The publication of the book, Jinnah – India, Partition, Independence,
by Jaswant Singh, the former Foreign and Finance Minister in the NDA (
National Democratic Alliance) government, has created a storm in
India. While BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) has expelled him for
praising Mohammad Ali Jinnah and denigrating Sardar Vallabhabhai
Patel, the first Home Minister of Independent India, Congress
supporters have not liked the description of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
and Sardar Patel as the main architects of partition. However, many
politicians and journalists in Pakistan have appreciated Jaswant
Singh's effort to be fair to Jinnah – a secularist who was forced to
demand Pakistan as Muslims were not given enough 'space' by the
Congress in the pre-independence negotiations.
It would be premature to judge the book without reading it. However,
after going through the main points which have been made known to the
public by the author at the release of the book and his interviews to
television and newspapers, one gets a fair understanding of the
arguments presented in the book.
The main ground on which Jaswant Singh blames Congress, Nehru and
Patel for partition was that - they favoured a centralized polity
while Jinnah was asking for a loose federation where Muslim provinces
will have certain autonomy. Apparently, the author has not considered
the historic back-ground as to why the Congress leaders were keen on a
form of government where the centre has more powers than the states.
India had numerous kingdoms before the British and other European
traders came to India and fought among themselves to carve exclusive
zones and later, the British out-witted them and the kings to occupy
India over a period of time. India is culturally one for more than two
millennium but politically, religiously and linguistically diverse.
While the Congress leaders were concerned about all the people of the
country, the Muslim League was concerned only about Muslims. We all
know the unifying role of Sardar in bringing into the Indian Union
some 700 kings, small and big, with an appeal to patriotism and some
persuasion. Only three held out – Hyderabad, Junaghad and Kashmir.
The Partition – dramatic personae.
In India, Mahatma Gandhi, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar
Vallabhbhai Patel are the architects of Indian independence while
Mohammad Ali Jinnah is the creator of Pakistan and the villain of
partition. In Pakistan, it is the other way round – it is Jinnah who
wrested Pakistan, as a homeland for the Muslims of the Indian
sub-continent, from the unwilling hands of the Congress and the
British. This is the accepted version of the blood-soaked partition.
If we go through the long drama from 1906 when the Bengal Province was
divided ( and it was annulled in 1911 by the King) till 1946 when the
Muslim League gave the call for 'Direct Action' which led to the
killings of hundreds, all the leaders of the Congress and the Muslim
League and the rulers, the British, were tested and unfortunately
found wanting. Everybody was so sure he had the right solution for the
future of India that the talks between the three parties were more
like the dialogues of the deaf than between the normal human beings
with different perspectives who could compromise and find a solution.
The Congress always felt it represented all the people of India
including the Muslims while the Muslim League argued that the minority
Muslim interests would be safe only if there is a reservation in every
public sphere for Muslims.
The British, the past-masters in 'divide & rule' policy, like the
monkey which was given the right to divide the butter between the two
cats, always played one against the other to ensure its commercial and
strategic interests in the Indian sub-continent were intact. The
British adopted a 'carrot and stick' policy in India. They had
stringent laws to curb violence but at the same time allowing Indian
participation in the local and provincial democratic institutions. The
aim was to have a responsible government within the British Empire.
The British devised many ways to delay Indian independence and secure
their interests. The British over reaction which resulted in the
Jallianwalabagh tragedy in 1919 can only be explained by the constant
fear of the people that they were ruling. A religious congregation was
fired upon and hundreds were killed. The very fact that the British
allowed all kings the right to decide on the future relations between
them and the two dominions, after 'the lapse of paramountcy', is an
indication of their intentions – an opportunity to those kings who
want be independent and a challenge to the leaders of the two
dominions.
It has been said by some observers that Nehru's talk of socialism and
land distribution after Independence was one of the main reasons for
the rich Muslim Zamindars in UP to support the League. The other
reason is the refusal of the Congress to share power with the League
in spite of an understanding between them before the election in UP
provincial election in 1937 which the Congress won.
Mahatma Gandhi mobilized public opinion for Swaraj through agitations
such as in Champarn in Bihar and Kheda in Gujarat for the rights of
the poor peasantry. He also launched Non-cooperation Movement and Salt
satyaraha to take the message of freedom to the people. He awakened
them through his simple living – he lived the way they lived - and he
invoked religion to get through to people with his talk on 'Rama
Rajya', singing of 'Ram Dhun' and 'Ishwar, Allah tero nam' and his
prayer meetings. However, many intellectuals, including Mohammad Ali
Jinnah, were not happy with his agitations and religious talk. They
ignored the fact that these activities attracted millions to him and
to the cause of Swaraj. Mahatma also supported 'Khilafat' agitation to
indicate Congress' concern for Muslim interest which strengthened the
fundamentalist streak of Indian Muslims and alienated many Hindus as
it led to Hindu-Muslim riots, especially in Kerala where many Hindus
were killed during the Mopla Riot.
After the failure of the 1857 War of Independence, many Muslim leaders
like Sir Syed Ahmed Khan were of the opinion that Muslims should take
to English education and support the British to promote Muslim
interest. He started Mohammedan Anglo-Indian Oriental College in 1875
which became the Aligarh Muslim University in 1920. Aga Khan led a
Muslim delegation to Lord Minto, the Governor-General, for separate
electorate, in 1906, and later in that year the Muslim League was
formed. The British government agreed to this demand in the
Minto-Morley Reforms act in 1909. This was the thin end of the wedge
that finally resulted in partition. Muslim League never participated
in the freedom struggle and co-operated with the British for mutual
benefit.
Though Mahatma Gandhi through his unique way of mobilization of people
created mass movement, there were many who felt that the British
would not give up power without an armed revolution. These
revolutionaries carried on many militant activities against the
British and some of them embraced martyrdom - that roll of honour is
long and a few have to be mentioned - Khudiram Bose, Vasudeo Balawant
Phadke, Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, Sukhdev, Madan Lal Dinghra,
Chandrashekhar Azad, Batukeshwar Dutt, and Udam Singh and many others.
They and the other great revolutionaries such as Veer Savarkar and
Netaji Subash Chnadra Bose have contributed immensely to weaken the
will of the British to continue their rule in India. INA trial in
Delhi, the RIN mutiny in the Navy along with the decline of the
economic and the military power of UK after the Second World War and
the success of the Labour Party in the election after the war also
contributed to the decision the British to leave India.
The final act.
The decade between 1937- 47, was crucial for the Indian independence
as also for partition. The provincial elections were held and Congress
came to power in all provinces except in Bengal, Punjab and Sindh. But
it resigned after the British declared the Second World War on behalf
of India without consulting it. This left the field open for Muslim
League to come closer to the British. The 'Quit India' movement put
all Congress leaders in jail. Then came the Cabinet Mission with an
offer to give independence after the war which Gandhiji said that is
like ' a post-dated cheque on a crashing bank'.
The Cabinet Mission offered a federation with limited powers to the
centre. After the war, Lord Louis Mountbatten came with a mandate for
a federation or a partition. When the interim government was formed,
Muslim League was given the finance ministry which presented a budget
which penalized all industries and businesses which are mostly run by
Hindus with high taxes. The call for 'direct action' given by the
Muslim League when thousands were killed and maimed was the last straw
for the Congress. It felt there was no point in trying to run the
country with the co-operation of the League and it agreed for
partition. The worst fears of the Congress came true. In his
frustration, no wonder that Pandit Nehru observed that it is better to
cut the head to get rid of the headache, as mentioned by Alan
Campbell- Johnson, in his book, The Mission with Mountbatten.
Lord Mountbatten was in a hurry finish his mandate. The North-Western
Frontier Province under the leadership of Khan Abdul Gaffer Khan,
well-known as Frontier Gandhi, voted to be with India but it was
passed on to Pakistan. The provinces such as Bengal and Punjab were
divided as Hindus and Muslims were almost in equal numbers. Radcliff
who was asked to divide these provinces could not give proper justice
to the task. The Radcliff line was arbitrary and divided families and
houses as Sir Cyril Radcliff was given five weeks to divide these
states. The chaos created anarchy and many people were killed,
kidnapped and hounded out first on the Pakistani side which in turn
led to the killings on the Indian side.
The tragedy.
The partition was a tragedy of many dimensions. Indians and Pakistanis
have still to come to terms with it. They share many things in common
– language, dress, history, customs but differ only on the ways of
worship. A new India could have been built on the foundations of
equality, liberty and fraternity, which are the basis of all religions
– brotherhood of man and the fatherhood of God -, forgiving the old
wounds for a better future for all. Why the partition became
inevitable is the gulf between Hindus and Muslims which the leaders
could not bridge.
Hindus could not forget the atrocities of medieval Muslim rulers who
killed Hindus and destroyed their temples. Muslims were afraid of the
retribution on them in the future. The Indian leaders missed the
wisdom of the South African leader Nelson Mandela who constituted the
truth and reconciliation commission which prepared the moral ground
for his country's future. No retribution and no reservation but
equality and brotherhood. Accepting and understanding the past and
preparing for a new future together. Kshama or forgiveness is a
religious virtue of both Hinduism and Islam. It blesses him who gives
and blesses him who receives. Hinduism accepts and respects other
faiths. Islam says there is no compulsion in religion. This wisdom
should have been used to face the facts of the past and chart a course
for the future together on the basis of brotherhood. As Maulana Abdul
Kalam Azad pointed out Hindus too are 'the people of the book'. The
Congress missed this opportunity to uphold truth and start a new
chapter for the country. The Muslim League did not want to confront
the truth and wanted an escape in the form of Pakistan. The dilemma
between the two communities continues as conflicts between the two
states now.
If the leaders had come to the conclusion that Hindus and Muslims
could not live together as brothers, they could have parted as
brothers but without violence. However, the suddenness of the decision
to partition the sub-continent by the British and stringency of the
cry, ' Islam in danger' by the Muslim League made it inevitable to end
in a bloody separation. Hindu Mahasabha had suggested exchange of
population in an orderly fashion but it was over-ruled by the Congress
as it was abhorrent to their secular belief. However, exchange did
take place with a massive violence. It was no less than a civil war.
All the leaders who took part in the decision to partition the Indian
sub-continent in a hurry have to share the blame and the major part
goes to the British who claim to be democratic and just, and Mohammad
Ali Jinnah, a secularist and a constitutionalist in the beginning but
ended as the creator of a theocratic state. If the leaders have no
vision, people suffer for generations!
August 30,2009.
*******.
