You are on page 1of 36

PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PAST AND HISTORY


Past is infinite and immeasurable. Everything which has ever happened is a part of the past.
Not all of this is relevant for historical study.

History is a selective study of the past. History is not a subset of the past simpliciter. It is in
itself different from history.

PROCESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF HISTORY


Past -----------------
Observed ---------------
Remembered -------------
Recorded -----------
Survived ---------
Came to Historian’s Attention -------
Credible -----
Grasped ---
Narrated and Expounded - (This is History)

Materials from the past need to go through this process to become history. Arthashastra, for
example, written in Ancient India, was discovered and published only in 1908. It was missing
for the entire Medieval period.

Additionally, not all sources can be relied on simply on their face value. Historians need to
find the truth. Banabhatta, for example, was the court poet of Harshvardhan and did not
mention his king’s defeat to Pulakeshin II. But since we have alternate sources corroborating
this defeat, we can conclude that Banabhatta left this piece of information out of his works.

DEFINITION OF HISTORY
History is an unending dialogue between the past and the present.

All history is the history of thought. Carr believes that the past that we study is not a dead
past. Past acts might be dead but the ideas and thought processes still percolate to the present
times. For example, certain ideas present during the Indus Valley Civilisation still persist in
present day India.
All history is contemporary history. Carr says history requires seeing the past through the
eyes of the present. People today analyse the Indus Valley Civilisation through their present
perspectives. Since, many human tendencies do not change, doing this helps us understand
phenomenon in the past. For example, just like us, people in the Indus Valley Civilisation
must have also engaged in amusement. Thus, we can conclude that certain artefacts from that
era were meant for amusement.

DEFINITION OF FACT
Fact is the datum of experience.

Facts are generally of two types – Hard and Soft. Hard facts are unalterable, undisputed,
evident pieces of data. Date of India’s independence from British rule, for example. Soft facts
are pieces of data which are arrived at through interpretation. For example, the reasons
behind the partition of India are facts. But on the basis of other proved facts and logical
arguments, different interpretations might be drawn, resulting in different conceptions of the
reasons behind the partition of India. This, therefore, is a soft fact.

SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT IN HISTORICAL WRITING


There exist two schools of thought in historical writing – Positivism and Empiricism.

1. Positivism (Propounded by Ranke)


Positivism primarily deals with facts and scientific aspects of history. They believe that these
facts speak for themselves and do not require any interpretation. Thus, they believe in
preserving the objective character of history. Positivists believe history is a science and
nothing more.

2. Empiricism (Propounded by Klark, Scott)


Empiricists also believe that facts are sacrosanct. But they believe that facts do not present
the entire picture themselves, making interpretation necessary. They say facts are like fish –
fishermen cook and serve the fish in accordance with their own preference. In the same way,
facts need to be collected and interpreted appropriately. Empiricists base their idea of
interpretation in the Renaissance School of Historical Study. Interpretation must be rational
and logical.
INTER DISCIPLINARY APPROACH
History is interrelated with every other social science. No social science can be studied
exclusively of another. Thus, every aspect of history is impacted by other social sciences.
Some examples are given below.

1. Geography
Most great civilisations – Chinese, Egyptian, Indus-Valley, Mesopotamian – came up in river
valleys. Civilisations have always flourished where geographical conditions were conducive
to life and this trend has continued to the present day. Thus, any study of these ancient times
involves an understanding of geography.

Both branches of history – Military History (dealing with warfare) and Diplomatic History
(dealing with international relations), require geographical understanding, since geography is
directly affects these subjects. Matters as diverse as latitudes, longitudes, water bodies,
mountains, plains, demographical conditions, living conditions, etc. become relevant. For
example, no person can write a book on the Kargil War without having a comprehensive
knowledge of the geographical conditions in which the conflict was set. Similarly, diplomatic
history requires an understanding of geopolitical conditions of various countries.

Knowledge of geographical locations and chronology are fundamental to understanding


history. Cartography is important because without maps there can be no history. Similarly,
topography allows us to write history when sufficient literary sources do not exist. Various
sites of the Indus-Valley Civilisation were found by studying the landscape of the region.

Geographical aspects of countries and regions help us understand the reasons behind
historical events. For example, we know that Britain and the United States owe their status of
being world powers at different points of times, at least in part, to their geography. They were
removed from the conflict prone European mainland by sea, which allowed them to save
strength and resources, simultaneously allowing them to become naval superpowers.
Similarly, geographical location also has a bearing on national character formation. North
East India, for example, is geographically aloof from the rest of India. This resulted in the
region being neglected by Central Govts. in the early stages of independence, in turn resulting
in a lack of nationalist sentiment and the growth of secessionist sentiment.
2. Economics
The subject matter of both history and economics is similar, since both deal with man in
society, the only difference being that economics focuses on man’s activities. Thus, there is
an obvious relationship between the two. Economic interests shape man’s actions. Without
understanding economics, one cannot understand history. Economics is one of the most
important driving forces behind conflicts, social change, migration, etc.

For example, if a person wants to write the history of the 20th Century, he cannot avoid the
significance of events like the Great Depression of 1929, formation of GATT, the Uruguay
round of the GATT and the formation of WTO. Similarly, a person writing the history of
India cannot avoid the economic aspect of the British rule and the consequent legacy left
behind.

A branch of economics called econometric history helps historians by providing data and
statistics relevant to historical study. Tis helps solve historical problems

3. Psychology
Psychology entails the analysis of the human mind. It gives us an insight into the motives and
thinking of humans which helps solve many historical problems. Psychology can be used to
understand the behaviour both of the masses, as well as that of a particular individual.

For example, the history of Nazi Germany can be better understood by a psychological
analysis of Hitler on the one hand and of the German public on the other. Similarly, it
explains certain historical phenomena like jingoism, nationalism, etc. It helps us understand
the effects of war on civilians. It gives us an insight into the motivations behind, effect of and
success of identity politics. Historical elections require psephological study, which involves
itself primarily with psychology. Biography writing generally employs the usage of Freudian
techniques, since it requires an understanding of the mind of the person concerned.

4. Sociology
Sociology is a study of the society and of man in the society. All of history is a consequence
of the prevailing sociological situations, causing these subjects to be linked intrinsically. In
fact, the modern subject of sociology was formed when the older study called social history
was clubbed with sociological theories.
One of the problems faced by historical study, that of subjectivity, can be minimised by the
usage of sociological tools like sampling techniques and questionnaires, which can make
historical research objective and scientific.

THE PROBLEM OF SUBJECTIVITY IN HISTORY


Objectivity
Something is said to be objective when it is unquestionable. Carr defines objectivity as the
capacity to rise above the limited reason of one’s own situation in society and history, and the
capacity to project one’s vision into the future.

For example, the society in which Galileo lived was unable to accept his heliocentric theory
and many other ideas. However, hundreds of years later, Galileo was appreciated for this
intellect. Kabir, similarly, was appreciated for his ideas only years later. In every period of
time, there exist such great people, who’re able to rise above their situation in society and
project their vision into the future.

Subjectivity
When the facts do not speak for themselves, interpretation becomes necessary. However, the
explanation provided for the interpretation might differ from person to person. This is how
subjectivity is introduced. It seeps into reasoning naturally. Subjectivity can be introduced
both consciously and unconsciously.

Carr says subjectivity is not an issue, since it is virtually unavoidable. However, bias is
problematic, and efforts must be made to remove it.

Bias
Bias refers to a deliberate mental block against some perspectives. People acting on certain
beliefs and in order to fulfil certain objectives which are not aimed at benefitting the subject
at large, often use bias in historical writing. Bias is always introduced consciously,
deliberately.

Pattern writing is an example of using bias in writing. It has a narrow purpose with some
ulterior motive. It is not done for the larger good. Missionaries in India by Arun Shourie is a
book which provides a completely one-sided perspective on the role of missionaries in India.
We know that they did some great constructive work in Indian society. Shourie, however,
completely disregards this and speaks only of the negative impact that they had on India. the
response to this book came in the form of the book Post-Modern Hindu by Vishal
Mangalwadi. This, too, is an example of pattern writing. It was one-sided in its approach, in
that it painted a picture of missionaries in India which focused solely on their positive work.
A fair assessment can only be one which is comprehensive in its evaluation. Pattern writing
lacks this.

Why Subjectivity Enters Historical Writing

1. The Historian is a Social Animal


The historian’s personality is shaped in society. He is affected by his social interactions. His
thought processes and ideas are affected by what happens around him. Naturally, this colours
the content that these people create. For example, a historian may develop a pro-Jewish view
due to the views of his parents, peers, etc. His writing would then reflect this belief.

2. Effect of Personal Ideology


Ideologies which any person subscribes to can be formed in many ways. One of these is the
process of social interactions referred to above. Irrespective of how any ideology is formed,
the ideology often seeps into historical writing.

History writing in India has generally been dominated people with Marxist leanings. Marxist
interpretations focus heavily on economic factors. However, we know that apart from
economics other factors like religion, culture, etc. must also be taken into consideration,
especially in the history of a religious country like India. In more contemporary historical
writing, these factors are being given importance.

Additionally, Marxist writings are based on the Renaissance Model of history writing, which
accepts only such things as facts which are backed up by evidence. Often, however, social
belief in an unproven idea might become relevant to discovering facts. Since Marxists would
not consider this, an issue arises. In the case of Ram Janmabhoomi, for example, a conflict
has come to exist between Marxists (who say that the entire idea is fictional) and those who
take the social belief into consideration.

3. Effect of Personal Religious Beliefs


The historian’s religion influences his thought processes.
JN Sarkar, for example, was one of the leading historians in the 20th century. He was
extremely critical of Aurangzeb’s policy of ransacking Hindu temples. Another famous
historian, Farooqui, defended Aurangzeb’s actions by showing that Mughal empire was
dealing with multiple international wars at the time, leaving them desperate for resources.
Thus, Aurangzeb’s idea behind plundering temples was not as much about destroying
Hinduism, as it was about funding his war machinery.

Neither of these views can be rejected, since they do not dispute the hard facts, but rather
argue on the basis of rational interpretation. Nevertheless, it can be seen that their
interpretation is affected at least to some extent by their personal religious beliefs.

4. Effect of Drawing Inferences


Sometimes, historical sources are not complete and inferences need to be drawn on the basis
of preceding and succeeding sources. Thus, some amount of guessing is involved when gaps
in historical evidence have to be filled. This is called archive positivism. These inferences are
made on the basis of the person’s own understanding of history, which may not be perfect.
This introduces the element of subjectivity.

5. Effect of Choosing a Subject of Personal Interest


Quite often, a subject is commented upon by historians only because they’re interested in it.
Other subjects remain unexplored. Choosing a subject on the basis only of personal interest,
therefore, results in skewed presentation of history and thus, introduces subjectivity.

HISTORICAL EVIDENCE
Knowledge about sources is important because sources are very diverse. Everything from
archaeological sources to literary sources can give us an insight into history.

Primary Sources provide direct or first-hand evidence regarding some fact. Examples include
autobiographies, personal written accounts, letters, interviews, newspapers with primary
witness reports, etc.

Secondary Sources describe, discuss, interpret and analyse primary sources. Examples
include any published document, newspapers reports from news agencies, government
reports, etc.
HOW TO MINIMISE SUBJECTIVITY AND BIAS
EH Carr says that one cannot dream of a completely objective history. However, subjectivity
must be minimised as much as possible.

1. Renaissance Model
The Renaissance Model of Historical Writing is scientific, objective and rational. It focuses
on facts and evidence.

2. Categorical Oversimplification
Amartya Sen proposes categorical oversimplification, a Kantian dictum which suggests
performance of duty for duty’s sake. This addresses the motive behind writing history. It is
the historian’s duty to write history. History must be written because it is inherently valuable
to write history. History must not be written for any other narrower motive, to promote a
specific ideology, or to preach a specific idea.

3. Credibility
The credibility of a historical work can be judged by looking into the reputation that the
author carries. If the author is known to write with a set agenda or with ulterior motives, his
work must be denounced.

CRITERIA TO CREDIBILITY OF HISTORICAL EVIDENCE


Ability of the Primary Witness of Telling the Truth

1. Spatial and temporal closeness of the observer to the event.


Greater the physical proximity of the observer to the actual event, greater is the credibility of
the evidence provided. Similarly, if the observer witnessed the event while it took place,
credibility of evidence provided by him would be greater than if the observer witnessed only
the preceding or succeeding moments.

2. Competence of the observer.


Competence varies from person to person. Sharpness of the mind, presence of mind, keenness
of observation, etc. matter. For example, when the Kargil intrusion took place, the shepherds
were the first to report something suspect to the authorities. Similarly, in the Oklahoma bomb
incident, different eye witnesses had different testimonies to offer. Only the competent ones
can be relied upon.
3. Degree of attention paid by the observer.
This is linked to the previous point. However, even a competent person might not be able to
pay attention at the time of the event. Depending on the situation, it must be seen whether the
observer had paid attention or not. In a terror attack, for example, people would be more
likely to save their own lives than to sit and record characteristics of the terrorists they see.

Willingness of the Observer to Tell the Truth.


May have witnessed it but may not reveal the truth. Concealing may be to protect someone.
Observer may be biased towards the observation of the testimony. The observer while
recording the observation may have used literary style – leading to multiple possible
interpretations. Complete reliance on this is difficult. Fourth, the problem of inexact dating.
For example – American independence – 4th July 1776, verbal declaration. However, actual
date of formal signing of declaration was 2nd august.

Independent Corroboration
One cannot rely only on one source. This has to be corroborated with other sources, if other
sources also testify along the same lines, then the fact can be taken as true. Pulakeshin II and
Harshvardhan.

Reputation of the Author


Veracity and reputation as an observer. If he is known for holding a bias or if he is known to
record the truth. Kalhan – most wars were exaggerated in ancient India. but this guy
explained facts very well. High reputation. Rajtarangini.

Lack of Self-Contradiction
Documents recorded must not contradict themselves from time to time. For a long time,
Manusmriti was considered to be written by Manu because the laws were mutually
contradicting. Research revealed that this was a compilation of works of difference authors
over 400 years. Contradiction lessens credibility.

Absence of Contradiction by Other Sources


Other sources must not negate the sources in question. If multiple sources negate then the
credibility is drastically lowered. Minor contradictions are fine but this is one way to expose
lies.
Freedom from Anachronism
Putting an event in the wrong time period. This lowers credibility. Historical documents.
Chronology plays a very important role.

This is the process of filtering facts and recording in historical accounts.


POLITICS OF HISTORY
James Mill was a utilitarian. He wrote the first official account of the history of India. around
1820. 5 volumes – History of India. Purpose of writing this –

There was a group of authors called administrative historians. They realised the importance
of history. It provides legitimacy to the ruling class which is why each ruler wants to mould
history according to their own interests. The British realised they needed to write and mould
history if they wanted to prolong their administration. And James Mill was the first to do this.

James Mill never came to India. without any experience in Indian affairs and without any
training in historical writing he wrote this purely as an administrator.

Amartya Sen refers to Mill in his article. Mill’s sole purpose was to ridicule Indian culture,
tradition, way of living. Depicting India in that manner. Motivated, biased, prejudiced
history. Purpose was to denigrate the local culture to assert and legitimise the Imperial
culture, white man’s burden. Civilising mission, oriental despotism. Backward, barbarian
Indians. So that the British culture is adopted easily so that ruling the locals becomes easier.
Cultural imperialism.

A series of people wrote history after this Macaulay, smith etc. Brown English man. Indian
only in colour. English by tastes.

Britishers also made an attempt to divide Indian history into three sections. Not as ancient,
medieval and modern India but as Hindu, Muslim and British India. this was the beginning of
communalisation of history. Terming ancient India as Hindu India was incorrect because
Buddhism and Jainism and multiple sects in Hinduism also existed which could not be put
under one head and similarly for other periods as well.

Post-independent India

RC Majumdar – govt of India under JLN instructed Majumdar to write a history of India. this
wasn’t present – a systematised study of India from the neutral perspective. British
perspective and influence had to be removed. Majumdar had certain nationalist leanings.
Bharatiya Vidya Bhawan series was the collection. There was no distortion but there was
some subjectivity. Controversial. Not biased though. Gold content was decreasing in Gupta
period and thus, the term came under attack. After Gupta period India went into feudal. Gupta
period was termed as the golden age. Great zeal was shown in showing ancient India as a
great civilisation.

1977 – after Indira Gandhi, the Janta govt came to power and the NCERT controversy began.
A change in historical content was attempted but since they weren’t in power for long, this
did not succeed.

Distortion in History in India

1. Beef Eating Issue


Class 5 NCERT textbooks – Romila Thapar talks about how ancient Indians ate beef and
enjoyed it as a delicacy. In the Vedic texts Gokhana is a term found – cow meat prepared for
guests. An issue was raised by right wing RSS – why should we even mention it? Historians
said that this is a fact and studying his cannot simply be avoided.

When Vaishnavism emerged, in 2nd 3rd century BC as a movement, cow as a holy animal idea
came up. Earlier, it was not a holy animal though it was integral to life. Saints Alwars and
Nainars made this movement came about. From this time onwards- the belief that all gods
reside in the body of the cow emerged. In ancient India, old cows were killed and not the
milch cows. Economically unimportant animals were sacrificed.

This issue came up again in NDA I. they said Thapar had an agenda. Did not deny it just
wanted to not showcase it. A series of texts written. Purpose of history – memory of the
society – to teach them about something. Facts are not place to offend someone or any other
thing. Fat is a fact and need to be taught – irrationality.

Lots of sources show beef eating in ancient India. NDA I deleted this part – Murli Manohar
Joshi – HRD Minister – deleted it. Restored later under UPA I. NDA II is avoiding any
controversy so nothing fucked is being done.

2. Brahmanical Reaction
Role of Ashoka and the Brahmanical reaction. What led to the destruction of the Mauryan
empire. RS Sharma historian. Wrote a book. A paragraph was deleted. It said that one of the
reasons for decline was the Brahmanical reaction. When Ashoka adopted Buddhism and
adopted dhamma. Slaughter of animals was banned in the empire. His kitchen which earlier
has 20 varieties of meat became dry.
Earlier a Shaivite. Due to the ban on the slaughter of the animals – it affected the income of
the brahmans – they used to earn a lot due to the sacrifice. Influential class – rebelled against
the empire – and was one of the most important reasons of decline.

NDA I found this objectionable. Deleted it. In 1990s when BJP rose – it was seen as a part of
the higher class. They realised this was an image when could not be kept – became populist.

Communalisation of education – write up.

KN Pannikar – Outsider as Enemy: Politics of History Writing in India

3. Harappan Horse Controversy


Were horses there in Harappa? How is this relevant? In Indus Valley Civilisation, evidence of
horses is not found. mules are still found but horses were absent. Horses came to India with
the Vedic Aryans. They brought the horses. Even today, the cavalcade of the President has a
horse guard. These horses are still brought from Central India. India did not have horses.

It is well established that the Aryans were not the indigenous people they came from Central
Asia. This theory was first propounded by Max Mueller. In the community of historians, the
consensus even today is that the Aryans came from Central Asia. Whether they migrated or
invaded is a topic of dispute. Aryan Migration Theory v. The Aryan Invasion Theory. The
migration theory is predominant. Since central Asia did not have resources, they came to the
land of the seven rivers – Beas, Rabi, Chenab, Jhelum, Sutlej, Indus, Saraswati. The Aryans
heard this is a land of opportunity, fertile, resources. Saraswati river also is a matter of
controversy. Remote census shows Saraswati disappearing in the Thar Desert. Saraswati is
still seen in some places. The migration is said to have taken place in a definite period of time
but it was not prolonged. Invasion theory says due to tech advances like better
communications through horses instead of bullock carts helped them defeat the locals and
started the Aryanisation of northern India. Migration theory said that the Aryans migrated
inly for the sake of better prospects. Not an invasion. No warfare took place.

RSS led right wing group wanted to assert that the Aryans were indigenous people and did
not come from anywhere else. The motive is the outsider as enemy theory. Muslims,
Christians etc. negating the premise that the Aryans were also outsiders. RSS wants to say
that the outsider is the enemy. Thus, the horses became relevant. If horses are proven not be
there in ancient India – then it would be evidence of Aryan migration/invasion.
However, the truth is that a number of people have come to India over the last 5000 years. All
of India is a mixture of multiple people coming in basically from central Asia for better
prospects.

In order to assert that the Aryans were indigenous people during NDA I, NS Rajarama a
scholar claimed to have found a seal from Indus valley showing horses in it. When the seal
was tested – it was found to be a fake. Done with an agenda.

Evidence that Aryans came from central Asia

● Boghaz Ko inscription

This is archaeological evidence. 5000 BC. Same period. Inscription. Asia minor from where
Aryans hailed. Text says – 5 different branches of Aryans moved to 5 different parts of the
world and one branch moved to Meluha. India was called Meluha.

● Horses

Indus valley civilisation was very advanced – two modes of communication – bullock carts
and boats. Land trade was internal and water trade was external. No presence of horses. How
could the indigenous people have succeeded as Aryans and suddenly got horses. Even today
we don’t have good horses.

● Philological Evidence

On comparing English and Sanskrit a lot of similarities can be found. Same family – Indo-
European languages. A series of phonetical similarities. Scholars have brought this out. Due
to same group. Sanskrit was brought by Aryans from same place. Sanskrit and English tree
could not have developed in different places. Due to movement variation took place.

Hitler used to call himself Aryan and German scholars researched and found that ancient
German and Sanskrit were very similar.

● Nature of IVC and Vedic Civilisation

Polar opposites. Vedic civ was rural while IVC was urban and modern. Same would have
developed in similar ways but this is not seen. No concept of egalitarianism in Vedic
civilisation.
4. Guru Teg Bahadur controversy
Executed by Aurangzeb because he refused to convert to Islam. Satish Chandra, eminent
historian, in the NCERT textbook of class 7 authored a medieval India portion – mentions
Sikhism and Aurangzeb. Guru Teg Bahadur was involved in plunder and rapine. Intense
furore cause in Sikh community. They though rape. But it meant plunder itself. Poverty of
knowledge without knowing what they’re talking about. Entire section on Sikhism was
entirely deleted after modification in textbook. This controversy came up after this happened.

5. Taj mahal issue


Taj mahal was tejo mahalum – Hindu monument – PN Oak authored a book called Taj mahal
- Hindu monument. Most arguments given were not backed by evidence at all but were
simply statements. Floral designs – lotus – Hindu tradition. Govt of India banned this book.
Still banned. Earlier it was a Shiva temple – this was converted into Taj mahal. But we know
it was a mausoleum made by Shah Jahan.

6. Qutub Minar
Iron pillar has no relation with the minar. The pillar was brought by feroz shah – was brought
from Haryana – belonged to some ruler called Chandra – indicating gupta period. Right wing
groups on this basis say that qutub minar was made by samudragupta. We know from
evidence that construction was started by qutub ud din aibak and later completed by
iltutmish. Distortion of facts. Changing hard facts instead of talking about interpretations on
the basis of evidence and arguments.

Irfan habib – article in the booklet – communalisation of education.

7. Euro Centric Bias


Found in most historical works especially in work of historians from the west. things are
explained from a European perspective. Kalidas referred to as Shakespeare of India. this is a
poor comparison. Kalidas’ focus revolved around nature and Shakespeare’s theme was the
depiction of human nature. Vivid characterisation of human nature. No resemblance. Why
should Shakespeare not be considered as the kalidas of England. Chanakya the Machiavelli of
India. samudragupta was called the napoleon of India. napoleon met his waterloo but
samudragupta never lost a battle.
8. RSS run schools - education
Bal bharti schools and Adarsh vidya mandir. Thousands of branches throughout the country.
Quality of education imparted here. Not up to the mark education. Fees charged very low –
that’s why lower middle class. Idea behind the schooling – strengthening the cultural fabric.
But instead teach intolerance, specifically against the minority. One question – since how
long has this ram janmabhoomi issue been prevalent – 16, 17, century etc. due to the ram
janmabhoomi issue, rivers of ____ started flowing (blood). Meant to create cadres for the rss.

Similarly, madrasas are heavily loaded with Islamic education and not a lot of secular ideas
taught. Similarly for missionary schools. Regulation by state is required. Otherwise entire
generations can be indoctrinated by incorrect ideas. Indian madrasas better than Pakistani. Jn
dixit Indian foreign sec and was invited to Pak FS – Hindu dogs – young child –
indoctrination. All Indians are Hindus and all Hindus are dogs. Extremism and Pakistan is
there because of fucked up education system.

Distorting history. This is why it’s a controversy.

9. Golden age vs dark age


There is a tendency to put ancient India in golden era and medieval India a dark period. Seen
in some historical works. Why this generalisation. Criteria – warfare, sectarian conflicts?
Which would destroy livelihood. Ancient India was full of these. Ruler of Bengal – Shashank
– he is blamed for killing thousands of Buddhist monks – himself a Shaivite – destroyed the
bodhi tree. Fortunately, the branches were taken away and planted in various parts of the
world. Conflict between Shaivites and Vaishnavites was very common to establish their gods
as the superior ones. Therefore, each other isht devs. For rajputs, war was sport. Merely
terming a period as the dark age on the basis of war and the killings and destruction is
fallacious. Ever since iron was discovered in 1000 bc. Another myth – golden/dark age.

The real dark age was the 190 years of British rule. Otherwise the invaders made India their
home and naturally they had interest here. Synthetic culture. But British – continuous
plunder. Few others – massacred – nadir shah, taimur, mahumd of ghaznavi.

HISTORY AND POLICY MAKING


What role history has been playing and will play in the policy making of the state.
Historically, it has played a major role. Both in India and in the world, generally. Examples.
Prominent in these times.

1. WWII
State depts. Of various nations specifically set up historical depts. In their foreign affairs
depts. purpose – specific research on issues which would have any affect on the nations
international relations. Like territorial claims etc. historical claims. Set up after wwii. Still
present. Fragile territorial areas in Europe – especially Balkan. Much needed input. What
policy must be adopted. In various places.

2. China
We have a dispute between in India and China. J&k, Sikkim, laddakh, arunachal. Few years
ago, the GOI set up a historical dept. primarily to look into historical claims. Historical
background. Not just immediate but remote. Tawang, ap, ever a part of Han empire? Dispute
territories. Equip the GOI to take steps after understand the other’s claims. Dispel incorrect
claims. Act accordingly.

Lots of countries with whom china has an issue have set up these historical depts. not a lot
has been talked about on these issues. But these are extremely important. Naturally, India’s
claims will strengthen as a result of the research and findings.

3. Civil service, skills and diplomatic history


After passing civil services academy – LBSNA. Common training for all. And IAS training.
Professors take some classes. Taught – science, law and history. Especially for foreign
services. Ifs. Country where they are going. And country where they come from. Needed for
the job to be performed properly. If you don’t know your own people, you cannot work
properly. Bureaucratic development. Skill. Diplomats – even more important for them.

4. Tribal policy of India


How it was framed. Each policy of goi has historical connections and bearings. When India
became independent, there was a question – how to deal with the indigenous – museum (no
interference, let them be) and assimilated (integration into the mainstream). Both were
rejected. Why they came up and why a new one was developed.
In the last 200 years, under GB rule, hundreds of rebellions took place in which tribals had a
crucial role – primarily against the British policy – why did the gullible tribals rebel so muc.
Thorough investigation by goi done. Findings – historical records – the main reason for
rebellion – arbitrary intervention into culture, traditions, way of living – this intervention
completely pushed them to the margins of the society – extreme deprivation of resources and
livelihood. This was the finding. New policy saw neither to be good alone. A mixture was
adopted. This is the state policy.

5. Secularism
Not inserted into the preamble – in cad, though, 46th, 47th, 48th, secularism was a very
important issue which underwent a thorough debate – religious or secular state. from this
debate emerge our constitution. Despite the word not being there, the basic structure included
secularism through various provisions. But how has this been received. On the name of
religion – vote bank politics – another issue.

It was viewed that India is a group of various minorities and not just a few. Complex
amalgamation. Cannot adopt religion for one group. Many sects. Putting other at A
disadvantage. Equality emerged. This is why the policy was adopted. India as it is being
divided on secular lines. Thus, delinking religion from politics was given importance.
Thorough historical investigation.

6. US-Vietnam War aftermath


1950s to 1975. Two decades. Why? Due to this conflict and the way us lost the war –
undermining the prestige. They realised they would have won the war had they understood
the situation and the people of Vietnam. Topography, region, culture, ideologies. No ground
understanding. This lesson was learnt after burning the fingers. No ground conflict after this
disaster. First, they destroy from air, only then and still with reluctance, they go into war.

Lots of similar examples.

7. Balkan Issue
How did this actually come about and its current relevance. Wwi 1911 – 2018 – more than
100 years and the region has stayed volatile throughout. Led to the wwi. Large no of ethnic
groups. This understanding is important. Us policy – 1970s and 1980s. the Americans
strongly intervened in the region, fearing instability will cause another future escalation
leading to a world war. Same analogy – Libyan crisis in 2011. That the crisis could escalate –
Obama admin did this in Syria. To stop things from escalating. These become the part of state
policy on the basis of past policies and experiences – gauging success and failure.

8. US- china relationship


Similar to German-British relations before wwii and Russia – us relations in the cold war. To
understand this comparison, we must see the history and formulate policies accordingly.
Policy, diplomacy etc. come together on these findings. When us modifies its policies, many
other states by force have to modify their own policies. NAM was created because world had
plunged into block rivalry. Thus, some stets had to take a separate stand. T=interface between
so many countries, such analyses can always be drawn. Relevant.

9. US Decline
Global talk in the past decade – whether America is on the decline. Throughout the post wwii
period this issue has been there. 1950s, 1980s, 190s, in eco crisis. In every period, us has
emerged stronger and more victorious. The generalisations therefore, t=historians say, must
be understood to assess the situations correctly. 1950s – china and us rise. 1970s – due to
Nixon when they lost the war. 80s and 90s. recession in us. These perceptions developed.
Background and past important.

10. Rogue states


Libya, Iraq under Saddam, NK. NK has nuclear weapons and Pakistan to some extent –
despite claims of a strong control mechanisms. Think tanks have expressed concern. Is it
actually safe. Nuclear capable rogue states. How a nation which acquires nuclear weapons
changes its policy. Became more assertive and from western perspective – rogue – after
becoming nukey. After chagai, Pakistan became more assertive. India’s conventional
superiority over Pakistan got neutralised. Pakistan now talks as equals. Diplomatic, foreign
policy. To shape this, understanding the history is very important.

SUCCESS AND FAILURE OF THE POLICY


Historically, if a policy was successful – and if failure - reasons? Can only be understood
historically.
Policy – to minimise chances of failure and maximise success – study history and try to learn
from past experiences. Both foreign and domestic. Deal with factors accordingly. Lots of
examples.

Linden Johnson for example, was an American president – started carpet bombing in
Vietnam. After the end of his period, he wrote a report titled the historical approach of the
policy of the state – set an example from the lessons learnt. What was the success, failure,
etc. in case of communal violence bill also – Prevention of Communal Violence Bill, 2009,
provide compensation to victims. GOI made this. So long this issue has remained. Thorough
debate etc. but not amended. Initiative to make legislation requires study of the background.
LEGACIES OF THE FREEDOM STRUGGLE

1. Social justice
Cater to social justice to millions of people – one of the purposes. Did they succeed. There
were active phases and passive phases. Constructive activities in the passive phase. In this
time – empowerment and social justice work took place. INC focused on this in these
periods. Inc took a poor oriented agenda. 90% people were poor and thus this was required.
This would not have been possible without adopting a socialistic approach. Congress adopted
this primarily. This focuses on the plight of the people. Capitalistic approach on the other
hand would have benefited only the top most class of few people. This approach became the
cornerstone of state policy for India – socialism. Thus, this is a legacy.

In initial decades the five years plans are indicative of the same. Reduction of poverty and
egalitarianism in society. Attempt to bring every person the same footing, socio-
economically. This became the policy and thus turned into many laws. Free compulsory
education – especially primary.

Deduction of land revenue is another example. Since poor people were unable to bear the
burden. Salt tax, civil disobedience. Tax always had been important – even during the
freedom struggle – it was an important issue. In independent India, therefore, this became
part of the policy – liberal approach on land tax. The sums are petty. In flood and draught,
even that measly sum gets waived off.

1931 Karachi Resolution – very clearly asserted economic freedom for millions. Carried as a
legacy in =to post independent India.

Opposition to all kinds of inequality and discrimination on the basis of religion, caste, sex,
creed, race etc. this has always been a part of the discourse and remains important. Women
empowerment and abolishment of untouchability were very important. This was
unprecedented. Involvement of women in the mass movements. Feminist movement in
contemporary India – traced from 60s, 70s, 80s. this carries from that period. First time they
rose together in India was in anti-liquor movement. Low class people used to beat wives
when drunk. This led to an uprising. Bihar, Maharashtra etc. encouraged by the state.
untouchability – fundamental right. Punishable offence.
2. Secularism
Separation of religion and politics. The cad debated thoroughly on this particular point. This
has become a cornerstone of the constitution. The freedom movement failed in checking
communalism and this has turned into a legacy. When the British state was encouraging
communal forces, the freedom movement did not create an effective strategy like mass
movements against this like in a=other aspects but instead tolerated these forces and went for
appeasement politics. This fucked everything up. Percolated into India. divide – riots – war.

3. United India
When we get rid of the foreign yoke, India must stay united – this was an important idea –
but not entirely successful. Pak got created. But this idea gave rise to unification of princely
states into one political bloc. A larger identity of Indianness was also possible due to the
vision of united India.

4. Independent foreign policy


This was a vision of the nationalist leaders. This vision allowed us not to fall into one of the
two blocs after independence, became a founding member of NAM. This idea carried
forward. Opposition for anti-racism strong support to the nelson Mandela govt. anti-
colonialism and anti-imperialism were important. Last 60 years journey of Indian foreign
policy then most times we have taken principled steps – sending peacekeeping troops. Un.
Contributing to peace and safety. Do not want to be politically subjugated again. Asserted
sovereignty. Independence has manifested in these ways.

LEGACY OF PARTITION

1. Boundaries created how


Radcliffe boundary award. Before India becoming independent, for the purpose of division of
Punjab and Bengal – the Mountbatten plan provided for a boundary award which would be
divided. Adding these boundaries, more than 2,700 km of boundaries were created, this
division was not easy, required a lot of time. Cyril Radcliffe was responsible for this. He was
a British civil servant and he fucked up majorly. Why was he given this task – because he
didn’t have any earlier connection to India. thus, he would be neutral doing it only on the
basis of demographics – minority and majority. He was given only 5 weeks to get this done.
Means of communication were bad. He never visited the sites. He simply made crosses on the
map. Short and long-term impact.
These two regions – Bengal and Punjab – got fucked. East Pakistan – area of 54,500 sq miles;
population of 40 million; 27% non-Muslims. west Bengal – area of 28,000 sq miles;
population of 21 million; 29% Muslims. 1/3rd populations stayed in original territories. The
two-nation theory got deflated in the beginning itself. Migration of the 27% Hindus was a
continuous process. This happened over many years. After their persecution started. By the
extremist groups. Continued till 1990s. in Punjab, the migration was immediate during
partition itself. Thus, migration in Bengal was not successful. West Punjab – area of 63,000
sq miles, 16.5 million, 25% non-Muslims. east Punjab – 37, 000 sq miles; 12.5 million, 35%
Muslims. Population difference was not that much. More successful division in Punjab
because of this.

Basis of division of territories was the majority-minority ratio. Where the Hindus are in
majority go to east Punjab and where Muslims were in majority to west Punjab. But this was
not a very strict basis. If there were territories which were not geographically closer to the
bloc to which they should have gone to, exceptions were made. Gurdaspur for example –
more than 50% Muslims but came to India.

There are a number of controversies concerning the partition.

● Gurdaspur Issue

Muslim majority but was still given to India. why was this done? Muslim League and Jinnah
had opposed this. They raised the issue that the award is biased and in favour of India. no
written records but possible reasons can be identified. Gurdaspur links rest of Inida with
Jammu and Kashmir. Si that if J&K would later come to India, India would have a link.
Himachal border with Jammu and Kashmir was not an easy route. Thus, strategic importance.
Nehru and his friendship with Mountbatten and Edwina.

● Nadia and Murshidabad

Musim majority but came to India. again, Jinnah randi rona kar raha tha.

● Date

Radcliffe submitted this award to Mountbatten on Aug 12, but immediately the result was not
given. On 15th august, strange scenes in bordering villages were there. This confusion led to a
lot of carnage. Divide and quit – Penderel Moon - book – responsibility of British to have
given the award earlier to prevent the bloodshed. 17th – result declared. Reasons for this 4-
day delay – Britain thought that if any problems came up after independence, then any
confusion, bloodshed, confusion would be responsibility of India and Pakistan. If before
independence – British responsibility.

The theory that India was favoured is quite sound. Because of the relationship between Nehru
and Edwina.

Effects

2. Migration
Biggest migration of south Asia - cause by this partition. 18 million people got uprooted.
Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs. They had to change states – became refugees. One of the largest
ever in the world.

3. Loss of property
There are assessments but actual figures are difficult to ever understand. Even now 1.5 billion
rupees is an estimate at the then price. Today it would go into multiple billions of rupees.
Villages were left behind altogether. Accounts should how much loss must have been there.

4. Canal headworks
Punjab had massive irrigation shit. Headworks remained in India but irrigated area went to
Pakistan. This created a water sharing problem. For 12 years this problem persisted. 1960 –
indus water treaty was signed. It has remained in force. No issues. Stop the flow of water –
ruling class won’t suffer. Common people will. Humanitarian issues. But being responsible
we have never. Pakistan could use this to malign India’s image. India’s image is superior.
Irrigation from all five rivers – network was present.

5. Unnatural division
Punjab and Bengal without understanding the ground reality – no topography considered. No
rive, hill division was there. Boundaries passing through even houses and villages caused
immense problems. This phenomenon was called the divided home problem. Communities,
homes, families got divided. Irrational division. Multiple generational trauma. Separation
from even their own brothers and sisters. Losing their loved ones. Trauma continued.
6. Communal problem
Lots of regions which saw the emigration of refugees. Regions receiving refugees ever since
independence up till now. Sri ganganagar. Prone to communal violence. Pual R Brass.
Refugees who keep coming have a very strong feeling against the other community.
Similarly, meerut in up is a hotbed of communal violence. Muzzafarnagar. Legacies of the
partition. Sad memories still being passed down generations. Leads to communal feelings –
fundamentalism – just doesn’t stop. Emotion still there.

Situation of East Punjab after Partition


Punjabi refugees resettlement.

Punjab received 45% of population of undivided Punjab. Fertile lands were only 30%. The
land Area received was 38% and the income share was 31%.

Undivided Punjab was a hydraulic society since it was based on water 5 rivers. Canal
colonies. These made the entirety of Punjab fertile region. Network of canals. Asa result of
the partition, the best irrigated lands went to Pakistan. Most important canal colonies went
there. The remaining was there in Indian Punjab. Wheat, cotton producing area. Deficiency of
around 35000 tonnes of grain deficiency.

Property left by Hindus and Sikhs in Punjab 67 mil acres. Left by Muslims in India – 47
million.

RELIEF AND REHABILITATION MEASURE


Established the ministry of rehabilitation. First 2 decades. Later discontinued. Prime job was
to look after rehab in both western and eastern India. relief measures took place in two
phases.

Temporary phase – 47 to 49

1. Congestion in camps.
Refugees started settling in refugee camps. They were diverted to neighbouring areas.

2. Evacuee lands
Settlement of refugees on the land left behind by Muslims going to Pakistan.
3. Psychological rehabilitation
Due care was taken that a group of families and friends and relatives should settle together on
the same land. To give them a feeling of security, psychological support. Sharing of resources
to help each other.

4. Food loans
Crops would take a year or more to grow in the meantime, support was reqd. came in the
form of loans for food – 3.5 rs per month

5. Ration shops
Subsidised ration shops were created to provide food support

6. Agricultural loans
Implements, etc because most were agro

7. Artisans
Those who were not agriculturalists, were provided loans to start them off. Financial support

8. Digging wells
Loans on a community bases to each village for things like digging wells.

Permanent phase 1949 onwards

1. Land records
Challenge of how to allot lands because most refugees did not have land records when they
came here. Challenge of ascertaining how much they had left behind in Punjab so that they
could be given that much. To solve this, panchyatas were formed on a regular basis. Each
claim was cross-checked by other members of the village. In this way, each person’s loss was
ascertained and this was the bias of land allocation. People claiming more had penalties
against such claims. Thus, panchayats played an important role.

2. Standard acre
Concept of standard acre was adopted. A piece of land which could produce 4-5 quintals of
wheat was called a standard acre. This was done because productivity varied across different
lands. This allowed equitable distribution so that value could be ascertained according to the
produce. 10 acres and 1 acre both were standard acre if both could produce 5 quintals.
Idea – dg ias officer Trilok singh.

3. Graded cuts
Since land in east Punjab was less than the land lost in west Punjab, all land allotment had to
be reduced proportionately

Grade SA rate of cut net allotment (sa)

0-10 25% 7.5

10-30 30%

40-60 60%

More than 1000 95%

As a result of the application of this concept, the feudalism concept was also resolved this
was the advantage. Land was reduced to what that person could cultivate upon on his own.
Vidyawati had 10k but 95% taken away.

Even the landless were given lands. With the help of this. Few grievances were there.

IMPACT
GANGA WATER SHARING TREATY
Ganga is a lifeline for Bangladesh.

1951 – after the partition, Pakistan raised the objection of Ganga water. Similar to that of the
5 Punjabi rivers. The next two three years it continued as it it but in 1951 India started
building a barrage at Faraqqa. To make Calcutta port workable, sediments had to be flushed
out. This was also a purpose of the Barrage. Pakistan raised a strong objection since the water
entering Bangladesh could be reduced. This protest continued but there was no formal treaty
between Indian and Pakistan for sharing of Ganga water. In 1975 the barrage was contructed.
Now it was Bangladesh. It had good relations raised objections just like Pakistan. India went
for short period treaties – 2 to 3 years in duration. They were renewed from time to time.
After long negotiations and talks, finally, in 1997, the treaty was signed. Devegowda was the
PM. Sheikh Hasina was the President in Bangladesh. Th fruition of the treaty must also be
credited to Jyoti Basu. Earlier, WB had raised objections to the treaty.

This was not merely a water sharing treaty A lot of areas was discussed.

Water Sharing

Flood Management – Extremely important for both countries in monsoon. Cooperation.

Hydroelectricity Generation – TH barrage also had the purpose of electricity generation.


Sharing of this power was provided for.

Irrigation -

River Basin Development – Due to continuous flow of water, silt keeps forming. Desilting of
river basins is important to deal with floods. If done properly it can have many advantages
like fishing, etc.

Conditions

India would release water to Bangladesh at Faraqqa Barrage.

Sharing of water would take place on a 10 day basis. Month divided into three 10day parts,
after each part, monitoring of how much water is being released to Bangladesh ahd to be
done and data relased to Bangaladesh.
Water sharing only from 1 jan to 31 may. After this monsoon in Bangaldesh would alleviate
any water issues.

In any 10 day cycle, if the water volume goes below 5000 cusec, an emergency would be
declared and the countries would meet. This a unit for running water. 1 cusec = 28l/s.

Joint Committee would be stablished to observe the flow on the 10 day basis. Comprising
observers from both countries. A report has to be prepared. Any dispute has to be looked into
first by this body. The most basic body.

Joint River Commission. If the JC fails, dispute would go to JRC. Again comprising
representatives of both countries.

If not at this level also, goes to govt. no provision for international arbitration. Has to be
resolved at this level only.

Harding Bridge is where Bangladesh will receive water from India.

This treaty will be operational for 30 years. After this period, a review will take place and
steps can be taken accordingly.

Considered to be historic treaties. Water was a sentimental problem. Another major issue –
enclaves, resolved. All geopolitical legacies taken care of. Only the migration problem
remaining.

SIACHEN
LOC is almost 760 km long. The point where the LOC ends is called NJ9842 and here lies
the Siachen Glacier. Exists on the Soltovo Ridge in the Larger Himalayas. 78km long
Glacier. It is an important tributary of the Indus. Indus originates from Mt. Kailash. Siachen
means the land of wild roses. The prominent vegetation is this. Musk deer also there.

Background
This area was initially undefined. Not defined whether it belonged to India or Pakistan.
Legally it should be part of India because of the Instrument of Accession. 1960 onwards,
after the War, in order to assert there claim on the Glacier, Pakistan allowed mountaineers to
visit the Glaciers through the Pakistan face. This continued throughout 1970s. expeditions
were sent from Indian side as well. There was no conflict as such. But it remained undefined.
1984
India got some intelligence input that akistan had ordered for a large number of mounitain
trolleys from the same firm which India also used to buy. Equipments for ultra high altitudes
for soldiers. India got alarmed of a possible Pakistani incursion. By this time, however, a
report was received that Pakistan had occupied some peaks in the region already. Quaid Post.
An operation started – Meghdoot. Led by Subedar Bana Singh. The were able to capture
Quaid Post. This marked the beginning of the conflict. This happened in 1986 – 2 years later.

7 regiments of Indian troops and only 3 from Pakistan stay there today. Because India is on
the higher peaks and Pakistan on lower. We have the strategic advantage. Entire valley could
be under Pakistan. 2/3rd of Glacier is under occupation of Indian troops.

But we don’t have any road access. The only means of supply is air. Costliest and highest
battlefield in the world. Cost per day is Rs. 50 million per day. Not on current but earlier
prices. annually, billions of rupees. All around about 15,000 troops both sides combined. The
biggest killer is the climate and not the armies. 90% casualties. The estimate is that a soldier
is lost every other day.

Environmental Aspect

India has laid down a pipeline for supply of kerosene. Due to the extreme cold, chokes cause
leaks. This causes many problems. This region has flora and fauna in lower regions.
Continuous shelling has accelerated the melting rate, adverse impact. On the verge of
extinction.

The cost of making one chapati in Siachen is more than 1000 bucks. Only 18-25 year olds are
posted there. For maximum 6 months. Develop frost bites and gangrene. Very hazardous
condition.

The first PM to visit was Manmohan Singh in 2005. He proposed building the Glaacier asa an
ecological peace park. A number of foreign agencies and NGOs proposed de-escalation and
demilitarisation. But withdrawal has a major problem – no guarantee at all. Trust deficit.
Around the year presence. Talks have been taking place for a long time. But no conclusion.
All matters between India and Pakistan result in a standstill.

Problem in Pakistan are three masters – Political estb, ISI, Army.


The problem of garbage is a major problem. Bacteria don’t exist. No decomposition.
Continuous accumulation. Are usually sealed in drums. During melting season, everything
gets fucked up. Water source fucked up.

SIR CREEK
Another contentious issue. In the Runn of Kutchh. This is an estuary. Here the sea enters the
land area. Marshy af. Emerged after 1965 War. Pakistan laid the claim that Sir Creek
belongs to Pakistan and India refuted. Both agreed on a midchannel principle. Certain part of
the Creek is a dividing line. Whether the channel can be navigable is contentious. India says
navigable, Pakistan says no.

Economic Significance

This region – large resources are allegedly hidden. Natural Gas and iron. Has polymetallic
nodules. Bean shaped materials with many valuable metals. Joint exploration might solve the
problem. But no negotiations done.

Contentious geopolitical legacies of the partition.


INTEGRATION OF THE STATES
Even before India got independent. How integration came about. Menon – Integration of
States.

Process was in 4 stages

How Portuguese and French territories got integrated.

1. April 1947

Significance – the constituent assembly appealed all princely states to join the Indian union.
Lots of princes did.

2. August 15 1947

INC and the leadership appealed further nationalistic. As a result, almost all joined India but
three.

3. 1948

Junagarh, Jammu and Kashmir and Hyderabad also got integrated into the Union.

4. 1961-63

In this phase, Goa, Daman-Diu, Pondicherry, Dadra-Nagar Haveli got integrated.

HOW DID THIS HAPPEN

1. People’s Movement Against the Autocracy


These were mostly led by the State People’s Conference. All the states formed these
conferences and used to have a meet with the single point agenda being – how to get rid of
the autocratic princely rule. Was led by INC members. Now that the same party was in
power, te princes realised that merging was a necessity and a reality. An immense pressure
was created. Thus, the popular appeal worked.

2. Patel Factor
Had Patel not been there, and if Nehru’s liberal policy was adopted, lots of states would have
gone either to Pakistan or stayed independent. He was ruthless in his approach. Multiple
statements – clarity – no third option – join us or Pakistan – if you don’t, we’ll use force –
firmness. After great dilemma they joined us. Man of blood and iron – Indian Bismarck.

JUNAGARH CASE
In present day Gujarat (Saurashtra). At the time was led by Mahabat Khan – the Nawab.
There had been negotiations between Junagarh and Khan for a long time. Was being offered
virtual autonomy. Clearly, Pakistan seemed like a better option. Jinnah had agreed to give an
assurance on paper. Khan declared he would join Pakistan. Indian mein no autonomy.
Pakistan immediately accepted.

Local were Hindu – protest vociferously. They rose in rebellion. Others would have gone to
Pakistan easily. Sponteneous rise of the people. Very violent and fierce. Wanted to arrest the
Nawabreached his palace. He fled to Pakistan. He had great love for dogs.

Shahnawaz Bhutto – Diwan of Junagarh – asked India to intervene. Utter lawlessness. Invited
India to take control. Indian army came. A plebiscite took place. technically it was required.
Because Nawab had fucked it up. Over 95% people favoured India.

Reaction from Jinnah – blamed this very action as arbitrary. People made a difference.

HYDERABAD
Rule of Nizam. One of the richest ever in the world. It was very prominent and large.
NIzamshahi was established in the 18th century by Nizam Ul Shulk. Hyd was a bit fucked up.
No Junagarh scene. Sizeable muslim population was there. If Hyderabad decides togo to
Pakistan, it would be like cancer in the belly of India. Osman Ali Shah was the ruler and the
last Nizam of HS. Initial attitude on Nizam’s part – wanted an independent status. Prime
approach – they relented to Indian approached because they were sure. This was also
encouraged by Pakistan. Promised to build a large army to fight Indian forces.

Stand Still Agreement – secret commitment to India. it would not join Pakistan but it would
take time to make up its mine on status. This was part of the deal. In 1947, the SSA was
signed. Part of the agreement was that while the negotiations were going on, the Nizam
would introduce a responsible government and reforms. These agreements were all just
fuckery. Nizam was just buying time to build a large army with Pakistani help. Real
intention.
Political Developments in the State Taking Place Parallelly
There was a militant group called Razkars. Nizam’s militia. Loyalists. In the wake of these
developments, there was a rapid development of this militant Islamic group. Responsible for
attacks on and persecution of Hindus. Due to this, there was a migration of Hindus into the
neighbouring provinces, as refugees.

Satyagrah Movement
Launched by units of the state congress. They had nonviolent approach to putting forward
their demands.

Communists
They were violent but they were also against the state. they took up the cause of the working
class which had been suppressed by the Nizam. Mobilised the peasantry against the feudal
lords. They were attacked, land records burnt, etc.

Thus, three parallel political forces were running. Sympathy for the refugees and peasants
was created throughout the country and in the INC in particular.

Initially Patel threatened Nizam with dire consequences. When refugees were being
displaced. On 13 September 1948 Indian army marched into Hyderabad and occupied. Nizam
surrendered and the state army did as well. Hardly any resistance. It was then formally
merged within India. as part of the agreement of this merger

Hyderabad merged

Nizam was retained as the formal head – administrative control remained with him

Privy purse. Till now, PC had jurisdiction. It was PC which had held that the amount needs to
ve paid. 5 million to be paid to Nizam. Was allowed to retain most of his properties.

This was held as a triumph of secularism. Razkars were very small part. Most muslims and
Hindus wanted to join India. legally it merged.

KASHMIR
Jainul Abidin - Ashok of Kashmir. Was very liberal. The cultural background of Kashmir is
one of liberal tolerance and pluralism. Sufism – very liberal branch of Islam.
Now everything’s fucked.

In modern times, during British India, Kashmir was part of Punjab Province. Maharaja Ranji
Singh was the ruler in 1830s. the Anglo-Sikh War began after his death and Punjab was
occupied by the British, as was Kashmir. Back then, they did not understand the importance
of this land. They sold it to Gulab Singh Dogra for Rs. 50 lakhs. The Dogra Dynasty was
established. Hari Singh was the last ruler.

At the time of partition, the political forces in Kashmir were Sheikh Abdullah leader of
National Conference. His politics was secular in nature. He had a good friendship with
Nehru. There was a protest around Raja Hari Singh and in 1946, Abdullah led a Quit Kashmir
Movement. Abdullah had been a liberal, having had a western education. Muslim League
failed to communalise the politics of Kashmir earlier, since Kashmiris by nature had been
followers of Sufism. This movement was also not communal. He was the most popular
figure. The Maharaja was reluctant to join any nation because he wanted to maintain
independence, though, he knew that he would’ve had to integrate. He knew he wanted to join
India of the two. But he also knew that under democracy, Sheikh would become the leader.
That’s why he was holding out.

Circumstances Forcing Union with India

In October 47, the “tribal invasion” in Kashmir started. Started from the NWFP. Pakistan
claims that the locals rose up against the administration. But in reality, we know that this was
a proxy war by Pakistan. They could not have legally attacked, they instigated some tribals
and led them against MHS. General Alwar Khan constructed this. When Hari Singh came to
know about the advent of forces to, he sent Commander Mahajan to Delhi for help. India
clearly told him that no intervention till IOA was signed. By virtue of this, the union became
legal. But later, when UN got involved, India lost this privilege. This was signed. New Delhi
undertook an unprecedented operation. All international flights were cancelled. Soldiers were
put on flights. Within 5 hours, Indian Army was in Kashmir. No one knew this was
happening. When the first aircraft landed. Gradually, India pushed off invaders.

The invaders mostly wanted to make merry etc. Hamida danced for 24 hours. By that time
Indians came.
Jinnah knew that Raja Hari Singh might integrate with India. so before he made up his mind,
he wanted to take it in. they could not have gone for a full scale War. General Gracey refused
Jinnah’s order.

Plebiscite

By this time, War had started. Jinnah’s Invitation. He invited Mountbatten to Lahore for a
tripartite meeting. Patel forbid Nehru from going. He wanted to go. In the 11th hour he
decided against it. Mountbatten went ahead. Meeting took place. jinnah said both sides would
withdraw. Mt asked how can tribes withdraw. Jinnah said ill make them. This shows tribes
were under Pakistan. Mt Batten’s proposal. First time this bugger used the idea of plebiscite.
Mt Batten said under UN such a plebiscite can take place. otherwise, bakchodi. Legally it was
an Indian territory. Thus, this was a Pakistani victory. All this confusion. Nehru accepted this.
This was a blunder because of which everything went to shit. Reason behind acceptance of
this proposal. First argument – To appease Pakistan. Nehru was a pacifist. He anyhow wanted
to end the War between India and Pakistan. So he wanted to appease Pakistan. To refute the
Two Nation Theory – which said that Pakistan is for Muslims and Hindustan is for Hindus.
He wanted them to vote for joining India. argument 3 0 To strengthen secularism in India.

You might also like