Some Little Known Facts about Jallianwala Massacre
Very few people in India, perhaps none abroad, know as to why General Dyer ordered massacre of innocent men women and children on April 13 1919, the Baisakhi day. Here are some important little known or unknown facts which resulted in the massacre of more than 500 and serious bullet injuries to more than 1500, mostly citizens of Amritsar who had gathered there to listen to Gandhi and other leaders against what Gandhi called “Devilish” piece of legislation ie. two Bills under Rowlett Act.
Arthur Herman, the author of Book “Gandhi and Churchill, describes the event before massacre of hundreds of innocent Indians gathered in Jallianwala Bagh as under:
‘ Winston Churchill told the House of Commons , “Never has there been a time when people (Indians) were more disposed to turn to courses of violence or show such scant respect for law and custom , tradition and procedure.” To ally the fears of men like Churchill Indian government officials decided to act.’
In February 1919, as the Defense of India Act was to expire six months after the war; two bills by Sydney Rowlett, reached the Legislative Council in Delhi; “an outery began. Even with every Indian member (of legislative council) voting against it the bills were passed in March and became law. The two bills contained two controversial provisions. One allowed judges to convict suspected terrorist or subversives without a Jury, the other sanctioned interning those same suspects without trial.”
Gandhi thought by supporting British war effort India would get independence (Swaraj) or at least Home rule. So Gandhi had enthusiastically supported the British Empire in their war against Germany. He even went so far as to recruit 20 able-bodied persons from each village in Gujarat and walked for hundreds of miles. At the end he could recruit only forty instead of more than a thousand. He justified his war effort to the annoyance of his close associate (Sardar) Patel, who refused to be a party to that effort of Gandhi, due to twist in his philosophy of Ahimsa- Annie Besant sarcastically called Gandhi “Recruiting sergeant” of British Empire. Even many villagers felt ashamed of their Gandhi’s support to British and left his meetings or showed their back.
Gandhi justified his pro British stand. Gandhi went so far as to say “Of all my activities I regard this (recruitment) as the most difficult and the most important.”
It is surprising that there is no mention of Gandhi being pro-British upto 1919 in the ‘Advanced History of India’ by Dr R C Majumdar and others, and also Gandhi going to many villages to recruit as soldiers for British-Indian Army and the sarcastic remark of Annie Besant, that Gandhi was “Recruiting Sergeant” for the British.
It is noteworthy that Gandhi’s pro-British views in 1914 to 1919 were in absolute contrast to Annie Besant’s views…. Annie Besant a British citizen who came to India and after seeing extreme poverty in villages and the conditions of vast majority of Indians, the repressive imperialist rule by the same British who were just and democratic in their own country, got so perturbed that she started ‘Home Rule India’ party. She wanted British to concede independence to India. She said “The moment of England’s difficulty is the moment of India’s opportunity.” But Gandhi differed with her and wanted India to support British war effort “unconditionally, spiritually and physically.” Lokmanya Tilak was released from jail after the 1st world war started in 1914. Tilak wanted like many other Indians British to concede ‘Home Rule’ to India, if not independence, just now. He therefore joined Annie Besant’s Party. As a result within one year, Annie Besant’s ‘Home Rule League’ had more than 60,000 full time members while “Indian National Congress had only 20,000 members.”
However after the end of war with Germany, British Government and in particular imperialist Winston Churchill went back from their promise of conceding Home Rule to Indians. This made Indian National Congress furious and Gandhi, too, felt betrayed by British. So he joined the independence movement of Congress and was going to address congress sponsored meeting at Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar, just, adjoining the Golden Temple the holiest Sikh Gurdwara. But on way Gandhi was taken out of train before reaching Amritsar, arrested and taken to Bombay. Punjab Government, as well as the British Government of Delhi kept this and Jallianwala massacre and meeting as top secret and did not let anyone know for couple of months.
In brief here is sequence of Jallianwala Bagh Massacre on 13th April 1919: Dyer entered (Amritsar) city central with a convoy of Armoured cars, his troops following. With him was the Amritsar town “crier.” He was shouting Dyers order in Hindi and Punjabi, English and Urdu. “On reaching his temporary headquarters, he learnt that a demonstration was under way in Jallianwala Bagh. He became furious, rather lost balance, at the “deliberate violation” of his order and immediately marched with “ninety Baluchis and Gurkhas towards Jallianwala Bagh where thousands of citizens had gathered to protest against the ‘devilish’ provisions of Rowlett Act. With Dyer were only four British, two officers and two security guards. ‘Otherwise there were no white soldiers at all.’
Arthur Herman describes the order of Dyer as under:
“Dyer barked the order to open fire. For ten minutes Dyer encouraged his soldiers to keep shooting unless bodies carpeted the ground.” Dyer and his troops had marched off after completing the massacre in Jallianwala Bagh leaving about a thousand dead and more than 2000 wounded. “Cries of pain and moans rose to the roof tops, bodies lined the entire wall around the Bagh. In many places the eyewitnesses said, they were ten feet deep.”
Where an English woman had been pulled from her bicycle, “Dyer ordered every citizen of Amritsar to ‘crawl on all fours”. He also set up a whipping post where any ‘native’ who refused to crawl was to be flogged.
‘Gandhi did not hear of this massacre and cruelty at Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar ‘until June’. For almost two months there was complete clampdown. But as the news of worst ever British tyranny trickled there were unceasing protests and cries all over India.
Jallianwala Bagh massacre united all Indians against British, for the first time. Rabindra Nath Tagore returned his knighthood in protest, Gandhi returned his Kaisar-e Hind medal that was awarded for his pro-British services in South Africa. Jinnaha relinquished his membership of imperial legislature. Motilal Nehru collected his British furniture, suits and ties and made bonfire in his home garden and started wearing hand span Khadi clothes.
“The evidence was harrowing. Eyewitnesses who had watched the Jallianwala Bagh killings from the rooftops had seen “blood pouring in profusion…even those who were lying down were shot….Some had their head cut open, others had eyes shot and nose, chest, arms or legs shattered.” Some witnesses had sat all night in the Bagh with dying husbands and brothers. Others remembered the bodies of those who had been shot, but managed to escape, being left in the street for dead-including the bodies of small children.”
“At one point an entire wedding party had been flogged for failing to follow the crawling order.”
The pain and cries because of more than a thousand deaths in Amritsar “united Indians as never before and after”. More than any other events “Amritsar and its aftermath solidified national support for Indian independence.
HAITI- Its origin and Recent Tragedy
Almost a month back one of the worst tragedies occurred in Haiti, a small country with less than 10 million population. The disaster of January 12, 2010 killed more than 2 lakhs inhabitants, mostly poor farmers and workers. It is reported that for almost one week there was no food and medical aid from anywhere from Spain, USA and France, in particular, as they have been ruling directly or indirectly over Haiti. France ruled Haiti for a long after Spanish control. Accordingly the official language of Haiti is French.
Aid has trickled thereafter. But many thousand unfortunate remained under debris for more than a week. Instead of direct and substantial help to Haitians, particularly the orphans, there was attempt to take away or kidnap, many orphans by missionaries for adoption at a price or conversion. Some missionaries were even caught and jailed for sometime. Even after a fortnight of disastrous quake there were “Thousands of criminals on the loose and reports of rape and violence” and all types of crimes. USA could send hundreds of soldiers and volunteers to help in all spheres. But USA did not. Had USA or UN taken emergency measures and aid, there would have been some immediate relief to the poor victims of worst earthquake.
It will enlighten many to know the origin and history of Haiti in brief, as Haiti though founded in 1492 by Columbus, is now “oldest black republic in the world and second oldest independent in the world.”
Columbus, as is well known, was trying to reach India, but reached Haiti in 1492 a part of West Indies. Columbus thought that he had reached West of India, i.e. Haiti and adjoining areas, south of Cuba and touching Puerto Rico in the Caribbean Sea. Haiti is an Indian word meaning high ground. There are two chains of rugged mountains in North as well as in South, so it was named as Haiti and is known as Haiti since the time of discovery by Christopher Columbus.
During 500 years of its known existence, Haiti has met with many tragedies because of greed of Western Powers, particularly Spain, France and USA. Haiti was conquered, destroyed and re-conquered a number of times.
Columbus himself discovered gold and built a small fort of timber in Haiti. He left behind some of the crew, to guard the fort and get gold from the gold mines. But the aboriginals known as ‘Arawak Indians’ destroyed the fort and killed all those whom Columbus left behind. Haitis estimated population in 1991 was about seven million and it would be about 10 million in year 2010 before the worst tragedy struck killing as per latest estimate more than 2 lakhs inhabitants.
Because of the discovery of gold, many more Spanish settlers came to Haiti. “They forced the Indians to mine gold and raise food for them. They treated the Indians so harshly that by 1580 only a few hundred Indians were alive. The Spanish settlers brought slaves from Africa to “work for them” Spain continued to control Haiti and Dominican Republic till the French, English and Dutch pirates stationed in small island of Taruga made the life of spainiocals miserable. Accordingly king of Spain ordered them to leave Haiti and Dominican Republic and go to Mexico and Peru where Spain established new settlements. Haiti in due course, became a French settlement. French became the official language. France had brought almost 5,00,000 slaves from Africa in contrast to 60,000 French. French made Haiti more prosperous than even their colony in part of Canada.
However during French Revolution of 1791, the so called slaves became conscious and rebelled against the French. Though Napoleon had sent French soldiers to recapture Haiti and make it French colony but it was short lived. The rebels defeated the French and General Jean Jacques Diesoline, leader of rebels, proclaimed Haiti an independent country, thereafter recognized all over the world.
In Haiti more than 80% are farmers and live in villages. They grow sugarcane; coffee which are processed there and exported to USA and other countries. Besides Haiti grows cotton. There are cotton mills and craft workers handicrafts that they have woven. Only 5 to 10 percent know French and rule the country, Republic of Haiti.
Maharaja Ranjit Singh The Great
Ranjit Singh was born on 13 November 1780 and was named Budh Singh but the moment his valiant father Mahan Singh returned after subduing Pir Mohammad and his brother Ahmed Khan, capturing their forts at Sayyid nagar, Kot Pir Mohammad and Rasulnagar, first he did was to change the name of his son to Ranjt, which meant victor of battles. Mohan Singh was chief of Sakerchakia Misl, foremost of the 12 Sikh Misls.
Mahan Singh’s father’s great grand father was Desu, a cultivator who owned 25 acres of land. He belonged to village Suker Chak, near Gujranwala and so the name of Misl came to be known as Sakerchakia Misl. At the age of 50 Desu decided to meet Guru Gobind Singh as, himself being giant of a man and fearless fighter, he had heard about the great Gurus Khalsa and Khalsa’s fight with cruel Mughal rulers who had massacred lakhs of innocent Hindus during their rule. Seeing Desu touching Gurujee’s feet, Guru Gobind Singh was impressed by his strong personality. As soon Desu expressed his desire to become Sikh, Gurujee himself baptized him and named him Budha Singh. He joined the Khalsa at Anandpur Sahib and participated in many battles. Budha Singh became martyr in 1715 at Gurdas Nangal, fighting along with Banda Singh Bahadur. When Budha Singh died, his body had seven ballet wounds and 29 scars of arrows, swords and spear cuts. Similarly Ranjit Singh’s father Mahan Singh died when Ranjit was boy of 10. He was immensely inspired by his grand father Charat Singh, who fought many battles with notorious Muslim invader Ahmed Shah Abdali who had destroyed the sacred Darbar Sahib Amritsar twice. During fierce battles in 1761,1764 and 1766 Afghans tried his level best to subdue Charat Singh but after every fight the Misl’s head emerged stronger than before and annexed more territories.
By the time Ranjit Singh became Chief of the Misl at the age of 15, he had become expert horse rider, knew perfectly how to handle sword and spear as well musket. Thus in another five years by the age of 19 he had conquered Lahore. He was such a valiant person with immense self confidence that he did not care for his illness at he age of 6 when he lost one eye because of severe attack of smallpox. As C H Payne, a historian puts it: “The gifts which nature lavished on Ranjit Singh was of the abstract rather than concrete order. His strength of character and personal magnetism (were to be) the real source of his greatness.”
In December 1795, Ranjit Singh, when he was just 15 years old, wrote to Maratha Chief, Daulat Rao Scindia, who was at the time in Aligarh, to join the Sikhs so as to expel the Afghans from India once for all. But Ranjit Singh received no reply from Maratha chief and was very much disappointed as he had hoped if Marathas, another valiant people of India, would join him to complete the mission of expelling Afghans from India.
Ranjit Singh also tried to get full support from Sahib Singh Chief of Phulkian Misl, which was quite well known. Ranjit Singh invited Sahib to join him for expelling Afghans from the Sikh homeland. It was not a big surprise that Ranjit Singh received no reply from Sahib Singh Earlier, the founder of Phulkian Misl Alla Singh had betrayed the Sikhs as it was Ahmed Shah Abdali, with a view to cause split in Sikh Misls, who made Alla Singh as Raja of Patiala in 1763, though only a year back in 1762, the same Abdali had attacked and destroyed the sacred Harmander Sahib killing thousands of Sikh pilgrims and “filled the sacred sorovar with dead bodies of Sikhs and carcasses of cows. He also made, to scare Sikhs once for all, pyramid of Sikh’s heads on the site of devastated Harmander Sahib.” The two incidents of young Ranjit Singh’s approach to Maratha Chief and also Phulkian Misls Chief are very significant and demonstrate the efforts of Ranjit Singh to have alliances against Afghan invaders and destroyers of Holy Harmander Sahib.
It was 17 years old Ranjit Singh who had crushed furious Zaman Shah who had attacked Amritsar. This humiliating defeat demoralized Afghan descendent, Sikhs blood thirsty, Ahmed Shah Abdali. Thus Zaman Shah was not only defeated at Amritsar but his Army was chased to the gates of Lahore by Sikh Army of Ranjit Singh. While running back to Afghanistan Zaman Shah had lost 12 crucial guns in Jehlum River. He appealed to Ranjit Singh to rescue his guns and in return he would not oppose Ranjit Singh’s taking over Lahore. Ranjit Singh proved to be a diplomat. He readily agreed so as to become ruler of Lahore. Thus young Ranjit Singh laid the foundations of Sikh Empire, through bravery and diplomacy. Such a diplomacy proved useful and helped Ranjit Singh in dealing with British East India Company after a couple of years, as it required give and take and not obstinacy with the opponent who may or may not be more powerful.
Conquest of Lahore by 19 year old Ranjit Singh was very significant because it made him Maharaja or Ruler of not only Lahore but vast territory of Punjab. Lahore had been invaded and conquered by Muslim rulers from 1014 when Mohammad of Ghazni and thereafter it became home of many dynasties including Ghoris, Mongals, Tugh laks, Khiljis, Lodis and Suris. Even Mughal Emperor Akbar had made Lahore as the capital of his vast Empire of India in 1584. He built famous Lahore Fort which after 1799 became Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s principal residence.
Despite rivalry between Misls of Sikhs, Ranjit Singh at the young age of 19 demonstrated his and his Misls superiority by conquering vast area of Punjab and becoming ruler of Lahore as Maharaja Ranjit Singh. It is apt to compare Ranjit Singh with Alexander the Great. Though Alexander conquered vast empire from Greece to Punjab he did not or could not consolidate and rule over it. In contrast Ranjit Singh Lion of Punjab, conquered vast areas as the valiant Sikhs of Guru Gobind Singh never showed back: they, to last man, died fighting. He himself had led the Khalsa Army from the age of 15 to demonstrate that he was though chief of Misl and ruler, he was one amongst them. It is strange and painful that no Indian political leader or historian has developed on the greatness of Ranjit Singh or compared him with Alexander or Napoleon. Napoleon ultimately lost all his conquest. Neither Alexander nor Napoleon lost by treachery or conspiracy against them by their rivals. Alexander could not consolidate and had to retreat to Greece. Napoleon lost the war fighting and was defeated. Maharaja Ranjit Singh never lost in battle in 30 years of his rule. That is why he was and is known as Lion of Punjab.
In 1830, the population of Sikhs Empire was about 25 lakh of which 50% were Muslims, 42% Hindus and 7 to 8% Sikhs. This is rough estimate based on perhaps the first ever census of Punjab in 1881. Based on 1881 census Punjab’s population was placed at 2.2 million ie 22 lakhs. In 1881 Punjab included whole of west Punjab, East Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh, Sikhs accounting for only 7% ie about 2 lakhs of the population against 50% Muslims, 42 % Hindus and 1% Christians and others (quoted by Patwant Singh) in ‘Empire of the Sikhs’. It becomes clear that Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s Empire extended from Satluj River to Khyber Pass near Peshawar and in the west from Jammu to Kashmir which included ladakh and Gilgit.
Perhaps it is unknown in the world history that 7% people conquered and ruled over 93% and that, too, without any religious or political turmoil. Napoleon to an extent Ranjit Singh’s contemporary tried to conquer vast Empire extending to East Europe and Russia but got defeated. Similarly during 1st World War Germany tried to repeat what Napoleon failed but faced ultimate defeat and humiliation as Germany itself was conquered and divided. It becomes, to a great extent clear, that Maharaja Ranjit Singh alone in world History of last two centuries or so conquered and ruled for 30 years over a vast Empire which included NWFP ( which was till then part of Afghanistan. Thus whole of modern world must recognize Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s greatness and also of valiant Khalsa Army.
Maharaja Ranjit Singh despite being a Sikh Ruler was absolutely secular. There were Sikhs, mostly generals like Hari Singh Nalwa nd Akali Phoola Singh, there were Hindus like Dhyan Singh who was PM and his brother Gulab Singh, and Muslims like Faqir Azazudin who was Foreign Minister. After Ranjit Singh’s demise traitors like Teja Singh became prominent ministers. That is how the Sikh Empire was lost.
I shall just quote from my memory a few lines from Shah Mohammad’s poem on First Sikh War with British East India Company. Shah Mohammad, a Muslim poet of Punjab, who wrote many poems in Punjabi and recited them in Punjab says:
“Teja Singh see Yaar Farangian daa”
After mentioning in brief Teja Singh’s treachery of being friend of Britishers, Shah Mohammada writes:
Shah Mohammada Singhan Ne Gorian De
Wang Nimbuan Lahu Nichor Ditte
Je Kar Hondi Sarkar Taan Mul Paandee
Jehrian Khalse Ne Teghan Morian Ne
Shah Mohamada Ik Sarkar Bajon
Faujan Jit Ke Annt Nuun Horian Ne
In simple English translation Shah Mohammad says:
Sikh soldiers squeezed British soldiers blood, as one squeezes lemon.
If Maharaja Ranjit Singh had been alive,
He would have appreciated and honoured the Sikh soldiers for bravery
As some Sikh soldiers fought with just swords in their hands.
Shah Mohammed concludes:
But for Sarkar (Maharaja Ranjit Singh) Sikh having won ultimately lost.
Sikhs lost first Sikh War and Second Sikh War because of treachery of men like Teja Singh and Dogras like Dhyan Singh, who was Prime Miniser during Ranjit Singh’s lifetime, and his brother Gulab Singh and conspiracy of British East India Company.
Shashi Tharoor’s Contribution to India’s Unity
Shashi Tharoor’s version of India and its unity in Diversity under all circumstances, pressures from inside and outside is commendable. It is a vision of which every Indian is proud and values. It is a vision which makes Shashi Tharoor, a Keralite, a great Indian. Though USSR disintegrated, but India, though remained under Nehru’s Soviet model of socialism for almost 20 years, has not and shall never disintegrate. Despite some neglects and omissions Shashi Tharoor’s concluding remarks about India’s invincible unity are reproduced below:-
”There is remarkable resilience about the Indian state (which has proved the foreign analysts wrong) one that is sustained by an intangible sense of nationhood and shared destiny. India is a country held together in Nehru’s evocative image, by strong but invisible threads that bind Indians to a common destiny. Indians are comfortable with multiple identities and multiple loyalties, all coming together in allegiance to a larger idea of India, an India that safeguards the common space available to each identity, an India that remains safe for diversity, taken for granted by most Indians. It is this quality that will prevent the disintegration so widely predicted for my country.”
In a multi lingual, multi ethenic and a multi cultural country some problems are bound to arise particularly in the East India which had been neglected for thousand of years by Muslim rulers of India and British rulers of India for almost 200 years ignored the problem of East except trying to safeguard the Northern and Eastern boundary by virtue of Young Husband expeditions Mac Mahon Line, that, too, when China was a very weak country whose territories of Korea and Manchuria were conquered and occupied by a small country like Japan and eastern ports like Macao and Hongkong by European imperialists. India got a bad legacy in East but has been trying to solve the problems of East India, since 1947. There have been linguistic problem in many parts of India which were solved by State Reorganization Commission. Punjab problem was also solved. Now there is problem of Telergana, which too, will be solved. Problems will continue to be there, as indicated above, and explained by Shashi Tharoor because of “remarkable resilience” all problems will be solved and India will ever and ever remain united.
India is a country of which all Indians are proud of and feel so and are sure of its unity in diversity whether they are Keralite’s like Shashi Tharoor or Kashmiri’s like Sheikh Abdullah, or from any other Indian state or Union territory from Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh (Hindu, Muslim and Buddhist majority respectively) in north to Kanyakumari in South and from Nagaland and Arunachal in East to Goa and Maharashtra in West. All the inhabitants of various states and Union Territories at home they are known as Kashmiris, Punjabis, Marathas, Gujaratis, Assamese, Bengalis, Orias, Telegus, Tamils, Kannadas or Keralites, but when they go abroad they say with pride and they are known as Indians whether they go to America, Europe, Russia, China or Japan. This is the most significant aspect and proof of India’s Unity in Diversity.
Shashi Tharoor on Indira Gandhi
As a realist, Shashi Tharoor seems to be having more criticism than praise for Indira Gandhi, particularly because for virtually no reason she imposed state of Emergency in 1971 for the first time in India since independence. Ordinarily if an ordinary and unknown judge of Allahabad had ‘convicted’ her on technical ground for electoral malpractice. She could ordinarily appeal against this Judgement in the higher Court, even, if need be in Supreme Court and waited for final order of the higher or highest court. But it was not to be, Indira Gandhi was impatient, hungry for power even by undemocratic means as has been quoted by Guha in the following passage: which proves glaring undemocratic feeling and action by Congress under Indira Gandhi.
“During 1972 elections congress won in 13 states including Bihar MP and Maharashtra. However in West Bengal Congress used all undemocratic means to come to power “mixture of terror intimidation and fraud. Gangs of hooligans stuffed ballot boxes with the police idly looking on. There was mass scale rigging in Calcutta—goondas paid by the congress told voters assembled outside polling stations that they might as well go home, since they had already cast all the registered votes” (Quoted by Guha from eye witness account)
Shashi Tharoor, too, thinks of Indira Gandhi, skilled in acquisition of “power by all means, fair and foul. She could not bear or stomach defeat,” in Shashi Tharoor’s own words.
“Mrs. Gandhi was skilled at the acquisition and maintenance of power, but hopeless at the wielding of it for larger purposes. She had no real vision or program beyond the expedient campaign; “remove poverty” was a mantra without a method.
In a very brief account of Operation Blue Star and with no mention at all of Rajiv Gandhi’s indirect collusion with massacre of Sikhs for four days since he was sworn in as PM, and not ad-hoc PM like Gulzari Lal Nanda, immediately after Indira’s assassination, Rajiv Gandhi did not call the Army nor instruct the senior congressmen to stop the onslaught on Sikhs. About Indira Gandhi, Tharoor says “Mrs Indira Gandhi never understood the extent to which so many Sikhs saw ‘Blue Star’ as a betrayal” in the horror of anti-Sikh riots that followed it, which saw whole families burned alive for the Sin of sharing the religion of her assassins.
On Mrs Gandhi’s encouragement and reported financing of Bhinderan-wale
Tharoor writes:
As the murders mounted, Mrs Gandhi had little choice but to destroy the monster( Bhinderan-wale) she herself spawned and finally violated a basic tenet of Indian state by sending armed troops into a place of worship, the historic Golden Temple in Amritsar to flush out the terrorists holed up there………. But her real fault lay in having created the problem in the first place and in letting it mount to the point where destructive force of ‘Operation Blue Star seemed the only solution.’
The assault on Golden Temple alienated many Sikhs like eminent writer and journalist, Khushwant Singh whose patriotism was unquestionable. However Indira Gandhi’s assassination was unfortunate though it was a reaction to attack on Golden Temple, the most sacred Gurdwara worshiped by the Sikhs all over the world. Though she had been advised or warned by her own intelligence to remove her Sikh body guards as they feared that as Dyer who ordered Jallianwala Bagh massacre was killed by Udham Singh, something like that may happen to her. But Indira Gandhi did not accept their advice. Had she accepted this advice many feel that she might not have been assassinated and thousands of more Sikhs might not have lost their lives in the first week of November 1984.
Shashi Tharoor on Nehru
Jawaharlal Nehru who was PM of Interim Government of British India under Lord Mountbatten become, logically, the first PM of Independent India on 15th August 1947. In this connection, Tharoor’s comments on British policy and also Nehru’s historic speech are worthy of praise and are reproduce below:
”If the structures of British rule tended toward the creation of a united India for the convenience of the rulers, its animating spirit was aimed at fostering division to achieve the same ends. This seeming paradox (but in fact entirely logical construct) of imperial policy culminated in the tragic Partition of India upon independence—so that August 15, 1947, was a birth that was also an abortion.”
”But despite the mourning in many nationalist hearts at the amputation that came with freedom, despite the refusal of Mahatma Gandhi to celebrate an independence he saw primarily as a betrayal, despite the flames of communal hatred and rioting that lit the midnight sky as the new country was born, there was reason for pride, and hope. India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, put it in words that still stir the soul:
”Long years ago we made a tryst with destiny, and now the time comes when we shall redeem our pledge, not wholly or in full measure, but very substantially. At the stroke of the midnight hour, when the world sleeps, India will awake to life and freedom. A moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, when we step out from the old to the new, when an age ends and when the soul of a nation, long suppressed, finds utterance. It is fitting that at this solemn moment we take the pledge of dedication to the service of India and her people and to the still larger cause of humanity.”
After 15th August 1947 address to the nation, Jawaharlal Nehru’s long career as PM extending to 17 years was not cent per cent praise worthy. There were many short comings. Shashi Tharoor has written so much on Nehru which is, significant, requires equally detailed comments. Being son of Moti Lal Nehru and educated in England, like Mahatma Gandhi, 29 year old Jawaharlal Nehru became in 1918 the youngest member of congress working Committee. Soon Gandhi chose him as his protégé. During independence movement Nehru spent 18 years in British jail. Thus in 1946 Jawaharlal “became Gandhi’s nominee” for Prime Ministership in interim Government of India. Being Mahatma Gandhi’s heir no leader of equal statue in Congress opposed him.
Nehru’s first test of competence as PM was his inaction and failure to delete the line, added while accepting Instrument of Accession of Kashmir to India, mischievously by Mountbatten (possibly on the instructions from British Government). Nehru as PM of a Sovereign Country should have deleted this clause. Second blunder of Nehru on Kashmir was, that, too, under Mountbatten pressure or influence, to agree to cease fire when whole of Kashmir could be captured by Indian Army in just a fortnight more – Mountbatten had met Jinnaha in Lahore and had consented without consulting PM or Indian cabinet to refer Kashmir question to UN and thereafter to hold plebiscite. Had there been strong and determined PM like Sardar Patel, so much bungling on Kashmir would not have been there. Infact there would have been no Kashmir Problem at all, which has cost India lives of thousands of valiant soldiers and also lives of innocent Kashmiri citizens besides thousands of crores of rupees.
Nehru’s other significant failure related to 1962 War by China when Nehru left for Sri Lanka saying I have ordered my Army to “throw Chinese out”. Defeat at the hands of China was so shocking that in a couple of years Nehru died in 1964. Unfortunately though Shashi Tharoor has written so much on Pandit Nehru in his book he has failed to comment on the vital issue of Kashmir and Nehru’s failure one after another to assert India’s views against British Governor General of India, Mountbatten.
About Nehru’s all embracing nationalism and secularism Tharoor says: “Under Nehru, the Congress remained more a nationalist movement than a political party, embracing every ideological tendency, every religion, class or caste interest within it.” That is why so long as Nehru was PM despite his shortcomings, congress continued to be the only, virtually unchallenged, political party.
Nehru’s socialist pattern of economics led to what is called ‘Inspector Raj’, whether the inspector is if Police, of Rationing Deptt, of Income tax. Though there was no ministerial corruption but state central of Industry led to increase in corruption and poverty. There were no avenues for the young educated aspirants. Shashi Tharoor rightly remarks “State directed industry simply did not have the absorptive capacity to soak up rural surplus labour.”
Accordingly the best act of Narsimha Rao with Dr Man Mohan Sigh as Finance Minister was to abandon Nehru socialism and allow so called capitalism which led to rise in private industry, trade and all round improved India’s economy. It opened avenues of employment for poor villagers as well as educated and highly educated youngmen who had suffered under Nehru’s Socialism. Nehru’s socialism combined worst features of capitalism and socialism, so it was bound to be abandoned.
It is surprising that Shashi Tharoor has neglected many political leaders. For instance there is no mention of Sardar Patel who was Minister of States, consolidated and unified India by incorporating 500 or so Princely States. Sardar Patel ordered the British C – in – C of India, who was reluctant, to send Indian Army to Kashmir when invaders from Pakistan had reached outskirts of Srinagar. There is only one small para on Lal Bahadur Shastri, who won a war against Pakistan and died of Heart Failure in Tashkent. There is no mention of other prominent leaders like Dr Rajendra Parsad, first President of India, Jaiparkash Narain, a selfless Gandhian. Even there is no mention of Atal Bihari Vajpayee who was Prime Minister of India and longest serving. Member Parliament, Shashi Tharoor has written a lot about Mahatma Gandhi, Pandit Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi even mentioned about Rajiv Gandhi and Deve Gowda. These neglects and omissions as outlined above are noteworthy in such an important book on INDIA.
Shashi Tharoor on Mahatma Gandhi
Attenborough’s picture on Gandhi was awarded 8 Oscars. Other film producers protested or regretted, As Gandhi was not awarded Nobel Peace Prize, though his follower in USA or self proclaimed Gandhians like Martin Luther king jr. and Adolf Perez Esquivel became Nobel laureates Seven Oscars to Film on Gandhi was perhaps to equate Gandhi with Nobel Peace Prize winners.
Shashi Tharoor in the opening pare on Gandhi writes: “Mahatma Gandhi was the kind of person it is more convenient to forget. The principles he stood for and the way in which he asserted are easier to admire than to follow. While he was alive, it was impossible to ignore. Once he had gone he was impossible to imitate” In Gandhi’s own day non violence could have done nothing for Jews of Hitler’s Germany.
In next few pages Shashi Tharoor clarifies Gandhi’s philosophy of non violence, “Satyagrah (literally holding on to truth) and adds there is no denying Gandhi’s greatness. While the world was disintegrating into fascism, violence and war, Gandhi taught the virtues of truth, non-violence and peace. He destroyed the credibility of colonialism…. Yet Gandhi’s truth was essentially his own….. Gandhi’s “triumph” did not change the world forever. It is, sadly, matter of doubt whether he triumphed.”
India after independence “paid lip service to much of its Gandhian patrimony while striking out in directions of which Gandhi could not have approved. Neither the Government nor the people understand and follow truth and non-violence. There are injustices, corruption every where in every sphere of government form Panchayats, Tehsils, Districts, States and Central Government. Persons like Lalu Prasad Yadav, Paswan and many others have flourished in corruption. Though there are cases against them but nothing has happened and nothing is likely to happen. Lalu and Paswan have been Ministers in Central Government and Koda has been Chief Minister. There is public holiday on Gandhi Jayanti and visit to Gandhi’s smadhi. That is all that is left of Gandhi and Gandhian philosophy of truth and non-violence.
However, many Hindus considered Mahatma Gandhi as pro Muslim as he had compelled the Government of India to pay to Pakistan Rs 500 crores of undivided India’s assets when that country was at war with India in Kashmir. Gandhi was unfortunately assassinated by a Hindu fanatic Nathu Ram Godse who, after trial was hanged. . This alarmed not only whole of India but the rest of world as Gandhi was considered apostle of non violence and peace. He was a religious Hindu but moderate who as leader of Independence Movement of India inspired all Indians of all religion and all castes and professions. It is unique in history that a leader like Gandhi led independence movement against most powerful colonial Power. British for four decades without any break despite Gandhi’s shortcomings, which every human being has, pointed rightly by Shashi Tharoor, Gandhi was great. His non-violent movement for independence inspired many leaders of British and other European colonies that brought end to colonialism all over the world and the British Empire in whish “Sun never Set” And in America coloured leaders like Martin Luther King jr fought in non violent way and won equality with whites. It is because of this movement, inspired by Gandhi, that today Obama, a coloured citizen of USA, is President.
Appreciation and comments on Shashi Tharoor’s Book INDIA: From Midnight to The Millennium and Beyond
There is absolutely no doubt that Shashi Tharoor, besides being a great diplomat of UN and now almost Foreign Minister of India, is an excellent thinker and great writer of India. His ideas about Indian nationalism, Unity in Diversity and the detailed expression of these two fundamental issues is matchless. It is apt to reproduce in detail Tharoor’s views on these two aspects as under:
Indian nationalism is “not based on any of the conventional indices of national identity. Not language, since India’s Constitution recognizes eighteen official languages, and there are thirty-five that are spoken by more than a million people each. Not ethnicity, since the “Indian” accommodates a diversity of racial types in which many Indians have more in common with foreigners than with other Indians—Indian Punjabis and Bengalis, for instance, have more in common with Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, respectively, than with other Indians. Not religion, since India is a secular pluralist state that is home to every religion known to mankind, with the possible exception of Shintoism. Not geography, since the natural geography of the subcontinent – the mountains and the sea–was hacked by the Partition of 1947. And not even territory, since, by law, anyone with one grandparent born in pre-Partition India – outside the territorial boundaries of today’s state—is eligible for citizenship. Indian nationalism has therefore always been the nationalism of an idea. It is, as I have tried to demonstrate in this book, the idea of an ever-ever land emerging from an ancient civilization, united by a shared history, sustained by pluralist democracy.
In 1996 the then prime minister, H.D.Deve Gowda, stood at the ramparts of Delhi’s, Red Fort to deliver Independence Day message to the Nation “What was unusual this time was that Deve Gowda, a southerner from the state of Karnataka, spoke to the country in a language of which he did not know a word. Tradition and politics required a speech in Hindi, so he gave one—the words having been written out for him in his native Kannada script, in which they, of course, made no sense.”
Such an episode is almost inconceivable elsewhere, but it represents the best of the oddities that help make India. Only in India could there be a country ruled by a man who does not understand its “national language”; only in India, for that matter.”
There are some more very significant views of Shashi Tharoor on India’s Unity in Diversity, particularly about Sonia Gandhi whom many like Sharad Pawar considered a foreigner and not eligible for being the leader of Congress Party or Government as PM. As a congress Party has been in existence and leading the Indian Independence Movement for more than a hundred years. Here are some extracts from his book:
India’s national identity has long been built on the slogan “unity in diversity.” The “Indian” comes in such varieties that a woman who is fair-skinned, sari-wearing and Italian-speaking, as Sonia is, is not more foreign to my grandmother in Kerala than one who is “wheatish-complexioned,” wears a salwar-kameez and speaks Punjabi. Our nation absorbs both these types of people; both are equally “foreign” to some of us, equally Indian to us all.
Shashi Tharoor’s views on Unity in Diversity of India are superb. He has also written analytically on Mahatma Gandhi, Pandit Nehru Indira Gandhi even on Sanjay Gandhi. But there are other aspects on which some comments are called for particularly, his neglect of leaders like Dr Rajendra Parsad India’s first President who was first Bihari who topped in MA economics in Calcutta University with remarks of the Examiner “Examinee knows more than the examiner. There is also neglect of Dr Abdul Kalam Azad who though a Muslim was a dedicated follower if Gandhi till his last breath. Sardar Patel, Deputy PM who consolidated India by incorporation 500 Princely States and even Hyderabad by Pohri Action and Gandhian. Jaya Parkash Narain even to an extent of Lal Bahadur Shastri, glaring omissions of prominent leaders from opposition: E.M.S Nambodrepad, virtually founder of Communist Party in India and first Communist Chief Minister of Kerala and of an Indian State. Even Atal Bihari Vajpayee who has been Prime Minister of India as well as longest serving Member of India’s Parliament. These omissions are noteworthy in a famous book on INDIA.
-
Recent
- Defeat Of Churchill And Victory Of India
- Sajjan Kumar’s Case before High Court and 1984 Anti Sikh Riots
- Some Little Known Facts about Jallianwala Massacre
- Islam its Origin and Teachings
- Gandhi in South Africa- Success, Failure and Firmness
- HAITI- Its origin and Recent Tragedy
- Buddhism
- Controversy about Pachauri and IPCC Findings
- Hinduism-Its Origin and Philosophy
- American Failure in Afghanistan and Iraq Imminent
- Need For a States Reorganisation Commission
- Teachings of Guru Nanak – Founder of Sikhism
-
Links
-
Archives
- March 2010 (2)
- February 2010 (8)
- January 2010 (7)
- December 2009 (9)
- November 2009 (7)
- October 2009 (3)
- September 2009 (25)
- August 2009 (37)
-
Categories
- Achievers
- Anti Sikh Riots 1984
- Biography
- Cold War
- Corruption
- Hinduism
- India
- Indian Economy
- Indian History
- Introduction
- Laski
- Love
- Mahatma Gandhi in South Africa
- Muslims
- Pakistan
- Poems
- Political Commentary
- Politics
- Punjabi
- Racial attacks on Indians
- Religion
- Ruchika Case
- Shashi Tharoor
- Sikhism
- Socrates Wise Sayings
- Terrorism
- Uncategorized
- USA
- USSR
- World
- World History
- writing skills
- Pakistan's Origin, Creation and Turmoil
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
Defeat Of Churchill And Victory Of India
In a recent book written by Arthur Herman ‘Churchill and Gandhi’, there are many aspects which reveal both Gandhi’s ideology and Churchill’s anti-Indian views because Gandhi wanted and worked for India’s independence while Churchill was on the other extreme to deny India independence by all means. Gandhi felt that independence was India’s birth right while Churchill worked hard in and out of Parliament to put obstacles in the way of India’s Freedom Movement. Churchill was convinced that if India won freedom “sun will set on British Empire” and this is what happened. Here are some enlightening facts.
Winston Churchill who was Prime Minister of UK during Second World War and remained so till the end of war was considered virtually by all the people of UK as savior of England as well as of British Empire. Accordingly after end of war, Churchill vehemently opposed India’s independence saying “I have not become His Majesty’s First Minister to preside over liquidation of Empire. Churchill thus considered, as his and British empires enemies all those Indians who were fighting for independence whether by Gandhi’s non violence or by taking up arms against the British like Subhash Bose of Indian National Army(INA). Accordingly when after the war PM Attlee of Labor Party tried to negotiate for independence of India, though at that time as a Dominion, Churchill started through Jinnaha, to create problems for unity of India and even went so far as to encourage Jinnaha to demand a separate state for Muslims (Pakistan) with all the Muslim majority provinces including whole of Punjab and entire Bengal.
Churchill was convinced that if India gains independence, it will herald end of British Empire all over the world. Therefore Churchill and Gandhi were irreconcilable opponents throughout, particularly after 1919 Jallianwala Bagh massacre.
It is best to know how Winston Churchill grew up. Winston’s father, Randolf and his mother ignored him even during his illness. Later Churchill said about his father, “He treated me as if I had been a fool: barked at me whenever I questioned him… He wouldn’t listen to me or consider anything I said”. This type of bringing up made Winston, like his father, Lord Randolf Churchill who was Secretary of State for India in 1885.So Winston became more self-centered and aggressive than his father. Even at the young age of twelve Winston was called by his teacher: “The naughtiest little boy in the world”.
From 1920 to 1936-37 Churchill considered Gandhi a “fakir” and “fanatic”, a threat to British rule in India. He became a threat to everything Churchill believed in and in the end Churchill would fight him with everything he had. (Arthur Herman).
As war clouds gathered in 37-38, Churchill feared Axis between Germany and Japan. He got worried about Japan’s military effort in the East just as that of Germany against England and rest of Europe except Italy. Thus Churchill to keep India on British side had couple of dinner talks with G D Birla in July 1937 to apprise him of Japan’s dangerous intentions about India. Churchill discussed with Birla for two hours. “Well a big experiment has begun” Churchill asserted meaning the new Indian constitution (1935 Act).
For the first time because of danger of imminent war by Germany, Churchill “swore” that he had not said a word against India Act since the King had signed it. Churchill even said that viceroy of India had invited me to visit India “I will go” if Mr. Gandhi also desires it. He even told Birla that he had great respect for Gandhi. The statement of Churchill was in complete contrast to what he said and meant for the last 20 years about Gandhi. Thus when in September 1938 Churchill heard PM Chamberalin going to meet Hitler at Munich to sign an agreement with Hitler,Churchill lost control and said: “This is end of British Empire” The agreement was duly signed.
Gandhi said “Peace has been preserved but at he cost of honour”. But 41 year old Subhash Bose announced “The time has come, for Indians to take advantage of it”.
But in mid March just six months after the signing of agreement, Hitler’s army invaded Czech capital. All England wanted Churchill to be at helm to lead Britain in war against Hitler. Accordingly at first Churchill was included in the Cabinet. In May 1940 he “pushed the door of Downing street” and was PM. Chamberlein and many had preferred Holifax to be PM but Holifax realized Churchill potential on the war and said “I think Winston is better choice”. There were shouts against Chamberalin and demand to resign, “Go, in gods name go”. This is how Churchill became PM.
During Second World War India decided to fight for India’s independence through mass satyagraha i.e. agitations and civil disobedience. Viceroy Linlithgo, unlike Churchill, wanted some compromise, some promise of independence after war. Gandhi met Linlithgo before launching the mass agitation and told the viceroy “He would encourage every Indian to refuse to support the war effort”.
The fall of Singapore, virtually without a fight by British officers and Indian Army heralded the end of British Empire in India and South East Asia. Fall of Singapore was first and greatest shock to Churchill as PM as Japanese had sunk both the ships ‘Prince of Wales’ and ‘Rapulse’. Next shock was for Churchill and his war cabinet during the headlong flight from Burma. “He got worried whether Indians will help Britain in their war effort. Even more frightening possibility was that Indians would rise up against British workers and join the Japanese. One man was already working to make that happen ‘Subhash Chandra Bose’ Head of INA in Singapore “worshiped Bose as God”.
Bose spoke the language of Indian manhood and heroic self confidence…..like Churchill, Bose was committed to waging war to the hilt to win that struggle (independence for India) Bose famous and inspiring words became a maxim “Give me blood and I will give you independence”.
India, wrote Leo Amery who was Secretary to State for India during Second World War, “when the conflict between Indian nationalism reached climax particularly in 1942. Churchill had “wholly uncontrollable complex” Churchill’s outburst were sometimes so intemperate that Amery wondered in his diary if ‘on the subject of India he (Churchill) is really quote sane”.
Though Churchill one of the greatest British politicians and Prime Minister, he was also a great British writer on Political History and won Noble Prize, but he was utter failure so far his hatred for Gandhi, India and Indian Independence was concerned. Despite Churchill’s all efforts like encouraging and helping Jinnaha and to an extent Mountbatten, though at cost million of lives in partition riots India won Independence on 15th August 1947. It was a day of India’s victory and Churchill’s personal defeat.
March 10, 2010 Posted by Har Charan Singh | Achievers, India, Indian History, Mahatma Gandhi in South Africa, Political Commentary | Arthur Herman ‘Churchill and Gandhi’, Churchil and Jinnah, Churchil relations with his father and mother, Churchil talk with GD Birla, Churchill called Gandhi a fakir, Churchill hatred for Gandhi, Churchill’s anti-Indian views, Defeat Of Churchill And Victory Of India, fall of Singapore to Japanese, Give me blood and I will give you independence, Head of INA in Singapore, Hitler’s army invade Czech capital, India for Independence during World War 2, Role of Churchil against India’s independence, Seperate state of Pakistan, Subhash Bose, sun will set on British Empire, Winston Churchill Prime Minister of UK during WWII | No Comments Yet