free to say whatever he likes against his Government, people, or whatever. Let me bring up the flipside for a second, what if there was a Hindu in Pakistan doing what Mr. Jaswant Singh did?If a Hindu in Pakistan did what Mr. Jaswant Singh did or if Mr. Jaswant Singh did the same thing in reverse and he was a Sikh Pakistani, his life would have been in extreme danger. One of several things would have happened, either he would have been arrested and thrown in jail and sentenced, or he would have been killed by an angry Islamic Mob, which would have to pay no penalty for killing an innocent man who speaks his mind.What Mr. Singh is doing is exercising his freedom to free speech and what most people are failing to realize that in functioning democracies like India, people of different points of view, in this case 180 degrees the opposite side of the dial meter, can vent, say what they want without fear of retribution from an oppressive government or a populace that acts like animals, like they would in Pakistan.Mr. Singh is just exercising his civil rights as a mouthpiece because he CAN, because he is in India and although we may not like it or agree with him, this is still a standing testament to the success of the institutions built by Nehru and the extreme failure of Jinnah.Functioning, plural, secular, democratic countries with rule of law, like India, will always have people with dissenting points of view, that is an inherent consequence of having a democracy, everbody gets to voice their opinion, freely. While on the other hand, dysfunctional societies like Pakistan, which have nothing what India has will always show a polarized point of view, because it is in one’s own personal vested safety to do so.When you break down Mr. Singh’s right to speak, although it may not be a favorable opinion with most, under civil rights, he still has the right to say what he feels, without fear of reprisals or retribution from the state or an uncivilized society, drunk on religious and political fervor and hatred. As long as he was not planning to weaken the state with weapons and terrorism and his speaking out was peaceful, nonviolent and non-confrontational, he has the right to speak his mind.The fact that Mr. Singh can even offer a dissenting point of view, on the above basis, speaks volumes of Mr. Nehru’s vision being a complete success in achieving an inclusive, secular and plural democracy, while Mr. Jinnah’s efforts were a complete waste, unsuccessful and has not furthered the life, quality and happiness of muslims in Pakistan, except the parasitic Punjabi Mafia Military Elite in uniforms and their friends and relatives. In India, we agree that it is ok to disagree on contentious issues, while the opposite is true in Pakistan and this can jeopardize your personal livelihood and safety, ie (Baloch Leaders recently murdered.)I beg Pakistani’s to step back once in a while and look at the whole picture from a non-nationalistic and non-religious point of view, you will truly compare to other countries and realize how far Pakistan has to go before it truly becomes a country. Is it any wonder why the Pak Army has to keep the country together by forc,intimidation and political and religious hatreds as tools of Pakistani National Unity?

Posted by Global Watcher | Report as abusive
 

Partition of India was the best thing which happened accidentally. It was truly because of the clash of ambition of jinnah and nehru. In fact patel did not contend at the request of gandhi and gave away the leadership in platter to nehru.Jaswant singh can have his opinion. However it is too extreme for Gujarat to ban the book.Partition reduced the Muslim percentage of the demography from 24 to 13 percent, thankfully otherwise India also would have gone through the drains.As mentioned in another article in this blog, hatred is what is sown in the heart of the young children from school. Nothing elseWho dig grave for others go to the same grave. Further on an honest introspection, any Muslim will agree that they are better off in India than what Pakistan has to offer. That is the reason that the muslim who go to gcc for job return back to india where as the pakistani either go to canada or australia as it is too much for them to come back. It is also reflected in the remittances

Posted by satwa gunam | Report as abusive
 

Jinnah would have led Pakistan in a very different direction had he lived a few more years. He had a vision and he was respected by everyone in Pakistan. Until the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, we were still a healthy country with our economy better than that of India. Jinnah would never have embraced socialism and Pakistan would have been an Asian tiger right from the start. Sometimes losing leaders at the wromg moments can cost dearly. But Pakistan will survive and we will emerge stronger.

 

Divide India and Pakistan, I think Britain should take to the major responsibility not any others.

Posted by Jenny | Report as abusive
 

The demonising of Mohammad Ali Jinnah is typical of India and blaming all its country’s faults on external forces mainly the other side of the border & creating a propaganda truth that the India has to follow. I agree with Jaswant Singh in saying that Jinnah wanted an autonomous region where the Muslims could feel safe in a nation that is predominately Hindu. The saying in democracies is that the rule is held by the majority & that is certainly true of India. Jaswant Singh is a brave man in writing such a book that I am sure he knew would not have gone down well with his former party. What is interesting is that what really motivated him to write such a book. Was it trying to write the truth according to what Singh says or was it to get at the BJP and cause a ripple effect that we are seeing ion its ranks now? Shutting the doors on the autonomous theory that Singh says Nehru did is typical of the Congress government & the policy that was followed by his daughter a generation later when the Sikhs too proposed the same in the format known not too much by people as the Anandpur Sahib Resolution, a document at proposing an autonomous Punjab, but rather known in Congress government propaganda as the Khalstan movement. Like her father too Indira Gandhi believed in the pathetic centralized governance approach in leading India.Absolute Losers

Posted by Jag | Report as abusive
 

The Gujarati government ban on the book is a pathitic protest in an age of online buying. It just shows you how backward they are. As the book is written in English it will be targetted at those who are well aquinted with the web.Haha

Posted by Jag | Report as abusive
 

The expulsion of Mr. Jaswant Singh from the BJP has exposed the sham Indian democracy. What kind of democracy is this? where there is no freedom of expression. India can no more boast “we are the world biggest democracy”. Rather the world’s most bitter divided democracy, a form of aparthied. What does the ban on the book in Gujarat mean?No doubt both Mr. Jinnah and Gandhi Ji were great leaders. Looking at India, Gandhi Ji was the best leader in Pakistan’s favour. Indira Gandhi was the worst, she had a lot of animosity towards Pakistan. I am a young Pakistani and feel earlier leaders like Mr. Jinnah and Gandhi Ji were very good compared to later ones. The young generation on both sides will bring peace and possible somewhat united the two nations not as one. But probably there will be friendlier ties between India and Pakistan if the younger generation put the corrupt politicians out of business in both countries and create a new chapter in relations.

Posted by Umair | Report as abusive
 

Jag,Please note Jaswant, in his book, has not exonerated Jinnah for his ghastly actions but he has held Nehru equally responsible. It was long known. It’s strange to see Pakistanis getting getting overexcited while living through dark times in Jinnah’s country.In Indian democracy, special provisions are added to empower every section of the society, including minorities, such as reservations for erstwhile disadvantaged groups. You do not need a different country for every religion and ethnicity etc. That explains why in Jinnah’s Pakistan the Balochis, the Punjabis, the Sindhis and the Pathans are at each other’s throat asking for a new country because they are different.

Posted by Nikhil | Report as abusive
 

Pakistanis: Do not jump too much, India has not banned the book–it is just one state, Gujrat, where it is banned and is freely available in others. So chill!!!Jag@ see above and with due respect to Jaswant Singh’s views, the idea of giving autonomy to people of one religion showed the neuron decay Jinnah was undergoing at that time. he was very liberal, secular for longtime, but a confused man asking for a separate land for Muslims but still calling himself secular–some definition of secularity. His speeches are so contractictory if you care to visit the web. To address the area of your expertise, Sikhs also wanted a separated land out of shear reaction that Jinnah created around partition. Sardar Patel gave a speech to them in Amritsar and soothed their feelings. Some Sikh leaders were still questioning which way to go-India or Pakistan since after all Jinnah was an Indian freedom fighter. Jinnah as he is known till today by many–SECULAR–Sikhs thought they might have some space in Pakistan’s secular land. After their talks with Jinnah left them convinced that Jinnah does not know clearly about how it is going to be. So Sikhs chose to be with India since the man was confused. Rest all is a history, things happened and the history has proven that Punjab today in India is safe and secure the way it is. BTW I am from Punjab._________________________________ ________________Azad:@Book ban: I got your point. I am 100% with you that the ban in Gujrat is due to Sardar Patel’s home state–in a non-partisan manner. But here is the thing, is it a smart decision on his part. NO! The book is banned in India and freely available in the rest of the India and will be there for anyone in Gujrat to read just like liquor is available in Gujrat despite the state being a dry state. Some Pakistani losers are making the ban issue much bigger deal than it is. But nevertheless Modi could have come out as a much bigger fella if he allowed free expression at personal political risk. He can give a speech to Gujratis on the subject to message their egos and let the book be out and he can say soemthing like “I wish to ban the book but that means more sale so he I won’t do” type speech. But he went the easy way. I think I would have started thinking about giving some respect to the the guy. If he is such a smart a guy he can spin the things to please the massses with verbal whipping of Jaswant Singh. Azad, I see no gain from the ban, this is a great advertisement as you noticed. But it hurt the issue of free expression and jaswant Singh already said that he has joined Salman Rusdie’s league despite the fact that he is not–India did not ban the book. PLUS Salman Rushdie says the opposite in his book “Shame”-he discredits Jinnah and ilk by saying Pakistan is a product of insufficiently imagination. I do not know the details of his relationship with the party. But he is with the party for decades and party is in tatters after losing unexpectedly in the previous election and should have won in this election, yet lost heavily. Perhaps they really need to address the core ideology of the party. Jaswant Singh definitely is not joining Congress with the views he has about Nehru vs Jinnah. But everything is possible in cricket and politics.CHEERS!!!

Posted by rajeev | Report as abusive
 

Judging Jinnah must be easier today than any other time in past: look what a fanatic monster he has created in the name of Islam. People living within the boundaries of that monster are not safe let alone its neighbours. How can you forgive and forget what he did to India.

Posted by Bengave | Report as abusive
 

The expulsion of Mr. Jaswant Singh from the BJP has exposed the sham Indian democracy. What kind of democracy is this? where there is no freedom of expression. India can no more boast “we are the world biggest democracy”. Rather the world’s most bitter divided democracy, a form of aparthied. What does the ban on the book in Gujarat mean?-UmairThis is such a hypocritical remark coming directly from a Pakistani. A citizen of a country that has been under military dictators longer than being in a functioning democracy. Using words/phrases like: sham, no more boast, bitter and apartheid do more to reveal your thoughts about India.J. Singh has been expelled from the BJP he has not left the country like a Pak politician would after a military coup take over with his tail between his legs.I read a Times (UK) article a few months ago written by Jemima Khan (Imran Khan’s ex-wife). While in Pakistan, she once stated that she has read and enjoys reading Salman Rushdie’s novels. This resulted in protests against her. She NEVER stated which books of his she had read. However, this did not prevent the Pakistani protest mob for drawing their own false conclusions.I have said it a dozen times before, but Umair you never seem to listen: People who live in glasshouses should not throw stones. I am surprised that you have any windows left after you keep throwing the same stones over and over again.

Posted by bulletfish | Report as abusive
 

@Krishna,You said:”Well. This topic and similar ones are discussed for so long now.Let bygones be bygones.India should care only about itself and it allies or friends, try to reach a developed nation status. For the rest of the neighbors let them fight their own problems.Come on! Why should we worry about ow Pakistan came to being? or who made it. We should get on with our lives. Why should we worry about what leaders 60 years back felt about one another? It is their opinion.Krishna”–>This is by far, the most constructive comment yet on this blog spot. Pakistan will be ready for peace one day, but not yet. Pakistan must come to terms with its failings, come to terms with its much greater than India social ills against minorites and above deal with Punjabi nurtured terrorism and crush it.I think Pakistan will be ready for democracy one day, once all the old guys like Nawaz Sharif, Hamid Gul, and the old establishment just get old and die off. The biggest roadblock to democracy in Pakistan, that is a truly functioning democracy, in which the popular elected Civilian President is commander in Chief of the Army, not the Punjabi Generals, parasitically looking after their own friends, relatives and families, on the backs of the average poor Pakistani.Perhaps when Bilawal Bhutto completes his studies and after some experience and wisdom, he may be able to marry secular, democratic, and inclusive societies core ideals from the west, with the best that the eastern traditions have to offer, resulting in a more peaceful, compassionate, humanized and above all civilized Pakistani Society. Above all, religion as a tool of national unity is the absolute greatest roadblock to establishing a successful democracy in Pakistan. Where a functioning democracy exists, religious extremism and military mafia will not have an inch of ground to flourish on.In the words of Abraham Lincoln, the U.S. president, he said long ago..”as long as the people know the truth, the Union is safe”… the same can be said for Pakistan, which explains why it is not safe, as the average Pakistani is being lied to and deluded from the truth, hidden by their masters in uniform and the mullahs in the madrasas.

Posted by Global Watcher | Report as abusive
 

Rajeev,-freely available in the rest of the India and will be there for anyone in Gujarat to read –The ban idea is just to stage a symbolic protest by people of Gujarat and not to stop people from reading it in a literal/ physical sense. As the CEO of sate he had to sign the order honoring the wishes of all gujaratis. There were no loud, violent street protests you see…..It was a slap on Jaswants wrist. A blessing for publishers. Expulsion is a party issue. FYI Narendra Modi is a bachelor, lives a modest life and hails from weaker sections of the society. Someone I know very closely lives in Surat, Gujarat says he is a principled man, non- corrupt and he works for his state relentlessly. Jaswant Singh is from a rajastani royal background (nothing wrong with it).

 

Although I agree that Pakistanis don’t have any moral right to talk about India’s democracy, given their history & track record, I do feel that banning the book by the Gujarat state Govt is not only un-democratic, it’s also un-constitutional. As a citizen of India, Jaswant Singh has the right to express his personal opinions, provided it isn’t done in a derogatory manner (which I’m sure it isn’t). By expelling Jaswant Singh, BJP’s image will take a further beating. I’m sure that if AB Vajpayee was at the helm of the BJP, Singh wouldn’t have been expelled.

Posted by Mortal | Report as abusive
 

Mortal, you said:”Although I agree that Pakistanis don’t have any moral right to talk about India’s democracy, given their history & track record, I do feel that banning the book by the Gujarat state Govt is not only un-democratic, it’s also un-constitutional. As a citizen of India, Jaswant Singh has the right to express his personal opinions, provided it isn’t done in a derogatory manner (which I’m sure it isn’t). By expelling Jaswant Singh, BJP’s image will take a further beating. I’m sure that if AB Vajpayee was at the helm of the BJP, Singh wouldn’t have been expelled.- Posted by Mortal “–>Mortal, I agree with you, Mr. Singh has the right to say what he wants, but also the BJP has the right to kick him out of the party as well. The BJP, or any party for that matter, are not a constitutional body unto themselves, political parties are more like a Company or Corporation, who have elected board of governors and loyalty is something that is expected of its employees and the same goes with a political party. The fact that the BJP kicked him out is not a reflection of India as a whole, but the leadership of the party itself. It takes one apple to spoil the whole basket. When companies have a poisonous individual, they often fire him or her, to prevent demoralization of other employees. Mr. Singh was simply fired, since he did not represent the vision of a group of individuals. Both the party and Mr. Singh are entitled to do what they wish, and it should have no constitutional bearing on the country itself, there is a distinction and that should be recognized. It is no different than a Minister getting fired for making comments, that make the Political Party look bad, or making comments that were offensive to people in general.

Posted by Global Watcher | Report as abusive
 

@FYI Narendra Modi is a bachelor, lives a modest life and hails from weaker sections of the society. Someone I know very closely lives in Surat, Gujarat says he is a principled man, non- corrupt and he works for his state relentlessly. Jaswant Singh is from a rajastani royal background (nothing wrong with it).- Posted by AzadAzad: Many politicians are self-made (but most of them are corrupt though). I take your (friends) words at face value but my problem with Mr. N.Modi is not that he is corrupt.

Posted by rajeev | Report as abusive
 

I visited reuters after a long time and I still find same old bloggers constructing and smashing the same topics again and again. Sadly nothing new.

Posted by Rohit | Report as abusive
 

@ Entire blog,Bulletfish, you said:”People who live in glasshouses should not throw stones. I am surprised that you have any windows left after you keep throwing the same stones over and over again.”It seems that Pakistani’s most of them in this blog are trying to becoming adept at hurling blame, insults, false accusations, baseless conclusions, any little thing, they can do to try to make India look bad or tarnish the great democracy and progress there. When Pakistani’s in this blog are given a fitting response, which they know exposes the double standard of their original argument, based on actual facts and history, you people go eerily “silent” and the glass house has got the same stone right back. These blogs are a non-scientific litmus test in a way and a reflection of the collective mindset of Pakistani society, itself, at least those with computers, that are incapable of intropsect, learning from history, incapable of accepting blame, incapable of telling the truth, incapable of admitting their faults and therefore, incapable of progressing socially and morally as a society and human beings, all the way from the Samosa vendor on the street, to the frontline politicians and doomed to repeat the ills of the past as the shattered glass keeps falling on your heads, it is shown by your eerie silence and inablity to appropriately respond to comments that get hurled right back at you. I am sure that there are a lot of moral, ethical, honest, sensible, rational, fair-minded Pakistani citizens, they just have not made it onto these blogs.

Posted by Global Watcher | Report as abusive
 

Global Watcher:I agree that the BJP, as a political party has the right to expel an individual, who it feels is moving away from it’s ideology or is offending it’s vote plank. The BJP, after Vajpayee, has not projected itself to be a secular party & such an action is not surprising at all. My problem is with the Gujarat State Govt banning the book in the State, which I feel is un-democratic & un-constitutional. It should be left to the public, to make the decision whether to buy the book or not. The State has no business making that decision for them. Anyways, in this internet age, how difficult would it be for someone in Gujarat to order the book from Amazon or Ebay? It’s just a senseless decision by the Gujarat Govt.

Posted by Mortal | Report as abusive
 

RAJEEV,SABA NAQVI: Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi was particularly upset with the political fallout of the launch of Jaswant’s book. Gujarat, the home of Sardar Patel, deified him as the iron man who unified India. Now a BJP leader had apparently criticised the Sardar, besides praising Jinnah. With byelections to seven assembly seats there on September 10, the Congress wasted no time making this an issue. The Gujarat unit of the Congress had started referring to the BJP as the Bharatiya Jinnah Party while the Youth Congress had planned protests where they would burn copies of the bookhttp://www.outlookindia.com/article. aspx?261434#comments

 

Jaswant Singh has got something up his sleeve and it’s something very good for India and very good for Pakistan. I think he just didn’t write a book, he’s begun a revolution…a gentle one, yet one that has the power of Hanuman…Read this. This author knows what’s coming…http://thenews.jang.com.pk/daily_ detail.asp?id=195113

Posted by Alethia | Report as abusive
 

When Pakistani’s in this blog are given a fitting response, which they know exposes the double standard of their original argument, based on actual facts and history, you people go eerily “silent” and the glass house has got the same stone right back.-Global WatcherI know. Many Pakistanis love to use the rape, pillage and murder in Kashmir. What they fail to realise is that it was their Pak forces’ terrorists who initiated it in 1989. When they murdered the Kashmiri Pundits and their families. Those same people stoke up trouble in Kashmir that draws in the BSF and innocent people do get killed. Our BSF are their to prevent terrorists crossing the LoC. Any pro-Pak Kashmiri gets a nose bleed, there are protests.Whenever, I mention Mukhtar Mai (honor gang raped) or Taslim Sonagi (mauled by dogs)…all Pakistanis do not respond and just move on to the next blog.

Posted by bulletfish | Report as abusive
 

J. Singh’s book has drawn negative views and resulted in his expulsion from the BJP, but I have not seen nor heard of any protests against him or the BJP. I have not seen people burning the books as a protest.What I do know is that many Pakistanis abroad (especially in the USA) are afraid to say they are from Pakistan.

Posted by bulletfish | Report as abusive
 

Azad:I know it is all politics.From Sada Naqwi article:@With the Jaswant incident threatening his position further, Modi exhorted the national leadership to send a stern message. That done, the Gujarat government banned the book. Modi saw this as damage control; concerns about freedom of expression are never a consideration with a leader like him.”-So freedom of expression is never a consideration for N. Modi.@Things couldn’t get worse for a man (NARENDER MODI) who has fashioned himself as the Chhote Sardar of Gujarat.@Gujarat, the home of Sardar Patel, deified him as the iron man who unified India.–Such a comparison of Modi to our Iron man Sardar Patel is the biggest insult to Sardar patel. Should I cry or laugh? I have no idea. Good way. Whatever Jaswant Singh wrote in the book standa pale in comparison to this.This last paragraph is so true:”At the level of debate, there is outrage among BJP backers that the party has taken such an illiberal position against a senior. Of course, this can be countered with the argument that the BJP has never claimed to be a liberal party. The very unanimity of its action indicates that instead of expanding its mind and vision in order to survive in a changing world, the BJP is more comfortable constricting the space between the ears. So Jaswant Singh is kicked out for writing a book; Yashwant Sinha, a former bureaucrat and Union minister, is out in the cold; Arun Shourie is one step away from being an outright rebel. Any bright sparks left in the BJP? Can it be a thinking man’s party?The great irony is that Atal Behari Vajpayee is still technically the convenor of the NDA. In comparison to the current lot, he seems a towering figure.”—BJP got into power due to one man—BAJPAI–I respect the man. With such a base, BJP has achived nothing. The reason—narrow mindedness. From Rath Yatra to near retirement, Advani has gone full circle.But I am sad because this is the only major alternative.

Posted by rajeev | Report as abusive
 

Guys, everybody here needs to take a step back. Mr. Jaswant Singh is a second or third rate individual, in his field and hoping to make a mark and sell some controversy. This book is merely a collections of thoughts out of his own coconut and do not necessitate long drawn out contemplations and conversations about whose feelings he has hurt.Mr. J. Singh is irrelevant, but those, our friends next door in Pakistan, who have bruised and shamed egos from the constant battery of political backlash and public shaming they have suffered globally, the odd nut out, Mr. Singh, is a refreshing and nourishing individual for the bruised Pakistani psyche.I am sure Mr. Singh will sell the books in Pakistan, and the books may even enter into the educational curriculums in Pakistan, to add to their complement of anti-India propaganda. I only ask our dear Pakistani friends not to pervert the minds of their children with information from one source.Although I don’t careless for Mr. Singh or his book, I do agree though, in the spirit of democracy, it should not be banned. Sometimes democracies do ban books that are hurtful in nature, act to divide society, or those books that incite impassioned or angry responses. It is out of a sense of responsibility to the public safety that such books are often banned, perhaps this book was seen to be in that manner.In the mean time, we need not belabor partition and the irrelevant Mr. Singh any more.

Posted by Global Watcher | Report as abusive
 

@Global WatcherI have been a BJP man throughout my life but I have never seen such a low in the party.Jaswant’s expulsion from the party had nothing to do with the book he wrote but with internal politics.As you must have read that in Gujarat RSS’s headquarter’s a book has been selling for the last 27 yrs which blames Sardar Patel and Nehru for the partition in equal measure.The party with a difference it was called. Do you know why? Not because it espoused Hindutva. But it was democratic in nature (no dynastic politics), it had intellectuals and well educated leaders in it (which appealed to people like me). It was more secular than all other parties in India (It is still the only party that advocates uniform civil code). It had its own drawbacks too.Narendra Modi for example is a very good administrator but not really a statesman. He is a good orator but he has used to vitilate the atmosphere. I admire for what he has done for industrialisation and business and growth in Gujarat. But I don’t agree with his communal politics. Same with Advani. It was Vajpayee and people like Arun Shourie and Yashwant Sinha who attracted the middle class towards BJP with their liberal and modern thoughts. Though I agree Jaswant Singh was not a very high profile politician. But he nevertheless was a founder member of BJP. If the party had just said “these are the individual’s views and the party doesn’t ascribe to it” then it would have been the end of the matter. But due to internal differences, and Rajnath Singh is responsible for this (It is he who has brought about so many factional differences), Jaswant Singh was expelled from the party and the manner in which it was done was really not worth appreciating.If this radicalism of BJP continues then I am sure many people like me will get disillusioned from BJP. The party with a difference is fast becoming the party with differences@ Krishna,By gones will always trail you untill you put them to rest.The partition was not a happy moment for the sub-continent and as its citizens. All of us (including Pakistanis and Bangladeshis) have the right to know what transpired then and why did it happen. It will go a long way in solving the current scenario. In my opinion all the documents relating to partition should be publicly available including on the web. Those interested can read and draw conclusions from it.@ PakistanisJaswant Singh doesn’t spare Jinnah. Though it is true that he was a true nationalist till early 1930s and a model for all the secularists. But you can’t wash away the direct action of 1946 from his hands.If Nehru and the congress is blamed for not listening to Jinnah and driving him away from power. Then Jinnah is responsible for his lust for power making him murderous.Even he joked that from quaid-e-azam he has become Qatil-e-azam.All the leaders of the subcontnent will have to take the blame for partition. Including Jinnah.

Posted by Aman | Report as abusive
 

@Guys, everybody here needs to take a step back. Mr. Jaswant Singh is a second or third rate individual, in his field and hoping to make a mark and sell some controversy.-Global WatcherGW: I agree enough has been said. It is becoming a case of “Little knowledge is dangerous” since most have opinions based upon bits and pieces of information from the media but only a fraction will read the book and then make up their minds. Let us not label Jaswant Singh this way–not over the book. Perhaps I don’t know the guy enough.Relevent question today is rooting out terrorism and Pakistan is dilly-dallying a lot on the issue and playing tennis with the evidence.CHEERS!

Posted by rajeev | Report as abusive
 

Was Partition Good For India?R. Jagannathan in the DNA argues it was:…despite frequent lip-service to the idea of an undivided India by the Sangh Parivar and even secularists, the bitter truth is that it was the best thing to happen to us. An undivided India on Jinnah’s terms would have reduced the whole of the region to Pakistan-like chaos. We would have had not just three countries, but more than 20 of them, allowing none to survive as secular nations. By agreeing to Partition, Nehru and Patel saved the rest of the nation from the mess Jinnah created. They did the right thing.The real tragedy is not that Indians have been unable to see Jinnah differently, as some secular historians would have us believe, but that we still hold rose-tinted notions about undivided India. It is time to abandon the ideahttp://blogs.outlookindia.com/defaul t.aspx?ddm=10&pid=2024&eid=5Global watcher,I agee with your characterization of Jaswant Singh,who hails from West Bengal and he could not strengthen he party in state and even could not win his seat, was propelled into RajyaSabha(upper house) and became a minister thru back door entry. As a politicalparty BJP is a private club and can expel if some one isnt following the policies. He should have put up/ shut up. He didnt. So he forced the party to take the final step. As an outsider what he says maybe dismissed as rant out of frustration, Can be read as biased or wworse blatenet lies.Credibility is lost. He will be a man without a party (mission).

 
 

Azad:@Jaswant Singh even could not win his seat, was propelled into RajyaSabha(upper house) and became a minister thru back door entry.”-Our dear PM Manmohan Singh is then also a Rajya Sabha member and BJP labels him what you labeled J. Singh as minister through backdoor entry. But this is constitutional. If BJP had him for 3 decades he must have been a useful person, right?@As a political party BJP is a private club and can expel if some one isnt following the policies. He should have put up/ shut up. He didnt.-Sure it can. But what policies? the one which are losing them elections? The real boss of this BJP private club is RSS which has its own rigid ideology that is turning out to be counterproductive for BJP. There is no room for “Chintan” and if someone does he is considered a traitor like Jaswant Singh, and Arun Shourie and Yashwant Sinha are rebelling against BJP. Frankly speaking are you not worried about BJP status?

Posted by rajeev | Report as abusive
 

i tnink bjp has commited many mistakes since it lost land last two elections it has not comunicated properly its policy and it is in confused state of mind. its stand on some of the things is very strange like relations with usa, nuclear agreements, its explusion of leaders, currency in parliament,mumbai attack, sir better take a break for few days think and give statements.v

Posted by raj | Report as abusive
 

Jaswants Future: if we see in 3 months time Jaswants name in the media, its only if and when he eloquently tarnishes BJP- the party he slept with for 30+ yrs and not for being critical of congress he has been mudslinging the same duration. Otherwise he will have no media coverage and will disappears from radar. Lets watch.Now. Are there anyone complaining of partition here, wounds and all that aside. The Indians I know don’t. I know the Pakistanis don’t. Anyone.

 

Azad:@Now. Are there anyone complaining of partition here, wounds and all that aside. The Indians I know don’t. I know the Pakistanis don’t. Anyone.- Posted by azadAzad: There are two issues here1. Partition: Wounds cannot be kept aside. Partition cannot be explained using hindsight as to what is happening today.But do not assume Indians don’t complain–yes majority don;t complain for the simple reason that for majoriy Indians and for all non-Muhajir pakistani Muslims, there was nothing at stake during partition. They are continuing with their lives as they have been doing earlier and such discussions are just intellectual time pass for them. But people like me and my parents will complain of the partition. My ancestors are from what is now Pakistan Punjab and belonged to over 12million people who were displaced due to the sudden border that appeared. same is the case in bengal. At least half million people perished–all due to the unpardonable stupidity of the Brits, specifically of Mountbatten, and the idiocy and personal egos of top brand of Indian freedom fighters-Gandhi/Patel/Nehru/Jinnah/Iqbal l-included, who became party to the process. Do I not reserve the right to criticize these leaders here, when it boils down to half million deaths. All this happiness of Pakistanis and anger of Indians over someone’s like Jaswant Singh’s opinion is incredible. Our leaders–one and all-failed to save lives. It was not going to be like a warm send off by either side. So yes, I do complain of the partition.@Reunion:For the same reason I am against the very idea of the reunion of India-Pakistan–much more than anyone else. Reunion is a fabrication of the media and no one in India–to the best of my knowledge or traces only–is willing to do so. It is a nightmare.period

Posted by rajeev | Report as abusive
 
 

NEW DELHI – The president of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party offered to resign from his post after Hindu hard-liners expressed outrage at his praise of Pakistan’s founder during a recent visit to Pakistan, party officials said on Tuesday.Posted on:6/7/2005 —-Khaleejtimes.ae

Posted by Peace | Report as abusive
 

Partition of India has created many problems. There is no reason to appreciate Jinnah. Nasim Yousaf (Scholar) has suggested that Pakistan and India should unite. His paper at presented the Cornell University (USA) is worth reading:”Pakistan and India: The Case for Unification:http://www.allamamashraqi.co m/grandsonsarticles.html

Posted by Nuzhat | Report as abusive
 

just a humble try. thanks.

Posted by rolandbay | Report as abusive
 

partition should have been avoided at all costs…the prices was too much..hear this account-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwLj_nUzl Ck

Posted by payalkmdr | Report as abusive
 

The big question is why should we suffer for the mistakes of the emotional mistakes of one big leader Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. He had no business to go and capture Kashmir. There was no need. Just because he was a Kashmiri Pandit he did it with utter disregard to the aspirations of the people of Kashmir. He coerced Hari Singh who never wanted to sign the accession document. He had only requested for some military help never an accession.

I think it is high time we stop suffering the mistake of one man and solve the problem so that future generations in Kashmir and India can live in peace. Kashmir is never going to let go, Pakistan is never going to let go. Why keep them against their own will. Let them decide their own fate. Why are we dictating it? Let’s get out of Kashmir now!

Posted by helloji | Report as abusive
 

On one side India goes and attacks a totally peaceful state, the state of Hyderabad on the false pretext that it had a majority Hindu Population and on the other takes over Kashmir a totally Muslim majority state. Look at the dichotomy.

In Hyderabad the Nizam was most secular, he may by chance profess Islam as his religion privately. Patel told Nehru “don’t make the mistake of a referendum in Hyderabad as the Hindu will vote for The Nizam”, they were so happy with him and the composite Hyderabad culture, hence most clandestinely they invade an unarmed state and capture it killing people by the thousands.

In Kashmir they sing a completely different tune. India follow only one policy: Might is right”. So much for India’s secularism and democracy. It always wants to trample on people’s wishes. What kind of a democracy is this.

Like US States, others must want to be a part of you not you impose yourself on them whether they like it or not. How long will people of India suffer and pay for the stupidity of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru?

Posted by helloji | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
  •