What's new

Partition Reality

partition was caused by the power struggle between the hindu elites & the muslim elites. the source of power for both were different.
the muslim elites were all nawabs,jamindars who derived their power from their landed properties. they feared LAND REFORMS which the congress had planned to implement across the country once they capture power.

they wanted to avoid losing those properties. the only practical solution was to separate from india and carve out their own fiefdoms. In pakistan the feudalism continues even today ! even the pakistan army is shy of touching the VITAL INTERESTS of the feudals. Infact it has joined the game ! pakistan armed forces control about 12 million+ acres of land in the whole pakistan , 65% of it being in punjab.

so protection of economic interests was the root cause of partition , not religion.
 
kashmirik said:
partition was caused by the power struggle between the hindu elites & the muslim elites. the source of power for both were different.
the muslim elites were all nawabs,jamindars who derived their power from their landed properties. they feared LAND REFORMS which the congress had planned to implement across the country once they capture power.

they wanted to avoid losing those properties. the only practical solution was to separate from india and carve out their own fiefdoms. In pakistan the feudalism continues even today ! even the pakistan army is shy of touching the VITAL INTERESTS of the feudals. Infact it has joined the game ! pakistan armed forces control about 12 million+ acres of land in the whole pakistan , 65% of it being in punjab.

so protection of economic interests was the root cause of partition , not religion.


Rite! That would be last thing on the Quaid's mind who hardly had any 'land' of his own and fixed his salary at Rs. 1 as the first Governor General of Pakistan. Sure there were feudals in the Muslim League and a large majority of those feudal's descendants continue to vield power in Pakistan but that is not why Pakistan was created. Its is an entirely different arguement alltogether.

Various people in India's political elite class were feudals too till the late 60's and they held much of India in their palms too. India was successful in eradicating feudalism (not completely still) due to strengthened civilian institutions that were already there functioning for the British since pre-partition times.

Unfortunately, the lands that became Pakistan lacked such institutions which just gave feudals the time to consolidate their hold on power by the time Pakistan got on to its feet.

Partition was the result of injustices to Muslims in British India and Congress' betrayal of the Muslim League in 1937 elections.

I'm sure if you brush up your history, you'd be enlightened.
 
Feudalism in India was abolished by India after independence, the lands were re-distributed, forcefully. Its not coz of the "British" institutions, Pakistan did inherit the same, incld their Officers, it was rather independent India's policy which is still absent in Pakistan.
 
Jay_ said:
Feudalism in India was abolished by India after independence, the lands were re-distributed, forcefully. Its not coz of the "British" institutions, Pakistan did inherit the same, incld their Officers, it was rather independent India's policy which is still absent in Pakistan.

Well, there's a difference of sorts here. Difference between written rules and their application to changing of attitudes and mentality not just the practice itself. I pointed out British institutions since they helped India mature politically rapidly and Pakistan lacked that. There's no denying that fact.

And where did India's 'independent policy' came from? Was it really that independant just like its so-called 'non-alignment' rhetoric? Anywayz, lets not diverge away from the core issue that was being discussed.

Here, I'll post a little something.

Freeing India from Feudalism

India has made headlines in the West as a destination for outsourcing. Many companies are impressed by the country's large skilled workforce. IT, medical research and engineering all testify to India's leaping development. Yet, Sundeep Waslekar argues in this excerpt from "Asia's New Crisis," that the vast majority of its rural population still beeds to be freed from a feudalist mindset.

India needs new economics for its agriculture and industry — not just for the New Economy of information technology.

Stuck in a feudal mindset

India once negotiated a social contract when it gave up its feudal structure soon after independence. But the feudal mindset has not yet disappeared.

The intermediary class — which replaced the feudal interests in Indian politics and business — has also adopted the feudal mental framework and adapted it to its rent-seeking mentality.

The intermediaries flourish in a system where trading and control have primacy over creation. Under this system, the state sector grows in a distorted fashion.

Negotiating India’s social contract

To establish an India based on core values of right action and justice will require negotiating the underlying ethical contract. This is obviously challenging.

It will need initiative from the creative agents of the society. In 1757, and again in 1857, princes lost battles to the British. In 1947, the foreign rulers had to leave. In the 1960s, land reform and abolition of privy purses ended feudalism.

An urgent call for change

The time is now up for rent-seeking civil servants, politicians and businessmen. This is not to say that there is no place for civil servants and politicians.

In fact, those politicians and civil servants who abolish rents and seek partnership with entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurs — especially from the agrarian economy — can construct the architecture of a new ethical order.

A critical mass of change agents needs to play a catalytic role in raising the national consciousness to a higher level.

Change through violence or peaceful means?

The transformation of India is inevitable, because life is not about the survival of the fittest. Life is about the advancement of each and all.

The question is whether we want to see the transformation taking place by violent means — conflict and collapse of the civil society — or whether we want to facilitate a peaceful change.

Rising above the conflict

If we want peace and prosperity instead of discord and decay, it is necessary for the Indian mind to rise above the conflict between the ideal and the practical.

We have to reject the prevailing concept of life as a cricket match, fixed through manipulation, or a wrestling tournament, where the winner takes it all. We need to perceive life as a marathon. Of course, this means nothing less than reform of the Indian mind.

If Indians, led by a values-driven critical mass, sincerely and seriously desire a new ethical architecture, it should be possible for them to construct it. There will be difficulties, since most things worth doing are declared to be impossible — until they are done.

A need to step forth

But if people are committed to emancipate themselves, they will be able to do so, just as they were able to liberate themselves from colonialism only 50 years ago. Someone just needs to make a beginning.

About 30 years ago, I used to live in a small suburb of Mumbai, which was notorious for crime and communal conflicts between Hindus and Muslims. Communal violence was a regular feature of our town.

Effective individual action

One afternoon, in the heat of the riots, a militant Hindu mob wanted to kill our Muslim neighbors. We offered shelter to the latter in our kitchen.

As the angry mob learnt that the Muslim family was in our house, they tried to enter.

My illiterate grandmother dared the mob to kill her before they could cross the threshold. We were extremely tense.

They were puzzled. After some time, one by one they bowed before her and walked away, without harming the Muslim neighbors. That was the end of the riots that evening.

The challenges ahead

And there have been no more riots in my small town ever since, despite the extremely painful rupture between the Hindu and Muslim communities in the last decade.

The ethic of the town has changed forever. It has other problems, but the specter of communalism seems to have disappeared.

Reform ideas

It’s one thing to pacify one town. It’s something else to make a breakthrough in an unethical and unjust social architecture.

So, what should we do? We can start by emancipating 250 million farmers and agricultural workers from draconian laws. Agricultural market reforms — if complemented by public/private partnerships for capacity building — will empower rural youth.

An electoral ban on criminals

Second, we should lobby our chief ministers to hold district magistrates and department heads accountable for publicly announced development objectives. The chief minister of Andhra Pradesh has tried it and it works.

Third, we should demand change in campaign finance laws to introduce heavy penalties on givers and takers of payments in cash. In addition, we should demand an electoral ban on criminals.

Fourth, we should form a coalition of clean businessmen, civil society activists and others, to draft standards for the performance of parliamentarians and state legislators.

No breakthrough without conflict

The coalition should then publicize the performance of our representatives — with a view to naming and shaming them.

Fifth, we should demand ethical audits of companies. Of course, this will all create friction. But breakthrough — by definition — creates friction.

“But why not”

If we make a beginning with these, or similar, initiatives, it will still be the beginning. There will be greater challenges ahead. Is it possible?

When someone insists on the incongruence of the ideal and the practical, I recall that afternoon in my childhood, And when someone asks the question “Why?”, I wonder “But why not?”

Excerpted from Frank-Jürgen Richter and Pamela C.M. Mar's (editors) "Asia's New Crisis: Renewal Through Total Ethical Management" Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons (Asia) Pte Ltd. Used by permission of the publisher.

http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=3915

Very interesting read, even though its a little dated. Some very good points raised and some applicable to Pakistan as well.
 
Sid said:
And where did India's 'independent policy' came from? Was it really that independant just like its so-called 'non-alignment' rhetoric?
You know who introduced Zamindari system to the Sub-continent, dont you?
If India followed the footsteps of British institutions, then we would still nurture the same system, that the British wanted in India.

And whats your problem with NAM? then it was the 3rd Worlds UN.

Read these links, and figure it out, how it was independent India's policy,
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/mp/2002/11/25/stories/2002112501540200.htm
http://www.rmaf.org.ph/Awardees/Biography/BiographyBhaveVin.htm
http://www.markshep.com/nonviolence/GT_Vinoba.html

And yeah this one,
http://www.openspaceforum.net/twiki/tiki-print_article.php?articleId=70
Btw Ive read your l;ink, if you google for Feudalism in India, thats the first one to come up.
 
Jay_ said:
Feudalism in India was abolished by India after independence, the lands were re-distributed, forcefully.

Zimbabwe can't feed its people because of forced land re-distribution. Why is land ownings unfairly targeted? I mean, why dont people target those with billions or those with many factories?

And secondly caste discrimination was abolished in India but it rages on unabated, legislation is rarely fully implemented.
 
Neo said:
Tell it to 150.000.000+ muslims living in India. :rolleyes:

Why are you bothered with them? After all, according to many Pakistanis arent Indian Muslims somehow munafiq or impure having been in touch with kaffirs?

We'll manage with what Muslims we have- but nor do we need any more pure Islam either from Arabia or Pakistan.
 
Sid said:
Rite! That would be last thing on the Quaid's mind who hardly had any 'land' of his own and fixed his salary at Rs. 1 as the first Governor General of Pakistan. Sure there were feudals in the Muslim League and a large majority of those feudal's descendants continue to vield power in Pakistan but that is not why Pakistan was created. Its is an entirely different arguement alltogether.

Various people in India's political elite class were feudals too till the late 60's and they held much of India in their palms too. India was successful in eradicating feudalism (not completely still) due to strengthened civilian institutions that were already there functioning for the British since pre-partition times.

Unfortunately, the lands that became Pakistan lacked such institutions which just gave feudals the time to consolidate their hold on power by the time Pakistan got on to its feet.

Partition was the result of injustices to Muslims in British India and Congress' betrayal of the Muslim League in 1937 elections.

I'm sure if you brush up your history, you'd be enlightened.

The Quaid depended on feudals for support. Your post is similar to me saying Man Mohan Singh is honest so his cabinet must be good as well.
 
Jay_ said:
You know who introduced Zamindari system to the Sub-continent, dont you?
If India followed the footsteps of British institutions, then we would still nurture the same system, that the British wanted in India.

Its not about who introduced it. Its about British leaving behind institutions that enabled post-Independence India's polity to mature in a shorter span of time than Pakistan. I don't think I can be more simplistic than that.

Jay_ said:
And whats your problem with NAM? then it was the 3rd Worlds UN.

Read these links, and figure it out, how it was independent India's policy,
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/mp/2002/11/25/stories/2002112501540200.htm
http://www.rmaf.org.ph/Awardees/Biography/BiographyBhaveVin.htm
http://www.markshep.com/nonviolence/GT_Vinoba.html

And yeah this one,
http://www.openspaceforum.net/twiki/tiki-print_article.php?articleId=70
Btw Ive read your l;ink, if you google for Feudalism in India, thats the first one to come up.

And you're trying to prove what from those links? Doesn't change what I said. It was the 60s that saw decline in feudalism in India but it is still not 100% eliminated from the Indian society.

NAM, as far as Indian was concerned seemed a ploy since India was well aligned with the Soviet Union and then Russia. If it were truly non-aligned, we wouldn't see Russian articles making up 90% of all military arsenal that India has for example.
 
ARROW, please stop hijacking & derailing threads to discuss your wishful topics. If you wish to talk about Islamist-inspired militancy or terrorism, please do in the appropriate threads. This is your first warning!
 
Sid said:
Rite! That would be last thing on the Quaid's mind who hardly had any 'land' of his own and fixed his salary at Rs. 1 as the first Governor General of Pakistan.

Sid, I though Jinna was fairly wealthy in his own right. The last time I was in Bombay, my brother pointed out this beautiful huge mansion ( now unused) that he built. But I also think regardless, that fixing his salary @ Rs.1 was a noble gesture.
 
Yes he was wealthy but that is because he was a successful lawyer. He worked for his wealth (earned it). I cant remember the exact name of the place, but in the United Kingdom, if you go to this place, you will find Jinnah's portrait among top British lawyers of times past.

Fixing his salary at Rs. 1 wasn't just a gesture, it was implemented to show that he, being the top person in the country was NOT going to be a burden on the public treasury so that other elites would follow suit.
 
Sid said:
Its not about who introduced it. Its about British leaving behind institutions that enabled post-Independence India's polity to mature in a shorter span of time than Pakistan. I don't think I can be more simplistic than that.
Still, your saying that Pakistan had none of them is not right. Just a quick check on first Independent Pakistan's Army/Administrative officers would prove you wrong.

And you're trying to prove what from those links? Doesn't change what I said. It was the 60s that saw decline in feudalism in India but it is still not 100% eliminated from the Indian society.
Yes, coz several states passed individual legislation to curb zamindari system. There is nothing British there. As I said, British were infact responsible for Zamindari system.

NAM, as far as Indian was concerned seemed a ploy since India was well aligned with the Soviet Union and then Russia. If it were truly non-aligned, we wouldn't see Russian articles making up 90% of all military arsenal that India has for example.
NAM was neutrally aligned, until, America and Pakistan had their little bon-homie thro CENTO and SEATO.
 
Jay_ said:
Still, your saying that Pakistan had none of them is not right. Just a quick check on first Independent Pakistan's Army/Administrative officers would prove you wrong.

I was talking about 'Political Institutions' and not Army related ones; since most of British Indian army recruits were from areas that became Pakistan. That is why there's more of a prevalent military mindset in Pakistan than political.

Jay_ said:
NAM was neutrally aligned, until, America and Pakistan had their little bon-homie thro CENTO and SEATO.

Yes atleast Pakistan didnt claim to be one of NAM members with the bon-homie going on. India kept charading its NAM membership even when it was heavily involved with the Soviet Union and then Russia.
 
Sid said:
Yes atleast Pakistan didnt claim to be one of NAM members with the bon-homie going on. India kept charading its NAM membership even when it was heavily involved with the Soviet Union and then Russia.

Well said Sid..its like the pot calling the kettle Black :biggrin:
 
Back
Top Bottom