Rohit Kumar's Views

Just another weblog

Posts Tagged ‘salacious in nature

“Sex Pollution” Book Review: Shabnum Qayoom sheds light on Lord Cyril Radcliffe’s affair with Nehru’s sister Vijaya Lakshmi

leave a comment »

“Sex Pollution”: While the book may be salacious in nature, it does shed light on the shady side of Jawaharlal Nehru-known for his escapades. Stanley Wolpert has written extensively about his gay lifestyle as well as his affair with Ediwina Mountbatten-the subject of a new book “Indian Summer” (Written by Edwin’as daughter).

Indus Water Treaty, Kalabagh, Kashmir, & Gurdaspur. While Qayoom has been subject of much ridicule in Bharat (aka India), he makes two poignant points which are important from a historical point of view.

Lord Cyrill Radcliff had an affair with Nehru’s sister Lakhsmi
Sheikh Abdullah was involved with Indira Gandhi and other women
Both these facts, if corroborated does put sunlight on the reasons for Gurdaspur going to Bharat and Shaikh Abdullah not doing the obvious and acceding to Pakistan-it was personal not political.

Gurdaspur and Ferozepur were Muslim majority areas given to Bharat (aka) India. In the map published Ferozepur was shown as a Pakistani city–however amazingly it ended up in “India”. The final boundary report was not published ’till August 16/17 so both countries became independent without knowing their boundaries. Gurdaspur and Ferozepur residents flew Pakistani flags and celebrated as Pakistanis–but found themselves in “India”–and had to leave

Radcliff’s cheated Pakistan out of Ferozepur and Gurdaspur. The British commission in charge of Partition handed Gurdaspur district over to India, despite being a Muslim majority district of Punjab, as they thought India to be more favourable for most. The British claims were that if India did not control Gurdaspur, then Pakistan could simply cut off water supplies to Amritsar, though they could not justify just the opposite happening. The result was of many Muslims unexpectedly forced to migrate under harsh conditions, with Hindus and Sikhs killing, raping and mutilating many. However, Gurdaspur is the district in which all roads from India in Kashmir run, and thus, Pakistan alleges that the British effectively decided the fate of Kashmir by giving India a lifeline in Kashmir.

Gurdaspur Railway Supply Line to Kashmir for India’s only land link to Kashmir. Many allege that Lord Radcliffe gave Gurdaspur to Bharat (aka”India”) so that it could invade Kashmir a weeks later. The delay in announcing the award also put pressure on the Raja of Kashmir

Pakistan also alleges that the British reasoning for handing over Gurdaspur was extremely biased, corrupted, flawed and unfair because while Pakistan was denied Gurdaspur district on the grounds of Indian water security, India maintained control over Pakistani water by retaining all the districts of Punjab in which major Pakistani rivers had their headwaters. Since Pakistan has always been an agriculture based country, it was in danger. Essentially this is seen as a veto power held by India over Pakistan agriculture. The Indus Waters Treaty signed in 1960 resolved most of these disputes over the sharing of water, calling for mutual cooperation in this regard. This treaty faced issues raised by Pakistan over the illegal construction of dams on the Indian side which limit water to the Pakistani side.

I nearly gave you [India] Lahore.” Lord Cyril Radcliffe, Chairman of the Boundary Commission, told me. “But then I realised that Pakistan would not have any large city. I had already earmarked Calcutta for India.

“The Muslims in Pakistan have a grievance that you favoured India”, I told Radcliffe. His reply was: “They should be thankful to me because I went out of the way to give them Lahore which deserved to go to India. Even otherwise, I favoured the Muslims more than the Hindus.” Lord Radcliffe to Kuldip Nayyer in 1971. Tribune India

“I had no alternative; the time at my disposal was so short that I could not do a better job. Given the same period I would do the same thing. However, if I had two to three years, I might have improved on what I did”.
– Sir Cyril Radcliffe

There is a charge that Lord Radcliff was given a bribe of 6 corore rupees by the Indian National Congress supporters to unfairly and “illegally” award Ferozepur and Gurdaspur to India. Ferozepur was the only arsenal that was supposed to be given to Pakistan. Gurdaspur was a Muslim majority area and was awarded to India. The boundary line was along the river and Radcliff unnaturally digressed it away from the river to give away Gurdaspur (the only link of India to Kashmir) to India.

The implication of the loss of Ferozepur to India was not only traumatic in human terms, but it was devastating to Pakistan in military terms. The reality behind the conspiracy to award Gurdaspur became evident a year later when Indian troops arrived in Srinagar and then Mahara Sing signed over the article of accession to India. The article of accession was never presented to the UN, and according to Alister Lamb has serious discrepancies about dates. The original article of accession has since been lost, if it ever existed.

“Alastair Lamb, Incomplete Partition (OUP, 1998) comes to the conclusion that the instrument of accession was not signed on the date claimed by the Indian government to legitimise its sending of troops into Kashmir. American scholar Stanley Wolpert relates the accession story in his 1996 book, Nehru: A tryst with Destiny, basing it on the lack of concordance between versions of the accession. Wolpert writes that Menon returned from Srinagar on 26 October ‘with no Instrument of Accession’ to report on the perilous condition in Kashmir to the Defence Committee. Only after Mountbatten had allowed the airlift of Indian troops on 27 October, did Menon and Mahajan set out for Jammu ‘to get the Instrument of Accession’. The Maharaja signed the Instrument after the Indian troops had assumed control of the state of Jammu and Kashmir’s summer capital, Srinagar. If Wolpert’s version is accepted then the ‘conspiracy’ of legalising the airlift becomes acceptable. Lamb thinks that it is possible that ‘certainly Menon, perhaps Mountbatten, perhaps Nehru and perhaps Patel’ were involved in this conspiracy. Lamb also claims that the document of accession does not exist.”

The book has been banned in India is not available on Amazon. However there are reviews of the book available on merinews, and various websites in Bharat do carry the information from Qayoom’s book. If Qayoom is right, the two major players in the Gurdaspur fiasco would be Laskhsmi and Radcliffe.

Vijaya Lakshmi Nehru Pandit was an Indian diplomat and politician, sister of Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru.

In 1921 she married Ranjit Sitaram Pandit, who died on January 14, 1944. She was the first Indian woman to hold a cabinet post. In 1937 she was elected to the provincial legislature of the United Provinces and was designated minister of local self-government and public health. She held the latter post until 1939 and again from 1946 to 1947. In 1946 she was elected to the Constituent Assembly from the United Provinces.

Following India’s independence from the British in 1947 she entered the diplomatic service and became India’s ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1947 to 1949, the United States and Mexico from 1949 to 1951, Ireland from 1955 to 1961 (during which time she was also the Indian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom), and Spain from 1958 to 1961. Between 1946 and 1968 she also headed the Indian delegation to the United Nations. In 1953, she became the first woman President of the United Nations General Assembly

In India, she served as governor of Maharashtra from 1962 to 1964, after which she was elected to the Indian Lok Sabha from Phulpur, her brother’s former constituency. She held office from 1964 to 1968. Pandit was a harsh critic of her niece, Indira Gandhi, after Gandhi became Prime Minister in 1966, and she retired from active politics after relations between them soured. On retiring she moved to Dehradun in the Doon Valley in the Himalayan foothills.

In 1979 she was appointed the Indian representative to the UN Human Rights Commission, after which she retired from public life. Her writings include The Evolution of India (1958) and The Scope of Happiness: A Personal Memoir (1979).

Her daughter Nayantara Sahgal, who later settled in her mother’s house in Dehradun, is a well-known novelist. Wiki

Lord Cyril Radcliffe gave away Gurdaspur to Bharat–thus allowing it land access to Kashmir (a natural part of Pakistan due to linguistic, religious and geographical reasons) The 1947 partition was shaped not only by decades of Indian nationalist pressure on the British Government and by the rise of civil unrest in the subcontinent after World War Two, but also by Britain’s precarious economic position in the aftermath of the war. After nearly two centuries as an economic asset, British India had become a liability at a time when Britain could least afford it. In addition, American pressure to decolonize the subcontinent influenced both international and British domestic opinion against the raj. British India became a political and symbolic liability as well as an economic problem. These factors, combined with domestic political considerations for the newly elected Labour Party, meant that ridding itself of its responsibilities in India suddenly became a priority to His Majesty’s Government (HMG). However, Indian independence had not always been such an urgent goal for the British Government. The first half of the twentieth century saw a series of small steps towards self-government in South Asia. Traditional imperialist historiography holds that these ventures marked carefully incremented progress, part of the process of training Indians to govern themselves. Other interpretations, including but not confined to South Asian nationalist schools, argue that these steps were actually sops intended to keep nationalists satisfied enough to prevent a more serious threat to British rule.5 This view holds that HMG had no intention of letting go its “jewel in the crown”-until it had no choice.

Although the British had, in 1946, considered leaving India piecemeal, transferring power to individual provences as they withdrew, they concluded that such an approach was impractical. without defining the entity or entities that would come into power, they concluded that such an approach was impractical. It would not be possible to hand over power without making it clear what international entity would take on that power; in order to define a new international entity, a new boundary was necessary. From a certain perspective, however, a rigorously and properly delineated boundary was not necessary to accomplish these political ends-any boundary line would do. Due to this fact and to a myriad of political pressures, the Radcliffe Commission failed to draw a geopolitically sound line delineated and demarcated in accordance with accepted international procedure. The Punjab’s population distribution was such that there was no line that could neatly divide Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs. Radcliffe’s line was far from perfect, but it is important to note that alternative borders would not necessarily have provided a significant improvement. There is, in contrast, a great deal to be said about flaws in the boundary-making procedure-and why those flaws existed. Drawing the Indo-Pakistani boundry by Lucy Chester

Author Shabnum Qayoom tries to flaunt his knowledge of Kashmir affairs and in doing so uses his quixotic and imaginary expertise to weave a book of more than 200 pages.

There is nothing new written in this book which the general public does not know. As the author has so many tales to tell from calling the first Prime Minister of free India a pimp of Sheikh Abdullah – who asphyxiated Sheikh Abdullah on important occasion with call girls; and being not averse even to the lascivious eyes of Lord Mountbatten on his sister as long as Lady Mountbatten warmed his bed.

The author further alleges that the Sheikh Abdullah received dough to stop legendary Shabun Hajam from his mission. Then, the author digs deep into the roots of Sheikh Family. He brings their ancestors history to the fore, which, according to him, is famous for producing illegitimate wards.

He doesn’t stop there. He further points out that both Bakashi Gulum Mohammad and Sadiq had their respective mistress. He is not shy of naming them. The book alleges that in the name of finding solution of Kashmir in collaboration with foreigners, Sheikh indulged in sex and sleaze with their wives.

According to the author, Sheikh was removed from prime ministership’s position in 1953 because he tried to sexually assault the wife of Rafi Ahmad Kidwai. Shabnum Qayoom does not spare even Indira Gandhi and calls her “sexy” girl, and, even puts question mark on her and Sheikh Abdullah’s closed-door meetings. And, wait there is more – the author knows than Khuswant Singh knows!

This book was brought to our attention by Dr. Lone who teaches history at the graduate level.

Removal and Detention of Sheikh Abdullah

Meanwhile, the expectation that Kashmir as an integral part of India would work out its destiny with the rest of the country in consonance with the ideals of secularism and democracy were belied with Sheikh Abdullah trying to change his stand after 1952 and beginning to think in terms of an Independent Kashmir.

Consequently, the ‘Sadar-e-Riyasat’ removed Sheikh Abdullah from the Prime Ministership on 9 August 1953 and put him under detention. He was succeeded by Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad as Prime Minister. This event had been preceded by efforts of the Government of India to make Sheikh Abdullah to abide by the earlier commitments in the form of an agreement reached between him and the Government of India on 24 July 1952. This agreement, interalia, conceded elected Sadar-e-Riyasat, limited jurisdiction of Supreme Court and extension of Emergency provision of the Indian Constitution at the request of the State Government

Pakistan’s claims to the disputed region are based on the rejection of Indian claims to Kashmir, namely the Instrument of Accession. Pakistan insists that the Maharaja was not a popular leader, and was regarded as a tyrant by most Kashmiris. Pakistan also accuses India of hypocrisy, as it refused to recognize the accession of Junagadh to Pakistan and Hyderabad’s independence, on the grounds that those two states had Hindu majorities (in fact, India occupied and forcibly integrated those two territories). Furthermore, as he had fled Kashmir due to Pakistani invasion, Pakistan asserts that the Maharaja held no authority in determining Kashmir’s future. Additionally, Pakistan argues that even if the Maharaja had any authority in determining the plight of Kashmir, he signed the Instrument of Accession under duress, thus invalidating the legitimacy of his actions. Northern Areas are part of Pakistan and were never part of Kashmir
Kashmir and Junagarh is Pakistani territory
Pakistan also claims that Indian forces were in Kashmir before the Instrument of Accession was signed with India (Kashmir: Does the article of accession exist?), thus, Indian troops were in Kashmir in violation of the Standstill Agreement which was designed to maintain the status quo in Kashmir. This view is also echoed by many Western experts on the Kashmir conflict. [10][11]. Nehru’s commitment to the people of Kashmir

US resolutions, and Nehru speeches on disputed nature of Kashmir. Further, Pakistan as well as human rights groups across the world have alleged that Indian Armed Forces, its paramilitary groups, and counter-insurgent militias have been responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Kashmiri civilians and gang-rapes of hundreds of women.[12][13].

Azad Kashmir

In short, Pakistan holds that

The popular Kashmiri insurgency demonstrates that the Kashmiri people no longer wish to remain within India. Pakistan suggests that this means that either Kashmir wants to be with Pakistan or independent.
Indian counterinsurgency tactics merit international monitoring of the Kashmir conflict, and the Indian Army has carried out human rights violations – including torture, rape and extrajudicial killings – against the Kashmiri people.Nehru’s Commitement to people of Kashmir and various un-implemented UN resolutions on Kashmir

Northern Areas are part of Pakistan and were never part of Kashmir. According to the two-nation theory by which Pakistan was formed, Kashmir should have been with Pakistan, because it has a Muslim majority. THE GEOGRAPHIC TWO NATION THEORY: “Pakistan” existed 5000 years ago. IVC thrives as Pakistan today . The “K” in Pakistan stands for Kashmir. The Quaid answers 3 questions in 1940 Kashmir.India has shown disregard to the resolutions of the UN (by not holding a plebiscite). THERE WAS NO “PARTITION”: For Britain ” ‘Indian’ Empire” included Somalia, Iraq, Burma, Singapore etc. For the French “India” included Vietnam (Indo-China). For the Dutch “India” included “Indo-n-asia”.

WHY WE CREATED PAKISTAN? The Pakistan Ideology. ONT vs TNT . The Kashmiri people have now been forced by the circumstances to rise against the alleged repression of the Indian army and uphold their right of self-determination through militancy. 100,000 Kashmiris died for “Tehrik e ilhaq e Pakistan”. Pakistan claims to give the Kashmiri insurgents moral, ethical and military support (see 1999 Kargil Conflict: Kargil facts). Kashmir: What was liberated in 1948? What remains?

The idea of becoming subservient to India is abhorrent and that of cooperation with India, with the object of promoting tension with China, equally repugnant.” Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto

The Facts of the Award

The final boundary was not announced ’till August 16/17 a couple of days after independence

The final boundary, known as the Radcliffe award, allotted some sixty-two percent of the area of undivided Punjab to India, with fifty-five percent of the population.15 The boundary ran from the border of Kashmir State south along the Ujh River, leaving onetehsil16 of Gurdaspur District to Pakistan and allotting the remainder to India. Where the Ujh met the Ravi River, the boundary followed the Ravi southwest, until it met the existing administrative line dividing Amritsar District from Lahore District. Radcliffe was careful to specify that the relevant administrative boundaries, not the course of the Ujh or the Ravi, constituted the new international boundary. The boundary then ran through Lahore District, along tehsil and village boundaries, leaving the district’s easternmost corner in India. When the Radcliffe boundary met the Ferozepore District line, it turned to follow the River Sutlej along the administrative boundary between Ferozepore and Montgomery Districts. The Radcliffe line ended where it met the border of Bahawalpur, a princely state whose ruler, like the Maharajah of Kashmir, had the choice of acceding to Pakistan or India.

Allegations of Bias

Gurdaspur was a Muslim majority area of Punjab but handed over to India

Throughout the difficult process of partition, accusations of official partiality towards one group or another were leveled on all sides, not only in the popular press but also by the leaders themselves. For example, Justice Munir of the Punjab Commission accused Radcliffe’s top aide, Christopher Beaumont, of pro-Hindus bias. Munir claimed that Beaumont intentionally misled Radcliffe in order to achieve a result favorable to India.17

Beaumont rejects these charges as ludicrous. The most contentious point was the Ferozepore border and the nearby headworks. On August 8, Mountbatten’s private secretary, George Abell, sent a letter with a preliminary description of the Punjab boundary to Evan Jenkins, the provincial governor. This draft showed the Ferozepore area and its headworks going to Pakistan. When the final award was released, Ferozepore was assigned to India. Infuriated Pakistanis were sure that Nehru and Mountbatten had pressured Radcliffe to change his line. After partition, each side leveled accusations in the vernacular press that their opponents had successfully bribed Radcliffe to take their part.18

Many were convinced that the Commissions were a sham and that Mountbatten himself had simply dictated the new divisions. In his final report as Viceroy, Mountbatten admitted, “I am afraid that there is still a large section of public opinion in this country which is firmly convinced that I will settle the matter finally.”19 In 1992, Christopher Beaumont added his voice to the chorus of accusations against Mountbatten.20 This circumstantial evidence indicates that Mountbatten may well have influenced the final shape of the boundary award.Drawing the Indo-Pakistani boundary. Lucy Chester

1. An early exception is Aloys Michel’s The Indus Rivers (New Haven: Yale UP, 1967): 162-194. Alastair Lamb’sIncomplete Partition: The Genesis of the Kashmir Dispute 1947-1948 (Hertingfordbury: Roxford Books, 1997): 43-92,

Patrick French’sLiberty and Death: India’s Journey to Independence and Division (London: HarperCollins, 1997): 321-338, and Tan Tai Yong’s “‘Sir Cyril Goes to India’: Partition, Boundary-Making and Disruptions in the Punjab,”Punjab Studies 4:1 (1997): 1-20 also address elements of the border question. Joya Chatterji’s “The Fashioning of a Frontier: The Radcliffe Line and Bengal’s Border Landscape, 1947-52″ (Modern Asian Studies 33:1 [1999]: 185-242), provides a Bengal-centered model for analysis of the Radcliffe Commission and its impact on local communities. Edmund Heward’s description of Radcliffe’s public service, The Great and the Good: A Life of Lord Radcliffe(Chichester: Barry Rose Publishers, 1994), touches sympathetically on Radcliffe’s work in India. The boundary issue has also attracted the attention of less careful writers, including Leonard Mosley, whose The Last Days of the British Raj (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1962) includes fascinating information from interviews with participants in the transfer of power but is tainted by its strong anti-Mountbatten bias and poor documentation.2. A separate boundary commission, also headed by Radcliffe, was responsible for drawing the Indo-Pakistani boundary in Bengal. My work focuses on Punjab; for the Bengal boundary, see Chatterji.

3. Heward 45.

4. To my knowledge, there are no surviving Indian participants in the boundary commission.

5. P.J. Cain and Anthony Hopkins, British Imperialism:Innovation and Expansion, 1688-1914 and British Imperialism: Crisis and Deconstruction, 1914-1990(London: Longman, 1993).

6. Thomas Metcalf,Ideologies of the Raj(Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1995): 223.

7. Metcalf 224-5.

8. Stanley Wolpert, ANew History of India,3rd ed. (New York; Oxford University Press, 1989): 329.

9. Wolpert 334.

10. Wolpert 335.

11. Lamb 23.

12. Wolpert 341-4.

13. Nicholas Mansergh, ed.The Transfer of Power, 1942-47 (hereafter TP) vol. XII, No. 488, Appendix 1.

14. See in particular Stephen B. Jones, Boundary-Making: A handbook for Statesmen, Treaty Editors and Boundary Commissioners (Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1945).

15. Gyanesh Kudaisya, “From Displacement to ‘Development’: East Punjab Countryside after Partition, 1947-67″ in Freedom, Trauma, Continuities, ed. D.A. Low and Howard Brasted (Walnut Creek, Alta Mira Press, 1998): 74.

16. A tehsil is the administrative unit below a district, somewhat analogous to a county.

17. Mian Muhammad Sadullah, ed., The Partition of the Punjab 1947: A Compilation of Official Documents, vol. 1. (Lahore: Sang-e-Meel Publications): xvii.

18. Lord H.L. Ismay, The Memoirs of General Lord Ismay (New York: Viking Press, 1960) 442.

19. TP XII 489.

20. Simon Scott Plummer, “How Mountbatten Bent the Rules and the Indian Border,”Daily Telegraph 24 Feb. 1992: 10.

21. Alistair Lamb, cited inFrench 322.

22. TP XII 488, Appendix I.

23. Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre, Mountbatten and the Partition of India (New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House, 1983): 103.

24. Mountbatten insisted that later historians would vindicate all of his decisions and disprove his critics.

25. Field Marshal Sir Gerald Templer delivered the insult. Philip Ziegler, Mountbatten(New York: Harper and Row: 1985): 528.

26. Mountbatten hastened to add that although the Governor of Bengal shared these economic concerns, he “had not expressed any view on this matter to Sir Cyril Radcliffe, so he could not be said to have influenced the decision.” TP XII 487.

27. A thana was a local administrative division, centered on a police station.

28. TP XII 488, Appendix I, Annexure A.

29. Collins and Lapierre 69.

30. TP XII Appendix I, No. 6.

31. TP XII 488, Appendix I.

32. TP XII 488, Appendix II.

33. TP XII 488, Appendix I, Annexure A.

34. Michel 177.

35. TP XII 488, Appendix I.

36. TP XII 389.

37. TP XII 190.

38. French 347-49.

39. Ritu Menon and Kamla Bhasin, Borders and Boundaries: Women in India’s Partition (New Brunswick: Rutgers UP, 1998): 70. Official estimates were 50,000 Muslim women abducted in India, 33,000 Hindu and Sikh women abducted in Pakistan.

40. Lamb 111.

41.French 337.

42. For a view of partition as an anachronistic approach to ethnic conflict that is bound to fail, see Radha Kumar,Divide and Fall? Bosnia in the Annals of Partition (London: Verso, 1997).

More information is available on the following books refrenced in this article:

Ritu Menon, Kamla Bhasin.Borders and Boundaries: How Women Experienced the Partition of India. Rutgers University Press, 1998. ISBN: 0813525527

Stanley A. Wolpert. A New History of India. Oxford University Press, Inc. 1999. ISBN 019512877X.

Stephen Barr Jones, S. Whittemore. Boundary-Making: A handbook for Statesmen, treaty Editors and Boundary Commissioners William S. Hein & Co., Inc., 2000. ISBN 1575885654.

Lord Lionel Ismay. The Memoirs of General Lord Ismay Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc. 1974. ISBN 0837162807.

Freedom, Trauma, Continuities, ed. D.A. Low and Howard Brasted (Walnut Creek, Alta Mira Press, 1998). ISBN 0761992251.

Philip Ziegler.Mountbatten. Phoenix Press, 2001. ISBN: 1842122967

Patrick French. Liberty and Death: India’s Journey to Independence and Division London: HarperCollins, 1997. ISBN 0006550452