Author’s Views: The author quotes that Jinnah in his address at the 25th Session of the All-India Muslim League in October 1937 questioned, (a) whether accepting offices by the Congress, when the assurances that were required before offices could be accepted were refused and(b) working the Provincial Constitution enacted by the British Parliament, which was forced upon the people of India by Imperialistic power, were in consonance with the policy and programme and the declaration of the Congress party.
Commenting on the above speech, the author declares that Jinnah’s argument of unity between the Congress and the League was unimpeachable.
The author concludes that, for so long as Congress was in office, as a constitutionalist organization, it occupied the same position like the British authorities and the British Crown.
Comments: The fact that Muslim League also contested the election would indicate that, had they become victorious, they would also have taken up the office! The fact was Congress secured an overwhelming victory at the polls and was returned as a majority party in six out of 11 provinces and as the largest single party in all. It is significant to note that out of 1585 seats there were only 657 seats open to general category and still Congress won a total of 715 seats. In the predominantly Muslim Frontier Province Congress candidates won 15 of 36 seats reserved for Muslims while Muslim league could not secure a single seat. In Madras the pro- British Justice Party, which had been in control from 1922 could secure only 21 seats. The Liberal party was wiped out. The Democratic Swaraj Party, which opposed the Congress, also failed. The Hindu Mahasabha failed completely. The Muslim League did better but on the whole its showing was poor especially in the predominantly Muslim provinces –only 4% voted for the league. In Punjab and Sind it failed completely. The Times (of london), who so far castigated Congress as an insignificant minority had to change its opinion and wrote “ The elections have shown that Congress party alone is organized on more than a provincial basis…The party has won its victories on issues which interested millions of Indian rural voters and scores of millions who had no votes”.
There are a lot of written records regarding the acceptance office by the Congress. An assurance was sought that the Governors will not use their special powers of interference or set aside the advice of the cabinet in regard to the constitutional activities. There was a deadlock due to which the ministries did not take office till July. The deadlock was broken on the Viceroy’s statement implying that “ it is only when the issue between a Governor and his minister constitutes a serious disagreement that any question of the severing of their partnership need arise”.
Regarding the author’s declaration of Jinnah’s stand on Congress League unity, we have to retrace the Chapter 5. The author admits in the opening paragraph (page 207), that top leaders of the League of 1935-36 were mostly comprised of rich and titled persons, landlords and zamindars, nawabs and other self serving favour seekers. The elections were held in 1937 and there were not much changes in the composition of leadership of the League in the intervening period. In page 221, the author, while analyzing, the after effects of the results of the election of 1937, naming some of the leaders, says they did not respond to Jinnah’s call for unity of Muslims but were swayed by personal and class interests. In the very next para (in page 221), the author quotes Dr. Zaidi, to conclude that the leadership of the League went into elections as idealists and emerged as realists!
If Jinnah’s argument of unity between congress and the League was beyond reproach, why he should make an appeal for “Muslim Unity” for the elections. After all idealistic elections are to be fought based on party policies rather than on religious grounds. If that is accepted, how can we call any one an “idealist” if he seeks support based on religious affiliation?
The author certifies firstly, that most of them were self serving favour seekers. Secondly he says some of them were more affiliated to personal gains and self interests. Thirdly he conveys they were idealists to start with, ie before elections and changed as realists after the results of the elections as acutely observed by Dr.Zaidi.
Next regarding “assuming of office”: If assuming office placed them in same constitutional position as the British Crown, why the Muslim League contested the elections in the first place? They should have not only boycotted the elections but also persuaded the Congress to do so. The controversy arose only when the Congress having won a big victory, was not in a mood to allocate portfolios to Muslim MLAs of the League and inducted into the cabinet Muslims who belonged to the Congress party. Had the Congress done otherwise, and acted as per the wishes of the League, what stand Jinnah would have taken? The question of course is hypothetical, but rational in any case. In that case not only the Congress but also the League would have been placed in the same constitutional position as the British Crown. Was that acceptable?
The rhetoric appears more as the story of the grapes turned sour!
If Jinnah’s argument of unity between congress and the League was beyond reproach, why he should make an appeal for “Muslim Unity” for the elections. After all idealistic elections are to be fought based on party policies rather than on religious grounds. If that is accepted, how can we call any one an “idealist” if he seeks support based on religious affiliation?
The author certifies firstly, that most of them were self serving favour seekers. Secondly he says some of them were more affiliated to personal gains and self interests. Thirdly he conveys they were idealists to start with, ie before elections and changed as realists after the results of the elections as acutely observed by Dr.Zaidi.
Next regarding “assuming of office”: If assuming office placed them in same constitutional position as the British Crown, why the Muslim League contested the elections in the first place? They should have not only boycotted the elections but also persuaded the Congress to do so. The controversy arose only when the Congress having won a big victory, was not in a mood to allocate portfolios to Muslim MLAs of the League and inducted into the cabinet Muslims who belonged to the Congress party. Had the Congress done otherwise, and acted as per the wishes of the League, what stand Jinnah would have taken? The question of course is hypothetical, but rational in any case. In that case not only the Congress but also the League would have been placed in the same constitutional position as the British Crown. Was that acceptable?
The rhetoric appears more as the story of the grapes turned sour!
No comments:
Post a Comment