What's new

Partitioning India over lunch

PakForce Unlimited

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Nov 24, 2006
Messages
178
Reaction score
0
Memoirs of a British civil servant never published until now show how much the partition of India was decided by just two men, the BBC's Alastair Lawson reports.


In a quiet village in the northern English county of Yorkshire, Robert Beaumont rifles through his father's archives.

The various and somewhat tatty pieces of paper he unearths are no ordinary collection of paternal memoirs.

They are the thoughts and reflections of his father, Christopher Beaumont, who played a central role in the partition of India in 1947, which resulted in arguably the largest mass migration of peoples the world has ever seen.

After the death in 1989 of Mountbatten's Private Secretary, Sir George Abell, Beaumont was probably not exaggerating when he claimed to be the only person left who "knew the truth about partition".

'Bending the border'

It is estimated that around 14.5 million people moved to Pakistan from India or travelled in the opposite direction from Pakistan to India.


In 1947, Beaumont was private secretary to the senior British judge, Sir Cyril Radcliffe, who was chairman of the Indo-Pakistan Boundary Commission.

Radcliffe was responsible for dividing the vast territories of British India into India and Pakistan, separating 400 million people along religious lines.

The family documents show that Beaumont had a stark assessment of the role played by Britain in the last days of the Raj.

"The viceroy, Mountbatten, must take the blame - though not the sole blame - for the massacres in the Punjab in which between 500,000 to a million men, women and children perished," he writes.

"The handover of power was done too quickly."

The central theme ever present in Beaumont's historic paperwork is that Mountbatten not only bent the rules when it came to partition - he also bent the border in India's favour.

The documents repeatedly allege that Mountbatten put pressure on Radcliffe to alter the boundary in India's favour.

On one occasion, he complains that he was "deftly excluded" from a lunch between the pair in which a substantial tract of Muslim-majority territory - which should have gone to Pakistan - was instead ceded to India.

Beaumont's papers say that the incident brought "grave discredit on both men".

Punjab 'disaster'

But Beaumont - who later in life was a circuit judge in the UK - is most scathing about how partition affected the Punjab, which was split between India and Pakistan.




"The Punjab partition was a disaster," he writes.

"Geography, canals, railways and roads all argued against dismemberment.

"The trouble was that Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs were an integrated population so that it was impossible to make a frontier without widespread dislocation.

"Thousands of people died or were uprooted from their homes in what was in effect a civil war.

"By the end of 1947 there were virtually no Hindus or Sikhs living in west Punjab - now part of Pakistan - and no Muslims in the Indian east.

"The British government and Mountbatten must bear a large part of the blame for this tragedy."

Personality clash

Beaumont goes on to argue that it was "irresponsible" of Lord Mountbatten to insist that Beaumont complete the boundary within a six-week deadline - despite his protests.


On Kashmir, Beaumont argues that it would have been "far more sensible" to have made the flash-point territory a separate country.

According to Beaumont, the "formidably intelligent" Radcliffe "did not get on well" with Mountbatten.

"They could not have been more different," he writes.

"Mountbatten was very good-looking and had a well-deserved history of personal bravery but, to put it mildly, he had few literary tastes.

"Radcliffe... was very quietly civilised. It was a relationship so like chalk and cheese that Lady Mountbatten had to use all her adroitness to keep conversation between them on an even keel."

Beaumont died in 2002 but his son Robert remembers his father with great affection.

"He was also a man of supreme honesty, who spoke out on numerous occasions against the official British version of events surrounding partition without in any way being disloyal to his country," Robert Beaumont recalls.


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/south_asia/6926464.stm

Published: 2007/08/10 23:29:05 GMT
 
The funny thing is with such BIG obvious favors that India got, some of their hindu fundamentalists complain that the Muslims were in cahoots with the British.

The congress were in bed with the British during the final years quite literally. His affairs with Lord Mountbaten and even Lady Mountbaten are infamous. For these reasons Lord Mountbaten got to be known as Lord Mountbottom in British circles.
 
India has much more natural resources and Pakistan did not get a fair shake. However, there should never have been a partition! Even Sri Lanka should be a part of India.
 
India has much more natural resources and Pakistan did not get a fair shake. However, there should never have been a partition! Even Sri Lanka should be a part of India.


Sir I disagree with the sentence above.
 
Mountbatten was most to blame. If he actually followed the rules of partition, over a million people wouldn't have died and India and Pakistan wouldn't be fighting today.
This video exposes the crimes committed by Mountbatten.


 
Last edited by a moderator:
India has much more natural resources and Pakistan did not get a fair shake. However, there should never have been a partition! Even Sri Lanka should be a part of India.

This indian thinking is the sole reason for the misery of south Asian people and the sole reason why south Asia is under a constant fear of nuclear war. I dont know when will they be able to accept that there is more in south Asia than just India.:pakistan:
 
This indian thinking is the sole reason for the misery of south Asian people and the sole reason why south Asia is under a constant fear of nuclear war. I dont know when will they be able to accept that there is more in south Asia than just India.:pakistan:

And its the Indians who always say that Pakistan should be part of India, Pakistanis never say that they want to be part of India...even Kashmiris protest to this day against being part of India, and we dont see any protest in Azad Kashmir against being part of Pakistan.

I wonder why Indians didn't ask Bangladeshis to join India in 1971, Bangladesh also used to be part of British India. A lot of these Indians talk about Akhand Bharat and always leave out Bangladesh, these Indians so want to associate themselves with the North-West, and people of North-West dont want anything to do with India.


:pakistan:
 
Was there a concept of "India" before the British colonized the sub-continent?
 
Was there a concept of "India" before the British colonized the sub-continent?

No. The British saw the Indus river flowing through Punjab and Sindh (now Pakistan) and called their empire British India. Before the British came, South Asia was a bunch of independent states. British combined all these states and called it British India.
 
The central theme ever present in Beaumont's historic paperwork is that Mountbatten not only bent the rules when it came to partition - he also bent the border in India's favour.

The documents repeatedly allege that Mountbatten put pressure on Radcliffe to alter the boundary in India's favour.

On one occasion, he complains that he was "deftly excluded" from a lunch between the pair in which a substantial tract of Muslim-majority territory - which should have gone to Pakistan - was instead ceded to India.

Very true. Owen Bennet Jones and other historians have mentioned the same. Most importantly, the handover of the districts of Gurdaspur and Ferozepur, in violation of the rules of partition, were to ostensibly give India a means of physical access to Kashmir, without which the Maharajah's accession to India would have been much harder, if not impossible.

The only redeeming part of this was the condition of plebiscite in case of a disputed accession, but that has been ridden rough shod over in the quest for territorial expansionism.

It is estimated that around 14.5 million people moved to Pakistan from India or travelled in the opposite direction from Pakistan to India.

This brings up another interesting issue. Quite often we hear the refrain of '25 percent Hindus before partition reduced to one percent'. This claim is repeated ad nauseum without referencing the impact of the massive migration of millions of Hindus and Sikhs out of Pakistan and the millions of Muslims out of India into Pakistan.

The census of 1951 puts Pakistan's population at about 33 million, obviously it was smaller in 1947, but when you look at the change in population through migration - 14 million in and out - thats almost fifty percent!

This does not even take into account whether the 20 percent figure was for West Pakistan alone or West and East Pakistan, and that makes a difference since East Pakistan had a larger number of Hindus than the West.

The point here is that there is way too much figure fudging with these numbers for the purposes of demonizing Pakistan. This and the numbers of atrocities that occurred in Bangladesh, and it is a deliberate smear campaign to dehumanize Pakistan in India and spread hatred.
 
No. The British saw the Indus river flowing through Punjab and Sindh (now Pakistan) and called their empire British India. Before the British came, South Asia was a bunch of independent states. British combined all these states and called it British India.

Thats one opinion. Same like there was no concept of china prior to Mao.
 
Thats one opinion. Same like there was no concept of china prior to Mao.

China never got colonized or partitioned. Besides the thousands of years history India talks about, Indus Valley Civilization, took place in present day Pakistan. Present day Pakistan was the center of Indus Valley Civilization, not present day India. The region of Pakistan always had a different history from the region now known as India. The only parts of India that shares the same history with the region of Pakistan are Indian Occupied Kashmir and India's state of Punjab.

Chinese history and Indian history are nothing alike.
 
Last edited:
China never got colonized or partitioned. Besides the thousands of years history India talks about, Indus Valley Civilization, took place in present day Pakistan. Present day Pakistan was the center of Indus Valley Civilization, not present day India. The region of Pakistan always had a different history from the region now known as India. The only parts of India that shares the same history with the region of Pakistan are Indian Occupied Kashmir and India's state of Punjab.

Chinese history and Indian history are nothing alike.

I think u should read history again...possibly from a neutral source.
All ur opinions look so convoluted.
 
Was there a concept of "India" before the British colonized the sub-continent?
Yes, Megasthenes' reference is one example. However, the term "India" did not have a political connotation then. It was a geographical reference.
 
Back
Top Bottom