Role of Indian Nationalists and Gandhi in the Partition of the Indo Sub-Continent

Project commented to the article: Mahatma Gandhi – A Great Army Chief, January 31, 2014 at 11:07 pm
It is highly plausible that Gandhi-ji and other nationalist Hindu leaders were the necessary Hegelian Dialectic, the United India of the Hindus, to balance the demand for the engineered partition of India by the Muslims. The following is a brief analysis from the Muslim side by Project Humanbeingsfirst.
And the analysis suggests that the Hindu side was equally necessary, complicit, and participant, to foment the agitation by the Muslims and the concomitant engineered Hindu-Muslim communal riots for over 50 years, perhaps even since 1857, that eventually led to the justification for partition of the Indo-subcontinent on religion grounds.
Without the Hindu leadership’s participation at the highest levels, perhaps wittingly, perhaps unwittingly, but nevertheless necessarily, in the Hegelian Dialectic of “United India” vs. “Partitioned India”, no “revolutionary times” could have been engineered in the Indian sub-continent. And as the famous statement by David Ben-Gurion goes:
“What is inconceivable in normal times is possible in revolutionary times; and if at this time the opportunity is missed and what is possible at such great hours is not carried out – a whole world is lost.” — David Ben Gurion
The communal partition of the Indian sub-continent was arguably an absolute necessity for the British imperial interests during their retrenchment back to their tiny island — so that their famous “Jewel in the Crown” is never able to rise to its fullest potential as an independent sovereign nation-state. That abstraction, independent nation-state, being only a temporary staging process before the eventual transition to global governance. Well before the partition of Indian in 1947, that endgame was already being pursued by the Round Table interests; as is evidenced by the statement of the famous British historian Arnold Toynbee:
“We are at present working discreetly with all our might to wrest this mysterious force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local nation states of the world. All the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands, because to impugn the sovereignty of the local nation states of the world is still a heresy for which a statesman or publicist can perhaps not quite be burned at the stake but certainly be ostracized or discredited.” — Arnold Toynbee, The Trend of International Affairs Since the War, International Affairs, November 1931, page 809
Not recognizing the methods of empire has been the greatest failing of the people of the sub-continent both pre and post partition, continuing to today. See for instance: Operation Gladio Yesterday and Worldwide Terrorism Today – Identifying the Enemy.
Just another way to look at the matter. If empire was so simplistic and reductionist in its methods of Divide et Imperia as the Pollyanish sense of this article that bespeaks of hero-worship suggests, the Indian sub-continent would have long been free of the yolk of colonialism, and would have also adroitly protected itself both from the partition, as well as from the subsequent faux freedom hoisted upon it by Western trained Hindu and Muslim lawyers on Western principles which were entirely foreign to the genius of its indigenous peoples.

UK Indian Independence Act, 1947
18th July 1947

Zahir Ebrahim
January 31, 2014

The Role of Indian Nationalists and Mahatma Gandhi in the Partition of the Indo Sub-Continent as a Hegelian Dialectic By Zahir Ebrahim