India Pakistan Partition BBC Special Presentation




 =================================================
comment:-
India -Pakistan partition was planned in Britain

British India: "Just Rule" or "Divide and Rule"?
By James A. Frieden and Deborah Elliott.


The Western colonial empires justified their subjugation of the colonies through the concept of racial superiority and the doctrine of "The Just Rule." Imperialists claimed that because of the moral and technical superiority of the West it was preordained that Westerners would rule the less developed countries.

Racial Superiority

The ultimate goal of colonialism, according to its proponents, was to lift the "natives" out of savagery. Brigadier General John Jacob in the early 1800s explained it this way:

"We hold India, then, by being in reality, as in reputation, a superior race to the Asiatic; and if this natural superiority did not exist, we should not, and could not, retain the country for one week. If then, we are really a morally superior race, governed by higher motives and possessing higher attributes than the Asiatics, the more the natives of India are able to understand us, and the more we improve their capacity for so understanding, the firmer will become our power. Away, then with the assumption of equality; and let us accept our true position of a dominant race. So placed, let us establish our rule by setting them a high example, by making them feel the value of truth and honesty, and by raising their moral and intellectual powers."

The poet Rudyard Kipling, a great apologist for British imperialism, put it this way:

White Man's Burden
Take up the White Man's Burden-
Send forth the best ye breed-
Go bind your sons in exile
To serve your captive's need;
To wait in heavy harness
On fluttered folk and wild-
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child

Take up the White Man's Burden
And reap his old reward
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard-
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:-
"Why brought ye us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night."

The Economics of Empire
The British began trading with India in 1600 focusing on cotton, indigo, pepper, yarn, sugar, silk and other commodities. At that time, India was ruled by a decaying Moslem empire. British relations with India for 250 years were governed by the British East India Company. In 1750, there was a report that rebellious "natives" in Calcutta had placed British citizens in an airless prison. Robert Clive, a clerk for the British East India Company, mobilized British soldiers to avenge the "Black Hole of Calcutta." He went on to seize the province of Bengal. Over the next 150 years the British accumulated power in state after state. After a rebellion in 1857, the British Parliament incorporated India into the British Empire and ruled it directly. The British were able to conquer India for a number of reasons including: the decline of the Mughal Empire, better weapons, discipline and esprit de corps of the British army, and the British monopoly of sea power.
The reality of British imperial policy was much different than the theory of "The Just Rule." The economy of India was made subject to the needs of the British economy. For example, Indian roads and railway were developed so that raw materials needed by British factories could be more easily taken from the country and so that expensive finished goods from England could be conveniently distributed.
Wealth was systematically drained from India through confiscatory taxes and economic subjugation. British taxes forced peasants to borrow money at high interest rates from money lenders and landlords, virtually enslaving families for generations. Industry was discouraged by Britain's policy of one-way free trade. Europeans were favored for all government jobs.
The British maintained their power by pitting Hindu against Moslem in a policy called "divide and rule." This policy exacerbated tensions between the religious factions in India and contributed to decades of communal strife, countless deaths and the eventual partition of India into two separate countries, India and Pakistan.
Page [233] of Area, Vol. 20, No. 3, Sep., 1988

Sardar Patel's speech at Calcutta Maidan on 3rd January 1948




.

Hyderabad joins India - September 1948


Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel - Iron Man of India


1947-Indian News Reel -Indian independance films


1947-Indian News Reel - Sardar Patel in Gujerat and Nehru at launching of India made ship


Britain wanted to divide INDIA INTO MANY NATIONS BUT FAILED

The Communal Award was made by the British Prime Minister Ramsay Macdonald on 16 August 1932 granting separate electorates in British India for the Forward Caste, Lower Caste, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Indian Christians, Anglo-Indians, Europeans and Untouchables (now known as the Dalits) etc.
The 'award' attracted severe criticism from Mahatma Gandhi, the Akali Dal etc.
As a result of the Third Round Table Conference, in November 1932, the then Prime Minister of Britain Ramsay Macdonald gave his 'award' known as the Communal Award. According to it, separate representation was to be provided for the Forward Caste, Lower Caste, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Indian Christians, Anglo-Indians, Europeans and Dalits. The Untouchables were assigned a number of seats to be filled by election from special constituencies in which voters belonging to the Untouchables only could vote.
The Award was highly controversial and opposed by Mahatma Gandhi, who was in Yerveda jail, and fasted in protest against it. Once the Depressed Classes were treated as a separate community, the question of abolishing untouchability would not arise, and the work of Hindu social reform in this respect would come to a halt. Communal Award was supported by many among the minority communities, most notably the Untouchable leader, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar. After lengthy negotiations, Gandhi reached an agreement with Dr. Ambedkar to have a single Hindu electorate, with Untouchables having seats reserved within it. This is called the Poona Pact. Electorates for other religions like Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Indian Christians, Anglo-Indians, Europeans remained separate.
Akali Dal, the representative body of the Sikhs, was also highly critical of the Award, since only 19% reservation was provided to the Sikhs in Punjab, as opposed to the 51% reservation for the Muslims and 30% for the Hindus.[1][2]

ReferencesEdit

  1. Asgharali Engineer (2006). They too fought for India's freedom: the role of minorities. Hope India Publications. p. 177. ISBN 978-81-7871-091-4.
  2. Bipan Chandra Engineer (1989). India's Struggle for Independence. Penguin India. p. 290. ISBN 978-0-140-10781-4.
Menon, V.P. (1998). Transfer of Power in India. Orient Blackswan. p. 49. ISBN 978-81-250-0884-2.

 ================================================

  MEETING -
CAN SEE JINNAH AS THE MAIN BRITISH AGENT IN THIS PHOTO
OTHERS invited by JINNAH  ARE AMBEDKAR,DRAVIDA KAZAKAM RAMASAMI ETC

 



 
 March 1942: Mohammad Ali Jinnahwith Sir Stafford Cripps after a meeting.

 Sir Syed Ahmad Khan




Sir Syed Ahmad (1817-1898). Starting his career as a clerk in the service of the East India Company in 1837 he finished as a member of the Governor General’s Legislative Council from 1878-1883. He had earned the confidence of the British by his saving many Europeans during the “Mutiny “, so that he was able to make the new rulers acquainted with the Muslim points of view they had been unaware of formerly. His activities comprised three fields, Islam, reconciliation with the British, and relation with the Hindus. As to Islam, after a visit to England in 1869 he became aware that Islamic theology should recover the dynamism it had possessed in the glorious past.His greatest contribution however was the establishment of the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College at Aligarh [shows how english rulers were thinking of dividing India into muslim and hindu  even in 1870]


anti-Islamic currents were not universal at the time. At the first session of the Indian National Congress held in 1886 the President said:
“For long our fathers lived and we have lived as individuals only or as families, but henceforward I hope that we shall be living as a nation, united one and all to promote our welfare, and the welfare of our mother-country”.
Sir Syed however did not agree to that, and called the members of the Congress back to reality by saying in one of his speeches on the subject:-

“The proposals of the Congress are exceedingly inexpedient for a country which is inhabited by two different nations….Now suppose that all the English …were to leave India….then who would be rulers of India? Is it possible that under these circumstances two nations---the Mohammedan and Hindu—could sit on the same throne and remain equal in power? Most certainly not. It is necessary that one of them should conquer the other and thrust it down. To hope that both could remain equal is to desire the impossible and the inconceivable.”

Iqbal said at the Session of the Muslim League in 1930 :-
 [by 1930's british increased their efforts to divide India]

“I would like to see the Punjab, North West Frontier Province, Sind and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single state. Self-government within the British Empire or without the British Empire, the formation of a consolidated North Western Indian Muslim state appear to me to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of North West India… The Muslim demand ..is actuated by a genuine desire for free development which is practically impossible under the type of unitary government contemplated by the nationalist Hindu politicians with a view to secure permanent communal dominance in the whole of India. Nor should the Hindus fear that the creation of autonomous Muslim states will mean the introduction of a kind of religious rule in such states. For India it means security and peace resulting from an internal balance of power, for Islam an opportunity to rid itself of the stamp that Arabian imperialism was forced to give it, to mobilize its law, its education, its culture, and to bring them into closer contact with its own original spirit and with the spirit of modern times.”

In 1933 a Muslim student at Cambridge, Chaudhari Rahmat Ali, proposed to give Iqbal’s project the name of Pakistan. The name struck the imagination of the masses, and was in general use as late as 1940.

  Muhammad Ali Jinnah

 Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah
Iqbal was a poet, but no real politician. In fact the Muslims had at their disposal a qualified politician, Muhammad Ali Jinnah (1876-1948), but he followed for a very long period the unitary point of view adhered to by Nehru and Gandhi until, at last , he was converted to the Pakistan concept in 1937

 Jinnah lost his influence in the National Congress, and, disgusted, he left India to establish himself as a lawyer in London between 1930-1940 
[that is the time jinah was converted by british colonial rulers to lead a seperate nation called pakistan ;to divide India-because British thought by dividing India many times according to religion/caste/ruling kings/they can continue to exploit India ]
----------------------------------------------------------------

instigated Hyderabad,Travancore,Junagadh to be free ...

pazhayathu.blogspot.com/.../britaish-told-hyderabadtravancorejunaga.ht...
Jun 12, 2014 - COLONIAL RULERS- instigated Hyderabad,Travancore,Junagadh to be free countries in ... hyderabad king -NIZAM- and sardar vallabhai patel ... Junagadh was a princely state ruled by Muslim rulers in British India till its ...
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The end of the English Empire (1947-1948)

The English, having in mid 1945 voted from office the pro-Empire Churchill and installed the anti-imperial Labour Party leader Atlee, easily fell in line behind the American idea that Europe should get out of the imperialism business in Asia and Africa.  In 1947 England pulled out of its long-standing position in India (which then fell immediately into a horribly murderous civil war – which produced even the assassination of the spiritual leader of Indian independence, Gandhi).  And the following year (1948) England abandoned her responsibilities in Palestine, leaving that country to plunge into a terrible civil war between Arab Palestinians demanding recognition of their rights as a nation – and Jewish refugees from Europe flooding into Palestine to escape the legacy of what had been a very anti-Jewish Europe.


=================================================

 British wanted to separate the present Tamil nadu and Andhra area as dravida nadu ,and instigated it]

The Demand for Dravida Nadu - Tamil Nation & Beyond

tamilnation.co › The Tamil Heritage - History & Geography
Jump to In 1943 and 1944 leaders of the Justice Party continued to ... - Justice Party renamed Dravidar ... said that he wanted Dravidanad to be a ... He added that the Dravidanad would be separated from the rest of India and ...
]==========================================]=]=]==]
British tried many tricks to hang on in India /pakistan region but failed


]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]


Independent Nation for India's 300 Million Untouchable ...

www.greenpeacex.in/.../independent-nation-for-india-s-300-million-unto...
Independent Nation for India's 300 Million Untouchable People ... We should send all Dalits from India to Bihar and give independence to that BIMARU state.
 GREEN PEACE INDIA WANTS TO DIVIDE INDIA INTO MANY PIECES

MOST PROBABLY A PAKISTAN SPONSORED OR CIA SPONSORED ORGANISATION

More Indian Vintage Photographs [CLICK ON PHOTO FOR BIGGER IMAGE]

From a footnote to the forefront- Iyodhee Thass Pandithar (1845-1914

SEARCH

Opinion » Comment

Updated: December 24, 2014 01:24 IST

From a footnote to the forefront

A. R. Venkatachalapathy
Comment (9)   ·   print   ·   T  T  
Illustration: Manivannan
The Hindu
Illustration: Manivannan

In fin-de-siècle Tamil Nadu, Iyodhee Thass Pandithar forged a radical identity for Dalits

The death centenary of C. Iyodhee Thass Pandithar (1845-1914) has passed practically unnoticed. But for a few Tamil magazines and some Dalit intellectuals, no one seems to have commemorated it. When I suggested his name to a scholar-administrator seeking nominations for a scheme of the Ministry of Culture, which celebrates the centenaries of leading Indian personalities, I had to write a follow-up mail outlining who he was.
Who was Iyodhee Thass Pandithar? To put it simply, he was an intellectual who anticipated Dr. B.R. Ambedkar by two generations. In fin-de-siècle Tamil Nadu, Iyodhee Thass forged a radical identity for Dalits. He argued that they were the original Buddhists who were stigmatised as ‘untouchables’ by Brahmins for resisting the caste system. At a time when Buddhism was in practical oblivion (and whatever little was known of it was mediated by Orientalist antiquarians), he reinterpreted Indian and Tamil history through Buddhism. His movement to revive Buddhism radicalised significant numbers of Adi Dravidars — “the original Dravidans” is how he described the Dalit — especially among the working classes in the Kolar Gold Fields.
For long Iyodhee Thass was little more than a footnote in the history of the Dravidian movement. People knew of him through tantalising references in the great Tamil writer and political personality, Thiru.Vi. Kalyanasundara Mudaliar’s classic autobiography. In the wake of Dr. Ambedkar’s birth centenary, the Dalit movement in Tamil Nadu, for long subsumed within the non-Brahmin movement, came into its own. In 1999, G. Aloysius, following his pioneering monograph on Iyodhee Thass’ movement (Religion as Emancipatory Identity: A Buddhist Movement among the Tamils Under Colonialism, 1998), published an edition of his copious writings from Tamilan, the weekly that Iyodhee Thass published from 1907 until his death. These volumes have been the major ideological arsenal for the Dalit intellectual movement in Tamil Nadu over the last decade and a half.
No sense of history
India is notorious for not having a sense of history. The terrible shambles of most of our archival repositories stands testimony to our apathy. The mainstream disdain for lower caste histories makes this historical apathy lethal. Not surprisingly, our knowledge of Iyodhee Thass — “Not much is known of [Iyodhee Thass’] life,” observes G. Aloysius in a footnote — especially until the launch of Tamilan in the last years of his life, is particularly sketchy. Based on some documents in the colonial archive and a report in The Hindu, both dating to 1898, I present some new information on Iyodhee Thass and his movement.
In mid-1898, the Government of Madras noticed from occasional newspaper reports that certain persons of the outcastes were attempting to establish that they were once Buddhists. The issue was referred to the Commissioner of Police, who set the intelligence machine in motion. The police functionary, who made the enquiries, was on the mark when he noted that caste disabilities rather than purely religious motives were behind the claim to a Buddhist identity. Even though he remarked pejoratively that they were “posing as Buddhists,” he rightly noted their desire to be “free from all the intolerance of caste” and be “liberated from the position of degradation in which they now are.”
The investigator also had “a long conversation” with Iyodhee Thass himself (we do not know if Iyodhee Thass knew that he was speaking to a policeman), but the results provide interesting gleanings that amplify the little that we know about his life.
Iyodhee Thass, according to this report, was born in Mylapore, Chennai. He learnt Tamil and English apart from acquiring expertise in native medicine. He then moved to Ootacamund where he practised medicine for 17 years before returning to Chennai circa 1893. At the time of the enquiry, he was making between Rs. 70 and 100 a month, not an inconsiderable sum those days.
Iyodhee Thass stated that he had his first insight into the Buddhist origins of outcastes in an old palm-leaf manuscript titled Narada Purana Sungai Thelivu. Towards propagating his new discovery he had started ‘a Buddha Sungum’ in Ootacamund. (The police checked out this information in Ootacamund. While they could confirm that he was “respected … as a skilful doctor and also as a Sanskrit scholar,” no information was forthcoming about the Sangam itself.) In was at this time that he came into contact with the theosophist, Colonel H.S. Olcott (1832–1907), who was in Chennai then. Through Olcott he interacted with two Buddhist scholars from Sri Lanka. One was Anagarika Dharmapala of the Maha Bodhi Society of Ceylon, who forged a Sinhala-Buddhist majoritarian identity in Sri Lanka. The other was an old Sinhala priest ‘Gunaratnaswami’ (Gunaratne).
A meeting was held in Chennai on June 8, 1898. Olcott and the two Buddhist priests spoke, and an appeal was made for support to Iyodhee Thass’ movement. The very same day Iyodhee Thass issued a public appeal to Colonel Olcott, making a plea to support the movement. “[I]t was our heartfelt desire to return to our old Buddhist faith only in its primitive purity.
“For thus alone, we believe, can we hope to restore our self-respect and to gain that right, to win by our exertions, domestic comfort and untrammelled personal liberty of action, which we are denied us in the Hindu Social System of caste, under the weight of which, we are now, and for many centuries have been, crushed into the dust.” The plea, “A Unique Petition,” was carried by The Hindu (July 14, 1898) — the title most certainly the handiwork of a sub-editor.
The report of the June 8 meeting was printed in English with the title ‘The Revival of Buddhism in Southern India: A Great Event.’ Unfortunately, our source presents only a few excerpts from the report which ran to four printed foolscap pages. It is also not clear if the two other pioneers of Buddhism in India, M. Singaravelu Chettiar, “the first communist in South India,” and Professor Lakshmi Narasu were present on the occasion. Evidently Iyodhee Thass’ involvement in Buddhism predated their interest, and in any case the trajectory of his movement took a more radical turn rather than remain bookish.
Iyodhee Thass soon started a Dravida Buddha Sangam, which at this time, according to the police, had a modest membership of 50. More than a month after the meeting, towards the end of July 1898, Iyodhee Thass accompanied Olcott and the Buddhist priests to Lanka, addressed some meetings at Colombo and Kandy, before returning to Chennai on September 5, 1898.
Conditions for upliftment
As the Indian nationalist struggle progressed in the 20th century, Iyodhee Thass’ loyalist position was confirmed. He saw in the colonial state an agent that would create the necessary conditions for the upliftment of Dalits. An uncompromising critic of the Indian National Congress — he dubbed it “the Brahmin Congress” — he wondered what self-rule under the Brahmins might mean for the lower castes, a position articulated after his death by both Periyar and Ambedkar.
After making this enquiry, the Government of Madras seems to have scarcely worried about Iyodhee Thass and his movement, and there are few reports of his activities in the colonial archive. The enquiry smugly concluded that “the movement is scarcely likely to have any political significance as it is extremely unlikely to succeed.” Writing in 1898, the police inspector may be pardoned for not sensing the momentous import that Iyodhee Thass now has in the Dalit movement. Historians have fared worse.
(A.R. Venkatachalapathy is a historian and Tamil writer.
E-mail: chalapathy@mids.ac.in)