Author’s Views: From the book “Ten Years of Freedom” by Kanji Dwarkadas, the author quotes Patel. Patel scathingly questioned, to the effect, as to how could the Congress come to terms with the British Government when they might have to deal with Japanese in six months time. Patel remarked that Cripps was coming at a time when it might be impossible for the British government to give India anything or for India to take anything. The author faults Patel that this was directly contradicting his stance of August 1940 when he openly conveyed that a section of the Congress wanted to arrive at some kind of agreement with the British Government.
Comments: Had not the circumstances changed from 1940 to 1942? Was Japan at the doorsteps of India in 1940? Japan had already over run Burma and the British had withdrawn tactically leaving their Colonies to the mercy of the Japanese. What was the guarantee that the British would not do so if the Japanese over run India too? The British government had made India thoroughly impotent to face any armed aggression. The forces of the Princely states were only ceremonial. They might even pledge their allegiance to Japan in such a scenario, after all they had no qualms of being subservient to British for the past hundreds of years. The police forces in India did not have adequate firearms even to fight criminals. There was acute scarcity of food and other essential commodities of daily needs. Naturally, if the Japanese came and the British withdrew like they did in Burma, or if they sign a treaty as they did in Munich (the infamous Western Betrayal), what would have been the plight of India? What would have been there for the British to offer and for us to take if that turned out to be the case? In the political field, the leaders have to take stand on the merits of the proposals best suited to the prevailing conditions. So can we still say that Patel changed his stance in 1942 without compelling reasons?
In page 296 the author concludes that His Majesty’s government did not want a resolution of the problem in India at that time and definitely not when Churchill was the Prime Minister. If that was the conclusion drawn by the author, why he should blame Patel for his change of stance.
No comments:
Post a Comment