Stubborn or Persistent? Will India ever make nice with Pakistan?

[Joe Shearer]

We live in a world where simple things are made complicated to address one's interests with out taking into consideration justice and rules.

One very simple question though would be what was the guiding rule to divide subcontinent ?

Was it done on the basis of Muslim and Hind majority areas or was there some other parameter ?

As far as world knows its two nation theory and all muslim majority areas were to be part of Pakistan and Kashmir always was and still is a muslim majority state witk 90 plus % muslims.

I'm glad you asked. Could you please accept this as a personal assessment?

The key was Jinnah's struggle to create a consociationalist country (think Quebec within Canada, the most-quoted example). There are those who believe that he sought that, there are those who disagree. Assuming for a moment that the Ayesha Jalal thesis updated by Yasser Latif Hamdani were to be the most accurate, he was trying to balance the legislative power of the brute majority of Hindus by creating different legislatures; within those, majority would prevail, among those, again, majority would prevail. So he proposed two Muslim homelands and one Hindu homeland within the same Dominion of India. The Muslim homelands, the north-west and Bengal, would crystallise Muslim opinion, the Hindu homeland would crystallise Hindu opinion. The Hindu majority would be counter-acted by there being a Hindu majority balanced by two Muslim majorities, and within the Muslim majorities, Hindu brute force would be blunted.

This view found its expression in the Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946. All parties agreed to it, by May/June of that year.

Unfortunately, this broke down on the 10th of June 1946, when Nehru inexplicably suggested during a press conference that the legislators to the Constituent Assembly from the Muslim heartlands would be practising a great leap over faith by being given the liberty to vote on any matter according to their conscience. This was in sharp contrast to the position taken by the Muslim League, which wanted delegates to be strictly bound by the wishes of their responsible homelands. At that point, Plan B, Partition, became inevitable.

Partition was done on the basis of the same homeland structure as the Cabinet Mission. Provinces were the primary units of evaluation. Muslim majority provinces were grouped into Pakistan. The others remained India. Thereafter, smaller sub-divisions took place; Gurdaspur is the one that Pakistanis talk about with barely-restrained indignation, and the Chittagong Hill Tracts causes similar teeth-grinding on the Indian side. There were adjustments almost everywhere, but the basic picture was that Muslim majority provinces were put into Pakistan.

The 561 Indian States were different. The technical view of some constitutional experts was that these states, subordinate to the Crown directly, would not be subordinate to the two new Dominions. Instead, they would have to 'accede' to one or the other, depending on the wishes of its ruler, moderated by the principle of continguity; some little hamlet in Orissa could not be taken to join the Pakistani bandwagon. What followed is best absorbed from V. P. Menon's brilliant book on the integration of the Indian states. No point reading other accounts when this exists.

Does this cover the background? Could I have your reactions, @Albatross ? before proceeding further?

 

[Albatross]

The 561 Indian States were different. The technical view of some constitutional experts was that these states, subordinate to the Crown directly, would not be subordinate to the two new Dominions. Instead, they would have to 'accede' to one or the other, depending on the wishes of its ruler, moderated by the principle of continguity; some little hamlet in Orissa could not be taken to join the Pakistani bandwagon. What followed is best absorbed from V. P. Menon's brilliant book on the integration of the Indian states. No point reading other accounts when this exists.

Does this cover the background? Could I have your reactions, @Albatross ? before proceeding further?

This bold part in your post is the key on two account.
The technical view of some constitutional experts
Who were these experts and where such opinion is documented by neutral or in other words british sources?

Do opinions merely decide such matters or was it incorporated into redcliffe award legally if it was just refer me to the link to read it myself.

What was the case of Junagarh then?

depending on the wishes of its ruler

If a ruler is elected democratically then he represents his nation but that was not the case of princely states as those rulers were appointed by the crown and in no way were representing the wishes of the populace .

The catch is first prove where such rulers were allowed legally to choose b/w Pakistan and India and secondly even if it was which is highly unlikely does it stand the the litmus test of todays worlds democratic values?

The picture you are trying to paint is absolutely wrong as had it been true UN security council would not have asked for plebiscite or should not even have interfered just referring to maharajas legal powers to decide at his own but as it did not happen it is proved he had no authority to decide on the behalf of kashmiries.

Your reply would give me the opportunity to educate you more on the matter and how in todays world people and their right to self determination is above everything else.

 

[Joe Shearer]

This bold part in your post is the key on two account.
The technical view of some constitutional experts
Who were these experts and where such opinion is documented by neutral or in other words british sources?

I have read references to these opinions, but cannot reproduce them. I am writing this from my University quarters, without access to my books. These experts were British, and the sources that I read were British.

Do opinions merely decide such matters or was it incorporated into redcliffe award legally if it was just refer me to the link to read it myself.

No question of opinions deciding such matters, and no question of the Radcliffe award either. This is to be read in the Indian Independence Act itself. You seem not to know that Radcliffe's role was that of a functionary defining boundaries on behalf of the Government of India to clarify the provisions of the India Independence Act. His award by itself had no sanctity; he was merely delineating what had already been defined in the Act.

What was the case of Junagarh then?

I do not know what you mean. The case of Junagadh was the same as the case with any other princely State. The Nawab was free to accede to either India or Pakistan, so long as he chose the contiguous state, that is, India. In other words, he could have any colour of T model Ford, as long as it was black.

depending on the wishes of its ruler

If a ruler is elected democratically then he represents his nation but that was not the case of princely states as those rulers were appointed by the crown and in no way were representing the wishes of the populace .

If a ruler is sovereign, how do you tell him what to do? On the expiry of the arrangement of subsidiary states, whereby the British Crown was the suzerain power, who was then the master of the princes?

The catch is first prove where such rulers were allowed legally to choose b/w Pakistan and India and secondly even if it was which is highly unlikely does it stand the the litmus test of todays worlds democratic values?

Err, these are not my opinions, that I have to prove them to you, or to anybody else. I am citing the British legislature upon which India and Pakistan, and ultimately Bangladesh, gained their independence. If you want to know where such rulers were allowed legally to choose between Pakistan and India, read the Act. That was the legal basis for independence, and that also contained the status of the princely states and the British legal position that on the dissolution of the Crown colony India, the Crown would withdraw its supervision of the princes and they would be sovereign.

About today's world's democratic values, these were states ruled by sovereign rulers, just like any other state ruled by a sovereign ruler. What allows a modern European kingdom a measure of democracy is the internal constitution which each state has created over the centuries. These constitutions invariably have been granted by the sovereign ruler of the day, giving up his powers to an extent and allowing the people to exercise it in a democratic process within the constitutional framework of an absolute monarchy. That is the process whereby absolute monarchies became democracies ruled by a monarch under a constitution. Examples being Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain, and, of course, Britain. Other examples are Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

The point is, of course, that the people of these princely states never organised, never agitated and never obtained constitutions to transform these from absolute monarchies to democracies. Therefore, when the British withdrew their supervision, they reverted to whatever they were at the time of their ruler having entered into a subsidiary alliance with the British, or the equivalent.

The "litmus test of today's democratic values" is difficult to apply when there was no democratic development whatsoever. You perhaps are aware of the democratic developments within the Crown Colony of India. I ask this because the difference between the democratic shape of the two Dominions that were formed out of the Crown Colony is due to these democratic developments. These were absent in the case of the princely states.

The picture you are trying to paint is absolutely wrong as had it been true UN security council would not have asked for plebiscite or should not even have interfered just referring to maharajas legal powers to decide at his own but as it did not happen it is proved he had no authority to decide on the behalf of kashmiries.

Very well. It is absolutely wrong. What this 'it' is is not clear. Presumably you are objecting to my narration stating that the states, specifically their rulers, were free to choose whichever Dominion they chose. And presumably also you wish to raise this in the context of Kashmir.

That is your assertion without any evidence or backing and simply your opinion to form it. What do you want me to say beyond that? Have it your own way, and let us not engage in a pointless exercise. I do not appreciate your belligerence, nor your implication that this is selected to put India's case in a good light, or a better light.

Your reply would give me the opportunity to educate you more on the matter and how in todays world people and their right to self determination is above everything else.

Please go ahead. I am happy to be educated. Since you are so learned in the law, you might consider a position at the institution where I teach now, the premier law university in India. But meanwhile, do please say whatever you have to say. There will doubtless many who will overlook the jingoism and aggressive manner in which you have chosen to approach the subject, and will read your views avidly. Do continue. I believe in the light of your response, I have little or nothing to add.

 

[FaujHistorian]

.... The case of Junagadh was the same as the case with any other princely State.

My dear Joe sahib,

in 2015 all this discussion about 1948 is really a moot point. Sorry to say.

Pakistan and India both were created out of provinces of British India.

Emphasis is on "Provinces".

As princely states were not provinces,

they were taken as per "jiss ki lathi uss ki bhains" (might is right). it worked in pretty much all the cases without any serious challenge. Biggest land grab in the region. That's all.

There is just one exception. Yes. the K-state.

This is where two lathis struck each other and state was divided by force. Pakistani laathi was smaller and hence we failed to take more territory than what we have.

Oh and this process of laathi bazi didn't stop in 1948. It continued on in E. Pakistan, Siachin, and kargil. And most likely will happen in future whenever laathi bazi would be feasible. Bharat used its laathi without shame whenever it could with great success.

And Pakistan tried to use it but mostly failed.

No need to drum up laws, rules, constitution, resolutions, or paper work of any kind (be it toilet paper or the paper used to print holy books).

I deeply respect you as you know.

Let's celebrate "laathi culture". And Bharati intectuals should simply come out and proclaim loudly and confidently the famous commandment

"We shalt taketh, because we couldeth"

 

[Joe Shearer]

My dear Joe sahib,

in 2015 all this discussion about 1948 is really a moot point. Sorry to say.

Pakistan and India both were created out of provinces of British India.

Emphasis is on "Provinces".

As princely states were not provinces,

they were taken as per "jiss ki lathi uss ki bhains" (might is right). it worked in pretty much all the cases without any serious challenge. Biggest land grab in the region. That's all.

There is just one exception. Yes. the K-state.

This is where two lathis struck each other and state was divided by force. Pakistani laathi was smaller and hence we failed to take more territory than what we have.

Oh and this process of laathi bazi didn't stop in 1948. It continued on in E. Pakistan, Siachin, and kargil. And most likely will happen in future whenever laathi bazi would be feasible. Bharat used its laathi without shame whenever it could with great success.

And Pakistan tried to use it but mostly failed.

No need to drum up laws, rules, constitution, resolutions, or paper work of any kind (be it toilet paper or the paper used to print holy books).

I deeply respect you as you know.

Let's celebrate "laathi culture". And Bharati intectuals should simply come out and proclaim loudly and confidently the famous commandment

"We shalt taketh, because we couldeth"

LOL.

Yes, indeed, you have a valid point of view. I hope all my Hindutvavadi interlocutors (I dare not call them friends, they might lose their jobs) are reading your post; it would warm the cockles of their hearts. They, too, believe that might is right; that a majority, the stronger, has the right to impose its will on a minority, the weaker; that the rule of law doesn't matter, only the wishes of the majority, or the stronger, matter; and who is to say that you and they are wrong?

I write this with delight in my heart that the circle is now complete! How it will excite those, just as it must be exciting you to read this.

This is a very nice way to start the day, the week, the month; thank you.

 

[FaujHistorian]

LOL.

Yes, indeed, you have a valid point of view. I hope all my Hindutvavadi interlocutors (I dare not call them friends, they might lose their jobs) are reading your post; it would warm the cockles of their hearts. They, too, believe that might is right; that a majority, the stronger, has the right to impose its will on a minority, the weaker; that the rule of law doesn't matter, only the wishes of the majority, or the stronger, matter; and who is to say that you and they are wrong?

I write this with delight in my heart that the circle is now complete! How it will excite those, just as it must be exciting you to read this.

This is a very nice way to start the day, the week, the month; thank you.

My dear Joe sahib

Off course I said it with great sadness.

But believe you me, when it comes to Pakistan, we get lathis from both RSShites and CongresShites. Doesn't make a diff for us. One with Kirkit and one without (cricket) but the end result is the same.

Indira Gandhi was no Hindutvadis or was she?

for Pakistan the difference was only in the style. Congressites were soft spoken lath baz and Hindutvadis not so.


whatever their difference is, ONLY applies to Bharat's internal situation. or in other words internal relationship between diverse groups who form the larger body politic of Bharat.

Thats where Congress can do much better than Hindutvadis. They have started their pogroms with black ink but it will go all the way to pointy end of swords.

Sadly.

 

[Joe Shearer]

The picture you are trying to paint is absolutely wrong as had it been true UN security council would not have asked for plebiscite or should not even have interfered just referring to maharajas legal powers to decide at his own but as it did not happen it is proved he had no authority to decide on the behalf of kashmiries.

Your reply would give me the opportunity to educate you more on the matter and how in todays world people and their right to self determination is above everything else.

Could I ask - what did this refer to? Was it my entire post, or a part of it?

 

[Bang Galore]

This is a very nice way to start the day, the week, the month; thank you.

Don't know about you but not a bad way for me to start the day, the week, the month reading you on this subject.

Always a pleasure.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Don't know about you but not a bad way for me to start the day, the week, the month reading you on this subject.

Always a pleasure.

That tangential heading at the end didn't allow me to complete.