Are moral claims justiciable? MK Gandhi and the Kashmir issue; Empire and Democracy = Terror.

Speech at the Prayer Meeting on 4th January 1948

“Today there is talk of war everywhere. Everyone fears a war breaking out between the two countries. If that happens it will be a calamity both for India and for Pakistan. India has written to the U.N. because whenever there is a fear of conflict anywhere the U.N. is asked to promote a settlement and to stop fighting from breaking out. India therefore wrote to the U. N. O. however trivial the issue may appear to be, it could lead to a war between the two countries. It is a long memorandum and it has been cabled. Pakistan’s leaders Zafrullah Khan and Liaquat Ali Khan have since issued long statements. I would take leave to say that their argument does not appeal to me. You may ask if I approve of the Union Government approaching the UNO I may say that I both approve and do not approve of what they did. I approve of it, because after all what else are they to do? They are convinced that what they are doing is right. If there are raids from outside the frontier of Kashmir, the obvious conclusion is that it must be with the connivance of Pakistan. Pakistan can deny it. But the denial does not settle the matter. Kashmir has acceded the accession upon certain conditions. If Pakistan harasses Kashmir and if Sheikh Abdullah who is the leader of Kashmir asks the Indian Union for help, the latter is bound to send help. Such help therefore was sent to Kashmir. At the same time Pakistan is being requested to get out of Kashmir and to arrive at a settlement with India over the question through bilateral negotiations. If no settlement can be reached in this way then a war is inevitable. It is to avoid the possibility of war that the Union Government has taken the step it did. Whether they are right in doing so or not God alone knows. Whatever might have been the attitude of Pakistan, if I had my way I would have invited Pakistan’s representatives to India and we could have met, discussed the matter and worked out some settlement. They keep saying that they want an amicable settlement but they do nothing to create the conditions for such a settlement. I shall therefore humbly say to the responsible leaders of Pakistan that though we are now two countries – which is a thing I never wanted – we should at least try to arrive at an agreement so that we could live as peaceful neighbors. Let us grant for the sake of argument that all Indians are bad, but Pakistan at least is a new-born nation which has more ever come into being in the name of religion and it should at least keep itself clean. But they themselves make no such claim. It is not their argument that Muslims have committed no atrocities in Pakistan. I shall therefore suggest that it is now their duty, as far as possible, to arrive at an amicable understanding with India and live in harmony with her. Mistakes were made on both sides. Of this I have no doubt. But this does not mean that we should persist in those mistakes, for then in the end we shall only destroy ourselves in a war and the whole of the sub-continent will pass into the hands of some third power. That will be the worst imaginable fate for us. I shudder to think of it. Therefore the two Dominions should come together with God as witness and find a settlement. The matter is now before the UNO. It cannot be withdrawn from there. But if India and Pakistan come to a settlement the big powers in the UNO will have to endorse that settlement. They will not object to the settlement. They themselves can only say that they will do their best to see that the two countries arrive at an understanding through mutual discussions. Let us pray to God is to grant that we may either learn to live in amity with each other or if we must light to let us fight to the very end. That may be folly but sooner or later it will purify us.”

Dhil jalane ki baathe. You speak of the soul as if it were on fire. Vocalist, Farida Khanum.

Dhil jalane ki baathe karthe hoe, aashiyanae ke baath karthae hoe, speak of a beautiful home sarae dhuniya ke ranng o ghaam dhaeker, having given all the world’s splendor and sorrow muskareynae baathe karthe hoe, you speak now of those that brought laughter. Humko aapni khabar nahi, yaaro, friends, I have lost sight of myself. Thum zamanae ki baath karthe hoe, and you record these times, zikr mera sunna when you heard of devotion thu chir kae kahan that is continuous eis dhiwanae ke baath karthae hoe,  you speak only of youth zikr mera suna tho chir ke kaha, eis diwanae ki baath karthe ho, dhil behlaney ki baath karthae hoe, you try to make me forget, kiss zamanay ki baath karthae hoe, what else do you speak of ?aashyian… saarae duniya ke ruun jo ghum detho, always prepared for suffering, muskuranae ki baath karthe ho, and you speak of those times in which there was laughter.





Swadeshi movement. (One’s own Country.) Movement for a Modern Bengal’s failure begun in 1901 and ended in 1947 with the partition of British India into India, Pakistan and later Bangladesh.


In 1905, the first partition in Bengal  1905 was implemented as an administrative preference, making governing the two provinces, West and East Bengal, easier.[1] While the partition split the province between West Bengal, in which the majority was Hindu, and the East, where the majority was Muslim, the 1905 partition left considerable minorities of Hindus in East Bengal and Muslims in West Bengal. While the Muslims were in favour of the partition, as they would have their own province, Hindus were not. This controversy led to increased violence and protest and finally, in 1911, the two provinces were once again united. However, the disagreements between Hindus and Muslims in Bengal which had sparked the Partition of Bengal in 1905 still remained and laws, including the second Partition of Bengal in 1947, were implemented to fulfill the political needs of the parties involved.partitionofbengal


                                        Modern Bengal NOT. The partition of Bengal, 1905 and the beginning of the Swadeshi movement by MK Gandhi and other leaders of the resistance movement against the British Government which eventually failed due to the political infighting between the Hindus, Muslims and Britain. 

MOVE TO PARTITION PUNJAB AND BENGAL. Text of Mr. Jinnah’s Statement. Legal authority over value perhaps? I and B. Department, New Delhi, 4th May, 1947

Following is the text of Mr. Jinnah’s statement opposing partition of the Punjab and Bengal:-

” I find from press reports that Congress has now started by emphasising that in the event of Pakistan and Hindustan being established, the Punjab will be partitioned, and the Hindu Mahasabha has started vigorous propaganda that Bengal should be partitioned.

” I should like to point out that there is a great deal of confusion created on purpose. The question of a division of India, as proposed by the Muslim League, is based on the fundamental fact that there are two nations- Hindus and Muslims- and the underlying principle is that we want a national home and a national state in our homelands which are predominately Muslim and compromise the six units of the Punjab, the N.W.F.P., Sind, Baluchistan, Bengal and Assam. This will give the Hindus their national home and a national state of Hindustan, which means three-fourths of British India.

Now the question of partitioning Bengal and the Punjab is raised, not with a ‘bona fide’ object, as a sinister move actuated by spite and bitterness, as they feel that India is going to be divided, firstly to create more difficulties in the way for the British Government and the Viceroy and secondly to unnerve the Muslims by opening and repeatedly emphasizing that the Muslims will get a truncated or mutilated moth-eaten Pakistan. This clamour is not based on any sound principle, except that the Hindu minorities in the Punjab and Bengal wish to cut up these provinces and cut up their own people into two in these Provinces. The Hindus have their homelands, as I have said, consisting of six vast Provinces. Merely because a proportion of the minorities in the Pakistan Provinces have taken up this attitude with the British Government should not countenance it, because the result of that will be logically that all other Provinces will have to be cut up in similar way, which will be dangerous, as to embark on this line will lead to a breaking up of various Provinces and create a far more dangerous situation in the future than at present. If such a process were to be adopted it will strike at the root of the administrative, economic and political life of the Provinces which have for nearly a century developed and built up on that basis and have grown as functioning under present constitution as autonomous provinces.

It is obvious that if the Hindu minorities in Pakistan wish to emigrate and go to their homelands of Hindustan they will be at liberty to do so and ‘vice versa’ and those Muslims who wish to emigrate from Hindustan can do so and go to Pakistan; and sooner or later an exchange of population will have to take place and Constituent Assemblies of Pakistan and Hindustan can take up the matter and subsequently the respective Governments in Pakistan and Hindustan can effectively carry out an exchange of population wherever it may be necessary and feasible.

“Complete Division of India

Dr. Rajendra Prasad, President of the Constitituent Assembly, in press interview on April 30th, declared that if there was to be a division of India, and Mr. Jinnah insisted on it, it should be as complete and thorough as possible, including the division of the Punjab and Bengal, so that there might not be left any room for contention or conflict. “If that requires division of defence forces, that should also be brought about, and the sooner the better”. Neither Congress nor the Hindus or Sikhs, said Dr, Rajendra Prasad, ever wanted the division of India. It was the Muslim League and Mr. Jinnah who had been insisting on it.

Recalling the Muslim League’s Lahore resolution on the division of India, which demanded the demarcation of contiguous units with the necessary territorial adjustments and the creation of independent states out of zones where Muslims were numerically in the majority, Dr. Rajendra Prasad says the division of the Punjab and Bengal was in terms of that resolution. According to that resolution, the League cannot demand any areas to be included into Muslim zones which are not contiguous and in which Muslims are not numerically in a majority. “If areas of the Punjab and Bengal where Muslims are not in a majority demand fulfilment of the League’s resolution, how does it lie in the mouth of Mr. Jinnah to accuse them and abuse them. He cannot have it both ways.” If division was insisted on, it could only be on a basis which suited both parties and not him alone.

Referring to Mr. Jinnah’s remark that partition of the Punjab and Bengal would disrupt the life of the Provinces, Dr Rajendra Prasad said: “He forgets he is responsible for disrupting these and many more valuable ties which have been forged in the course of centuries, by seeking to divide India.”