Tuesday, December 10, 2013

Ami and Ashley’s adventures in India – first day

We recently had Tania’s niece (Ami) and her friend (Ashley) come visit us in India. They were only here a week but we showed them a good time.

Here are photos from their first day in country. It all started off with high tea at our favourite hotel in New Delhi – “The Imperial”.





We then brought them back to the apartment for a nail party – that where a nail shop (all the staff by the looks of it) come to your house and the ladies can be pampered with a manicure and pedicure (all while sipping copious amounts of champagne).













The Partition of 1947

Warning: lots of history facts follow in this post !!

No single event in the history of India (or Pakistan for that matter) has so affected the country with such lasting consequences as the Partition of 1947.

This blog post no way meant to be a definitive account on the subject - there are plenty of books and documentaries on the subject. It’s just meant to be a bit of an introduction.

Background

At the turn of the 20th Century, the British Raj Empire extended to the following: present-day India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and parts of Burma, with the exceptions of Goa (administered by Portugal until annexed by India in 1961) and Pondicherry (administered by the French until 1964).


By the end of the 19th Century, the Independence movements began with a look to break away from the British Empire and form and independent India.

This resulted in the formation of the Indian National Congress (INC) and the Muslim League – two organisations that were to feature prominently in Partition.

The Indian National Congress (INC) was fighting for an independent India and the Muslim League fought for the rights of Muslims as part of the independence movement.

Both organisations wanted Britain the leave India and worked towards that goal. The British tried their best to play both organisations against each other.

With the arrival of the First World War, India sent large numbers of troops (up to a million) to fight for Britain. Both organisations supported the sending of Indian troops overseas with the expectation the British would offer political concessions including independence.

That didn’t happen.

Fast forward to 1919 to the Punjab city of Amritsar. A large crowd has gathered in the Jallianwala Bagh to protest recent British anti-protest laws. A group of British and tribal soldiers enter the park and block the exit. They open fire without warning and up to 1,500 people are dead.

If the Independence movement needed some form of recruiting, the massacre at Jallianwala Bagh provided the perfect motivation.

As the 20’s and 30’s progressed and the world moved towards another world war, the call for independence grew louder. By the 30’s, Gandhi had become a leading figure for the INC. He advocated a unified Hindu and Muslim India, with equal rights for all. That didn’t sit well with other members of the INC.

The Muslim League, led by Mohammad Ali Jinnah, meanwhile began to make plans for a separate Muslim state.

This was brought about for a number of reasons.

The British saw the country as divided along religious lines: their census’ separated people based on religion and treated them as separate; the British set up separate electorates based on religion.

Then you have the inherent ideological divide between the Muslims and the Hindus –brought about by lingering memories of Mughal rule over India and promoted by the radicals on both sides.

As the world headed to war, the chance of a united India (both Muslim and Hindu), grew slimmer and slimmer.

World War Two

Come the Second World War, India was again asked to contribute troops to the conflict. By this stage, however, relations between the British, the INC and the Muslim League were strained.

The INC and India in general, stung by the British betrayal at the end of the First World War, saw no benefit for India in supplying troops to fight overseas. They then banned support to the British.

The Muslim League, on the other hand, supported Britain's call for troops, in an effort to gain their favour in support of a Muslim nation in post-independence northern India.

In August 1942, a civil disobedience program called “Quit India” began. Protests erupted around the country demanding that Britain leave India.

This was the height of some of the most crucial battles against the Axis Alliance and Britain couldn’t afford an uprising of sorts in India. It had to maintain its supply lines of vital raw materials for the war effort.

The British reacted swiftly and arrested many of the INC leaders. The disobedience program collapse and India continued to supply Britain its war materials.

Post World War Two

At the end of World War Two, Britain was war weary and basically broke. It couldn’t afford to support or defend the Indian empire. Winston Churchill’s government was voted out of office and a pro-independence Labour party was voted in.

It was time to think seriously about independence. The Muslim League's leader, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, began a public campaign in favour of a separate Muslim state, while Jawaharlal Nehru of the INC called for a unified India.

The British tried to get together the INC and Muslim League to sort out, once and for all, a unified Muslim and Hindu India but their efforts failed.

Countdown to Partition

As independence drew closer, India began to descend towards a sectarian civil war.

Gandhi implored the Indian people to unite in peaceful opposition to British rule, while the Muslim League sponsored a "Direct Action Day" on August 16, 1946. The result was the deaths of more than 4,000 Hindus and Sikhs in Calcutta (Kolkata).

This then touched off the "Week of the Long Knives," an orgy of sectarian violence that resulted in hundreds of deaths on both sides in various cities across the country.

In February of 1947, the British government announced that India would be granted independence by June 1948. The Viceroy for India, Lord Louis Mountbatten, pleaded with the Hindu and Muslim leadership to agree to form a united country, but neither side could agree to that - only Gandhi supported Mountbatten's position.

With the country descending further into chaos, Mountbatten reluctantly agreed to the formation of two separate states, and moved the independence date forward to August 15, 1947.

Drawing the boundaries

With the decision of partition made, the parties then had to face the impossible task of fixing a border between the new states.

The Muslims occupied two main regions in the north on opposite sides of the country, separated by a majority-Hindu section. In addition, throughout most of northern India Muslims and Hindus were mixed together - not to mention populations of Sikhs, Christians and other minority faiths.

In the Punjab, a wealthy and fertile region to the north-east, of the problem was even worse with a nearly-even mixture of Hindus and Muslims.

Neither Muslim nor Hindu wanted to relinquish this valuable land and sectarian hatred ran high.

The actual drawing of the borders can down to a lawyer called Cyril Radcliffe. The task he faced was to draw a border that would leave as many Hindus and Sikhs in India and as many Muslims in Pakistan as possible.

Some say that he had little knowledge of Indian conditions and used of out-of-date maps and census materials.

Whatever material he used, Radcliffe submitted his partition map on August 9th, 1947. The new boundaries were formally announced on August 14, 1947--the day before India and Pakistan became independent.

The border was drawn right down the middle of the Punjab between Lahore and Amritsar and down the middle of Bengal province,

Partition

On August 14, 1947, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (comprising East and West Pakistan) was founded. The following day, the Republic of India was established.

The Chaos that Followed – the Largest Mass migration ever

Despite Radcliffe's best efforts, some 14 million people--roughly seven million from each side--fled across the border when they discovered the new boundaries left them in the "wrong" country.

On both sides, people scrambled to get onto the "right" side of the border, or were driven from their homes by their neighbours.



Trains and columns of refugees were set upon by militants from both sides. Villages, where all religions had co-existed for hundreds of years, erupted in sectarian violence.

Estimates of the death toll from the orgy of bloodletting range from 500,000 to 1.5 million.

What about Kashmir ??

At the time of Partition, the ruler of Kashmir, Maharaja Hari Singh, wanted the state to remain an independent, neutral nation, much like Switzerland and wanted the new Pakistan and India to recognise it as such.

The state actually had a Muslim majority but it was ruled by a Hindu Raja.

In October of 1947, Kashmir decided it would come under Indian rule.

Pakistan was not particularly happy with this and within a few months, invaded the state.

At the end of about seven months of fighting and with a UN-sponsored ceasefire, the Indians had managed to push the Pakistanis out of most of Kashmir – but they now only ruled over 3/5 of the state. Pakistan retained the rest.

The region has been in constant conflict since that time, with incursions by Pakistani military and intelligence-sponsored rebels.

Both countries nearly went war in 1999 over an incursion by LET rebels in the Kargil region.

China has also tried to take its share of Kashmir when it invaded the eastern part of the state in 1961. The Indians were badly beaten (something they haven’t forgotten) and were never able to regain the lost territories – you may have heard of the Saichen Glacier – that’s where this is still occasional fighting.



East and West Pakistan ??

East Pakistan existed until 1971, when it separated from West Pakistan (with a little help from India) to become Bangladesh.

Thus ends the brief lesson on Partition.





Today's newspaper articles

Today’s newspaper articles (both from “The Guardian”) continue the subject of the recent state elections here in India:

New Indian party claims revolution in the air as Congress vote collapses

Pressure on Rahul Gandhi as governing party's disastrous local election results encourage opposition BJP and upstart AAP

A supporter of the AAP holds up brooms, the party symbol, as he celebrates success in the state assembly elections. Photograph: Prabhat Kumar Verma/Demotix/Corbis

Outside the headquarters of the Aam Admi (Common Man) party in central Delhi on Sunday night, hawkers sold poppadoms, bored police watched from squad cars and a crowd of excited young people sang songs dating back to the days of India's independence movement.

"This is what we do best in this country: non-violent revolution," said Shehshan Partak, a 25-year-old engineer and activist for Aam Admi (AAP). "And this is a revolution."

The claim is exaggerated but perhaps not entirely unjustified. The results of recent elections in Delhi and three other Indian states, released on Sunday, indicate that change is imminent in the in the world's biggest democracy. A general election is less than six months away.

On Sunday night, however, AAP candidates and supporters were celebrating what their leader, 45-year-old former tax inspector Arvind Kerjiwal, called a "historic win".

In local assembly elections in Delhi, India's sprawling capital, the party won 28 out of 70 seats. Kejriwal himself beat the chief minster of the city, a veteran of the ruling Congress party who had dismissed the AAP as "not even on our radar" when it was founded a year ago, by a massive 27,000-vote margin. Congress was wiped out, reduced to eight seats.

"It's a remarkable achievement for a new party. There is a general dissatisfaction with political parties and we fought on basic issues – water, education, sanitation, security – which resonate," said Atishi Marlena, a historian who is a senior activist in the AAP.

The collapse of Congress support in Delhi was mirrored around India.

Though the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party was unable to clinch a majority in Delhi, elsewhere it won massive victories. The party wrested the state of Rajasthan from Congress, and held on to Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh.

Narendra Modi, centre, Bharatiya Janata's prime minsterial candidate, and other party leaders before a meeting in Delhi on Sunday. Photograph: Ahmad Masood/Reuters

The elections are being viewed by analysts as the "semi-final" before the general election in late spring.

"The lineup will be the same next year and it's a meltdown for Congress. It's a real warning for them," Anil Padmanabhan, an analyst who writes for the newspaper Mint.
Congress has led the central government for two terms and is facing widespread anger about corruption, slowing growth and soaring prices of everyday items.

Congress politicians played down the significance of the defeats. Jyotiraditya Scindia, a Congress party minister, said the state elections are "a mandate on state-level issues … not a mandate on any person's leadership or for 2014".

The coming election is being seen as a contest between Congress's Rahul Gandhi, the scion of the Nehru-Gandhi political dynasty, and Narendra Modi, the chief minister of Gujarat and the BJP's declared prime ministerial candidate. Both campaigned for the recent polls.

Modi, three times chief minister of Gujarat, is a Hindu nationalist whose reputation has been tarnished by allegations that he failed to protect Muslims during sectarian rioting in Gujarat in 2002. The 63-year-old is, however, popular with the business community and among many urban voters.

Analysts were split over how far Modi's vigorous campaigning of recent months had contributed to the BJP's strong showing.

"It's impossible to quantify a Modi factor in state elections but it's a very good result for the BJP and gives them a real springboard for the contest next spring," said Swapan Dasgupta, a political analyst.

Vinod Sharma, political editor of the Hindustan Times, said that the defeats for Congress were less to do with Modi and more a display of local dissatisfaction with the national Congress-led coalition government.

The Congress party's poor performance in the state assembly elections will lead to further questioning of Gandhi's leadership abilities.

Some analysts have contrasted Gandhi's stress on the Congress-led government's massive expansion of welfare programmes with Modi's more "aspirational" messages aimed at India's youthful population. At least 120m first voters are estimated to be eligible to vote next year.

Gandhi said on Sunday that both mainstream parties were "thinking about politics in a traditional way". Congress would learn from the AAP's success and "involve people across the country in ways you cannot imagine right now", the 43-year-old former management consultant told reporters.

His mother, Sonia Gandhi, said the party would "accept the verdict of the people in all humility".

India's fragmented political landscape makes forthcoming national elections hard to predict, however. Historically, strong state results have not always translated into success in national elections.

And though last night AAP activists at its campaign headquarters said it would now change "whole India", Dasgupta said that the AAP would have great difficulty expanding beyond the capital.

"Kejriwal was able to seize the anti-Congress mood and the moribund state of the local BJP gave them an opportunity. But its impact will be limited to one state," he said.

The Indian economy has boomed in recent decades but the wealth is poorly distributed and a weak state is unable to deliver basic services and security to the estimated 15 million inhabitants of the country's capital.

The AAP's support is strongest among the lower middle classes, who do not have the resources to pay for private substitutes for poor public services such as transport or education. As urban populations swell in India so this constituency has grown.

Analysts also pointed out that traditional Congress support from those at the bottom of
India's caste system, the tenacious social hierarchy, appeared to be absent.

The AAP has argued that a new style of politics should ignore factors such as caste and focus on delivery of basic services, honest administration and transparency.

"I voted for Kejriwal because all the others are thieves. They tell us they will help us when they want our votes and then we never hear or see them again," said Mohan Lal, a 42-yea- old cobbler in west Delhi.

Marlena, the activist who is also one of the AAP's key policymakers, said the party was part of a broader, worldwide phenomenon, such as the political groups "coming out of people's movements" in Europe and the Middle East. The AAP has its roots in an apolitical protest movement against the endemic corruption in India.

"We think there is a political space. Democracy has ignored the common people for too long," she said.

  • © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

India's Congress party suffers local election 'meltdown'

Ruling party poised to lose power in Delhi amid public anger over widespread corruption, slowing growth and rising prices


A BJP supporter at a Narendra Modi rally: a heavy defeat is predicted for the Congress party in next year's election. Photograph: Amarjeet Singh/Demotix/Corbis

India's ruling Congress party appears to have sustained a series of bruising defeats in local elections that analysts regard as a "semi-final" before a general election due next spring, according to early poll results.

Congress was poised to lose power in Delhi and the major states of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh. The big winners in the local elections were a new local party headed by a former tax inspector and a national opposition energised by India's most controversial politician, Narendra Modi.

"The lineup will be the same next year and it's a meltdown for Congress," Anil Padmanabhan, an analyst who writes for local newspaper Mint.

Congress has led the central government for two terms and is facing deep anger among voters over widespread corruption, slowing growth and soaring prices.

A heavy defeat next year is widely predicted with its main opponent, the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata party (BJP), the clear winner in three big states that went to the polls, and neck-and-neck race in a fourth as results continued to come in.

In Delhi, it was the Aam Admi (Common Man) party that surprised many, with
predictions showing the new organisation winning nearly 30 of the 70 seats in the local assembly, beating the Congress party, which led India's struggle for independence, into third place with fewer than 10 seats.

"I thought they would do well but never get this far," said Padmanabhan.

The party is led by Arvind Kejriwal, a 45-year-old former bureaucrat-turned-activist and amateur politician, who has capitalised on public anger at poor services, corruption and the complacency of India's political elite.

In a country where many are illiterate, political parties rely on a symbol for recognition – the AAP's is a broom.

"I voted for Kejriwal because all the others are thieves. They tell us they will help us when they want our votes and then we never hear or see them again. Now we will sweep them away," said Mohan Lal, a 42-year-old cobbler in west Delhi.

Supporters of the new party celebrated in the streets, waving brooms to symbolise sweeping out rotten politicians after several years of corruption scandals.

Party officials said they had national ambitions, though analysts believe it will have difficulties expanding beyond the capital.

Congress politicians downplayed the significance of the defeats. Jyotiraditya Scindia, a
Congress party minister, told the local NDTV news channel state elections were "a mandate on state level issues … not a mandate on any persons leadership or for 2014".

Polls next year will see Rahul Gandhi, the scion of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty and vice-president of the Congress party, pitted against Modi, the chief minister of Gujarat and the BJP's declared prime ministerial candidates. Both campaigned at the recent polls.

Modi, three times chief minister of Gujarat, is a Hindu nationalist whose reputation has been tarnished by allegations that he failed to protect Muslims during sectarian rioting in Gujarat in 2002. However, the 63-year-old is popular with the business community and among many urban voters.

Markets are closely tracking the outcome of the elections. Bond, rupee and share prices rose last week after exit polls predicted a strong BJP performance.

Analysts are split over how far Modi's vigorous campaigning of recent months had contributed to the BJP's strong showing.

"It's impossible to quantify a Modi factor in state elections but it's a very good result for the BJP and gives them a real springboard for the contest next spring," said Swapan Dasgupta, a political analyst.

Vinod Sharma, political editor of the Hindustan Times, said the defeats for Congress were "less to do with Modi" and more a display of local dissatisfaction with the national Congress-led coalition government.

The Congress party's poor performance in the state assembly elections will led to further questioning of the leadership abilities of 43-year-old Gandhi, heir to a political dynasty that began with his great-grandfather, Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first prime minister.

Some analysts have contrasted Gandhi's campaign, which highlighted the Congress government's massive expansion of welfare programmes, with Modi's message, which targeted the aspirations of India's youthful population. At least 120 million first-time voters are estimated to be eligible to take part in the next year's national polls.

India's fragmented political landscape makes national elections hard to predict.

Historically, strong state results have not always translated into success in national elections.

In three of the four state elections counted on Sunday, the election was a two-way race between the BJP and Congress, rare in a country whose states are increasingly governed by powerful regional parties.

Final results were expected by late afternoon for the elections in Delhi, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan.

  • © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

Sunday, December 8, 2013

Today's newspaper article

Last week, state elections were held across Delhi, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh.

These state elections are seen as an indicator of how the people will vote in next year’s national elections. The Congress Party has been in power (in a coalition) since 2004.

This article (from the “New York Times”) discusses the recent state election results:

December 8, 2013

Congress Party Defeated In Indian State Elections

By ELLEN BARRY and HARI KUMAR

Chief of India's ruling Congress party Sonia Gandhi (left) watches as her son, lawmaker Rahul Gandhi speaks during a news conference in New Delhi. Photo: Reuters

NEW DELHI — The results of state elections in four states dealt a blow to the Indian National Congress on Sunday, signaling the waning power of the dynasty that had dominated Indian politics for nearly all of the post-independence era and giving momentum to the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party ahead of general elections in May.

The B.J.P.’s victories seemed largely driven by the sour anti-incumbency mood, high food prices and anger over corruption. In Delhi, the biggest sensation was an unexpectedly strong showing by the year-old party Aam Aadmi, or Common Man, whose jubilant supporters gathered outside its headquarters on Sunday morning, waving brooms to symbolize the cleansing of India’s political class.

The results from the four states — Delhi, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh — do not offer a perfect template for the coming general elections, since they are all states where the B.J.P. has traditionally been strong. But they make it clear that the Congress Party’s welfare programs and customary promises can no longer compel a younger, urbanized electorate, and that the party has failed to project an image of leadership at a time when voters crave it.

“It is a substantial defeat for Congress,” the historian Ramachandra Guha said as results were announced on Sunday morning. “Congress itself may learn nothing; they firewall their senior leadership from criticism even internally. But what we are learning is that the charisma of the Gandhi family is basically more or less gone,” he said, referring to the family that has dominated Indian political life for decades.

The results, he added, represented the voice of “a much younger group of voters who do not remember the contributions or sacrifices, real or imagined, of Indira Gandhi, the martyrdom of Rajiv Gandhi.”

Preliminary counts posted by the Election Commission on Monday morning showed the B.J.P. — a pro-business, Hindu nationalist party — wresting the state of Rajasthan from Congress’s hands in a landslide, winning 162 out of the state’s 200 assembly seats, to just 21 for Congress. The Congress Party also performed dismally in Delhi, winning only eight of the state’s 70 assembly seats. The B.J.P. won the largest number, 31, but not enough to form a government without joining a coalition. Aam Aadmi, the unorthodox new entry, defied expectations by securing 28 seats in Delhi.

Congress lost a tight contest in Chhattisgarh, winning 39 seats to the B.J.P.’s 49. And the B.J.P. easily retained control in Madhya Pradesh, winning 165 of the assembly’s 230 seats and leaving Congress with 58.

This fall’s campaign had a sharp tone, largely because of the B.J.P.’s aggressive new leader, Narendra Modi. At vast rallies, Mr. Modi, a commanding speaker, has cast the contest as a presidential-style face-off between two men — himself and Rahul Gandhi, the diffident scion of the Gandhi-Nehru dynasty. Mr. Modi, the son of a tea-stall operator, presents himself as a self-made man, sneering at Mr. Gandhi as a cosseted “shehjada,” or prince, and frequently alluding to the health problems of his mother, Sonia Gandhi, who remains a respected party leader.

Mr. Gandhi has at times seemed to struggle to retain the attention of his audiences. Ms. Gandhi and her son made a few grave statements as the depth of Sunday’s losses sank in. An unsmiling Ms. Gandhi said the defeat “calls for deep introspection,” including into “the way we took, or did not take, our message to the people.”

Rahul Gandhi said he had plans for a deep transformation of the party, and seemed to dip into the language of Aam Aadmi. “What we need to do as a party is to move ahead of just talking about good governance and move to a paradigm, to a place, where we are actually giving serious space to the common man,” he said. “I am going to put all my efforts into transforming the organization of the Congress Party.”

An ebullient scene unfolded outside the headquarters of Aam Aadmi, which was ridiculed when it announced its formation with barely a year to go before the Delhi election. A crowd gathered, beating drums and throwing colored powder into the air.

The crowd had been chanting for hours when word filtered out that Aam Aadmi’s leader, a wonky former tax inspector named Arvind Kejriwal, had unseated Sheila Dikshit, the Congress stalwart who has led Delhi for 15 years, by a huge margin in her home constituency.

A year ago, Ms. Dikshit appeared to be a formidable incumbent, credited with spearheading the city’s subway system and easing pollution by compelling buses to switch to natural gas. She was among those who had shrugged off the threat posed by the new party.

“Sheila Dikshit told reporters some months ago that Aam Aadmi was just a monsoon pest,” said a poet, Kumar Vishwas, as he read results over a loudspeaker. “Tell me, who is the pest now?”

The new party clearly benefited from political changes that come with urbanization, attracting huge numbers of new migrants to Delhi who were no longer casting their votes based on caste, family or religion.

“Rahul Gandhi’s rich vs. poor and urban vs. rural rhetoric does not appear to have elicited much fervor,” the journalist Dileep Padgaonkar wrote in The Times of India on Friday. “Today’s voters, especially the younger ones, are more receptive to a discourse that harps on education and jobs, and less to one that is redolent with populism.”
Some voters, like Martha DeSouza, were measured about the coming change in governments.

“I think Congress really changed this city,” said Ms. DeSouza, an executive assistant who has lived in both Dubai and the United States. “But now they’ve gotten stale, which is what happens in Indian politics, so we need change.” She confessed some anxiety about the rise of Mr. Modi, whom many blame for failing to stop anti-Muslim riots in his home state, Gujarat. “I think he’d definitely go after minorities again,” said Ms. DeSouza, a Christian.

Others were thrilled. Ram Raj, 50, became deeply disillusioned by watching welfare programs promoted by Congress, saying corrupt officials were freely siphoning off money.

“I am very happy that Congress is out of power,” he said. “I don’t know if B.J.P. will do a much better job, but there was a real need for change.” He said he had been persuaded by Mr. Modi’s development record in Gujarat. “I don’t agree with one family being in power again and again,” he added. Rahul Gandhi, he said, “goes to all these villages and tries to connect with the people, which shows he is trying, but I don’t think it’s coming from the heart.”

Reporting was contributed by Max Bearak, Sai Manish, Betwa Sharma and Malavika Vyawahare.