This is so poorly researched, and so opinionated and so ignorant of the chain of events, it's hilarious. Moreover, it has a blatant anti Hindu bias, that is characteristic of almost all western academic works pertaining to the politics of India and the region. There is something so alien about the Hindu religion that is frankly unpalatable to a certain type of westerner. Either that, or they just get bamboozled by the local boondogglery, and all critical reasoning just goes out the window. Thanks to the works of "scholars" such as these, it's really no wonder why western understanding of politics and political motivations in the independent south Asia (especially pre 90s) is basically BS. And no wonder why they feel, they get taken for a ride by the governments in the region.
The article barely even mentioning India, except when touching some immediate, flaring confrontation with Pakistan. And why are you even bringing Hindu religion into the discussion?
If by "the west" you mean the USA, I doubt you could find 1 American in 10 who could establish in a simple 10-question quiz that they knew the difference between Hinduism, Islam, and Buddhism. More than half might not know whether Hindus are a religion or an ethnicity. Hindus are definitely not singled out for special derision, beyond the garden-variety xenophobia that characterizes --- well, most of the whole world.
Perhaps this might be surprising, but I learned to appreciate Hinduism in Jesuit Catholic high school, in a mandatory comparative religion course. It wasn't especially thorough, but they did make us read the Bhagavad Gita.
(I have no idea whether this narrative about the Pakistani nuclear program is credible; I just wanted to call out the anti-Hindu bias thing from your comment.)
I'm not talking about the average American or the average westerner. Most of them are cheerfully ignorant and also mostly welcoming and curious, just like the rest of the planet, and that is just fine. It is the academics who carry a pronounced bias, which is mostly the result of not bothering to visit the places concerned, or not talking to enough people. Which is what I said in the first place.
As far as the narrative is concerned, the main problems are the parts which deal with the motivations of the actors involved. The writer just basically goes about it as if writing a novel divorced from the facts and is just irresponsible.
Wow, this article is completely wrong in many areas. A few things:
> [...] Kashmir - a Muslim-majority region held by Hindu-majority India under dubious political and legal circumstances.
There is no "dubious" circumstance. The Maharaja of Kashmir signed an "Instrument of Accession" and in response Pakistan attacked India leading to the first war between the two countries. Kashmir was relatively peaceful until the insurgency (financed and supported by Pakistan) started in '89, which also altered the ethnic makeup of the valley when Kashmiri Pandits were expelled.
> [...] and launched a campaign brutal military repression on the Bengalis of East Pakistan.
It was more than just "brutal military repression". It was a pogrom that specifically targeted Hindus and Bengali intellectuals. Thousands of women were raped as well. Archer Blood's famous "Blood Telegram" talks about the atrocities that he and his team witnessed.
> In late November PM Gandhi authorized Indian forces to cross the border to "pursue" Pakistani forces. Pakistan responded by a massive strike against Indian air bases in western India on 3 December, and declaring war on 4 December.
This is completely false. While it is true that India armed and supported the Mukti Bahini forces, regular Indian forces did not cross into East Pakistan until West Pakistan launched a preemptive strike against India (Operation Chengiz Khan modeled after Israeli airstrikes in the 6-day war).
> India had spent months preparing for this escalation, indeed had deliberately provoked it,
Absolute BS. Prior to this Indira Gandhi toured the world asking every major power for help to resolve the situation peacefully. India, already a poor country was buckling under the strain of having the manage the influx of millions of refugees. India most definitely did not "provoke" this; that was all Pakistan's doing because the Punjabi-elite refused to accept a democratic verdict. In fact, India was very supportive of Sheik Mujibur Rahman and hoped that he would be elected since they felt it would lead to closer relations between the two countries. It is true that India spent months preparing because none of the world powers were ready to deal with this. Some countries, especially the US (although this was mainly due to Nixon) actively supported West Pakistan.
An extremely poorly-researched, incorrect, and incomplete article.
Circumstances are mentioned as "dubious" because...
1. Hyderabad (Osmania) wanted to remain an independent state-- India used force to get them to join the Indian Union, because, in part that it was a Hindu-majority region ruled by a Muslim King.
2. Junagadh (Gujarat) wanted to accede to Pakistan, but India interevened again citing it was a Hindu-majority region ruled by a Muslim King.
3. India annexed the Laccadive Islands even though it was a Muslim-majority region.
4. India, inexplicably, chose not to annex the Chittagong Hill Tracts (East Bengal), which were majority Hindu but awarded to East Pakistan.
5. India, pragmatically, refused to accept Kalat's (Balochistan) accession to the Indian Union.
6. India annexed a countless other land-locked princely states too weak to fend off the Indian Army.
That has nothing to do with dubiousness. The only argument to be made there is a lack of consistent standards.
Your point about Hyderabad leaves out one rather important detail: it was an openly-hostile, pro-Pakistani and anti-Indian state smack in the middle of India; that too a large part. From a political and national-security perspective it made absolutely no sense to leave a sovereign, hostil state in the middle of India. Keep in mind the administration was trying to keep the country together and not get it fragmented.
It wasn't as if India suddenly annexed Hyderabad. There were negotiations going on as well as well as diplomatic overtures. Towards the end, everything was made quite clear when the Prime Minister of Hyderabad, Laik Ali, stated "India thinks that if Pakistan attacks her, Hyderabad will stab her in the back. I am not so sure we would not."
Considering the situation, anything other than annexation would have been foolish and would have put India in a far weaker position and could quite possibly have led to further fragmentation as well.
7 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 24.4 ms ] threadPerhaps this might be surprising, but I learned to appreciate Hinduism in Jesuit Catholic high school, in a mandatory comparative religion course. It wasn't especially thorough, but they did make us read the Bhagavad Gita.
(I have no idea whether this narrative about the Pakistani nuclear program is credible; I just wanted to call out the anti-Hindu bias thing from your comment.)
As far as the narrative is concerned, the main problems are the parts which deal with the motivations of the actors involved. The writer just basically goes about it as if writing a novel divorced from the facts and is just irresponsible.
> [...] Kashmir - a Muslim-majority region held by Hindu-majority India under dubious political and legal circumstances.
There is no "dubious" circumstance. The Maharaja of Kashmir signed an "Instrument of Accession" and in response Pakistan attacked India leading to the first war between the two countries. Kashmir was relatively peaceful until the insurgency (financed and supported by Pakistan) started in '89, which also altered the ethnic makeup of the valley when Kashmiri Pandits were expelled.
> [...] and launched a campaign brutal military repression on the Bengalis of East Pakistan.
It was more than just "brutal military repression". It was a pogrom that specifically targeted Hindus and Bengali intellectuals. Thousands of women were raped as well. Archer Blood's famous "Blood Telegram" talks about the atrocities that he and his team witnessed.
> In late November PM Gandhi authorized Indian forces to cross the border to "pursue" Pakistani forces. Pakistan responded by a massive strike against Indian air bases in western India on 3 December, and declaring war on 4 December.
This is completely false. While it is true that India armed and supported the Mukti Bahini forces, regular Indian forces did not cross into East Pakistan until West Pakistan launched a preemptive strike against India (Operation Chengiz Khan modeled after Israeli airstrikes in the 6-day war).
> India had spent months preparing for this escalation, indeed had deliberately provoked it,
Absolute BS. Prior to this Indira Gandhi toured the world asking every major power for help to resolve the situation peacefully. India, already a poor country was buckling under the strain of having the manage the influx of millions of refugees. India most definitely did not "provoke" this; that was all Pakistan's doing because the Punjabi-elite refused to accept a democratic verdict. In fact, India was very supportive of Sheik Mujibur Rahman and hoped that he would be elected since they felt it would lead to closer relations between the two countries. It is true that India spent months preparing because none of the world powers were ready to deal with this. Some countries, especially the US (although this was mainly due to Nixon) actively supported West Pakistan.
An extremely poorly-researched, incorrect, and incomplete article.
1. Hyderabad (Osmania) wanted to remain an independent state-- India used force to get them to join the Indian Union, because, in part that it was a Hindu-majority region ruled by a Muslim King.
2. Junagadh (Gujarat) wanted to accede to Pakistan, but India interevened again citing it was a Hindu-majority region ruled by a Muslim King.
3. India annexed the Laccadive Islands even though it was a Muslim-majority region.
4. India, inexplicably, chose not to annex the Chittagong Hill Tracts (East Bengal), which were majority Hindu but awarded to East Pakistan.
5. India, pragmatically, refused to accept Kalat's (Balochistan) accession to the Indian Union.
6. India annexed a countless other land-locked princely states too weak to fend off the Indian Army.
See: https://www.quora.com/India-Pakistan-Relations/What-is-the-K...
Your point about Hyderabad leaves out one rather important detail: it was an openly-hostile, pro-Pakistani and anti-Indian state smack in the middle of India; that too a large part. From a political and national-security perspective it made absolutely no sense to leave a sovereign, hostil state in the middle of India. Keep in mind the administration was trying to keep the country together and not get it fragmented.
It wasn't as if India suddenly annexed Hyderabad. There were negotiations going on as well as well as diplomatic overtures. Towards the end, everything was made quite clear when the Prime Minister of Hyderabad, Laik Ali, stated "India thinks that if Pakistan attacks her, Hyderabad will stab her in the back. I am not so sure we would not."
Considering the situation, anything other than annexation would have been foolish and would have put India in a far weaker position and could quite possibly have led to further fragmentation as well.