- Login | Register
- Current Issue
- Most Read
- Back Issues
Successors of those who migrated to Pakistan and China during partition will have no claim over the properties left behind
A book on India's partition and its fatal consequences has won a prestigious USD 5,000 prize in the US.
The government should confer 'Bharat Ratna', the country's highest civilian honour, on Master Tara Singh for his contribut
Pakistan army chief Gen Raheel Sharif has termed Kashmir as part of the "unfinished agenda of partition" and sai
Reacting strongly to Pakistani Army chief General Raheel Sharif's remarks that Kashmir was an "unfinished agenda"
In remarks that can cause concerns in India, Pakistan army chief General Raheel Sharif today said it is an "unfinishe
Minority Affairs Minister Najma Heptulla has rejected the contention that Muslims are feeling insecure under the BJP-led r
Two novellas by noted Urdu writer from Pakistan Ikramullah which skilfully evoke the long shadow cast by the violence of P
After a seven-year hiatus, Pakistan today showcased its growing military might, including tactical nuclear missiles and fi
There would be no permanent residency for refugees from Pakistan settled in Jammu and Kashmir since 1947 unless the state
Ashutosh Varshney in the Indian Express examines the counter-factual and the claims of Nehru's critics:
The current debate over partition is radically incomplete. The debate has been framed around Jinnah’s desire for a federal but undivided India, in which the states would have been more powerful than Delhi. In contrast, Nehru’s preference is said to be for a centralised polity, with Delhi given more powers than the states. It has been argued that the latter was responsible for India’s partition.
Jaithirth Rao in the Indian Express:
It has been wrongly argued by some that Nehru and Patel favoured centralisation while Jinnah and others preferred decentralisation. The centralisation debate was secondary. The issue was secession. Nehru and Patel were willing to live with a one-time secession but, like Lincoln, refused to countenance an ongoing “right of secession”. If the Cabinet Mission proposals had been accepted (as advocated by Seervai, Jaswant and others, who refer to it as the “last chance” for preserving a united India), one can be reasonably certain that in 1957 there would have been a partition and not just Lahore and Dacca but Jalandhar, Rohtak, Hisar as well as Calcutta, Asansol and Darjeeling would have separated from India leaving us with a husk of a country. In retrospect, rejecting the Cabinet Mission proposals which would have at best given India an illusory, unstable unity for a mere 10 years was among the smartest and most practical things that the Congress leadership did. The US had a civil war eight decades after independence. We may have avoided one 10 years after independence by agreeing to Partition.
Read the full article at the Indian Express
Rohit De in the Indian Express:
The fatal obsession of BJP leaders with Mohammed Ali Jinnah is symptomatic of two things: the problems, historically, with a particular, “anti-Congress”, model of politics and the pitfalls of interpreting history through the deeds of “great men”.
Jaswant Singh’s and L.K. Advani’s fascination with Jinnah is best explained, actually, by the BJP’s similarities to the Muslim League. Both parties faced the Congress behemoth, which claimed to represent every social group and political opinion; it was thus dismissive of demands for autonomy, it had national presence, a popular base and a large grassroots cadre.