Author’s Views: Narrating the Congress Partition Plan the author quotes from BR Nanda’s essay on “ Nehru, the Indian National Congress and the partition of India 1935-47”, that Nehru and Patel agreed for partition of India because they were power hungry. The acceptance of Partition by the Congress had started after the Muslim League’s Pakistan Resolution in their Lahore Session itself. The author quotes Gandhi’s writing of April 1940 “ The Muslims must have the same right to self-determination that the rest of India has. We are at present a joint family. Any member may claim a division”. The author further states that the Congress Working Committee resolution two years later expressed the same sentiment. He states that, in 1944 Gandhi not only conceded the principle of partition but also discussed the modalities with Jinnah. He further adds to the effect that the very acceptance of the Cabinet Mission plan by the Congress indicated their willingness for partition.
The author concludes that the Congress “engineered” the partition of India in this manner.
Comments: The author’s conclusion, to say the least is ridiculous. The moment the masses came to know of the impending division of the Country, there were wide spread arson, pillages and the like to dislocate and drive away the innocent public. Delaying further the declaration of independence would have only escalated the misery. At least, immediately after the declaration, the respective Governments could try and control the wanton destruction on both sides. That is why Nehru and Patel hastened to agree for the Partition. We have already seen that the British were determined to carve out Pakistan (Appendix xi).
The Muslim League session was held in Lahore at the end of March 1940. The text of Pakistan resolution " Resolved that it is the considered view of this session of the All India Muslim League that no constitutional plan would be workable in this country or be acceptable to the Musalmans unless it is designed on the following basic principles namely, that geographically contiguous units are demarcated into regions, which should be so constituted with such-territorial re-adjustments as may be necessary that the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in majority as in the north-western and eastern zones of India should be grouped to constitute ‘Independent states’ , in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign”
It is left to the reader to deduce as to who did the so-called “engineering” of the partition.
The author very cleverly quotes Mahatma Gandhi out of context to prove his point. After the Lahore Resolution of the League of March 1940,Gandhi wrote an article entitled “A Baffling Situation”, (Excerpts) "A question has been put to me; Do you intend to start general civil obedience although Qaid-e-Azam Jinnah has declared war against Hindus and has got the Muslim League to pass a resolution favouring the vivisection of India into two? If you do, what becomes of your formula that there is no Swaraj without communal unity?”
“I admit that the step taken by the Muslim League at Lahore creates a baffling situation. But I do not regard it so baffling so as to make civil disobedience an impossibility. Supposing that the Congress is reduced to a hopeless minority, it will still be open to it, and indeed it may be its duty to resort to civil obedience. The struggle will not be against the majority but it will be against the foreign ruler. If the struggle succeeds the fruits there of will be reaped as well by the Congress as by the opposing majority…….I know no non-violent method of compelling obedience of eight crores of Muslims to the will of the rest of India……Any member may claim a division …..Thus so far as I am concerned, my proposition that there is no Swaraj without communal unity holds as good today, as when I first enunciated it in 1919.”
Gandhi’s acceptance that Muslims as a member of a joint family can claim a division is to be seen in the whole context of Gandhi’s views of communal amity as a pre-requisite for attaining Swaraj and not to be quoted out of context to say he was a party to the "engineering" as the author has done. (Gandhi also drives home the point (in the above article) whether you are in majority or minority, your fight sould be against the foreign ruler and not amongst own countrymen! Why the author has missed this portion ?)
It was Jinnah in 1944 who insisted that “Let Mr. Gandhi join hands with the Muslim league on the basis Pakistan in plain, unequivocal language, and we shall be nearer the independence of the people of India. ….. But at last – and it is good and conducive to further progress –Mr. Gandhi has, at any rate, in his personal capacity accepted the principle of partition or division of India. What remains now is the question of how and when this got to be carried out….. As regards the merits of the proposals, Mr.Gandhi is offering a shadow and a husk, a maimed, mutilated and moth-eaten Pakistan” Is the author referring to Gandhi’s above proposals as modalities his discussed with Mr. Jinnah? Does it mean that Gandhi "engineered" the partition?
Much has been said about the Cabinet Mission Plan and the acceptance of the same by Congress no way becomes a part of the “engineering” by the Congress for partition.
It is absurd to conclude that the Congress ‘engineered” the partition of the Country while the basic demand for the same came from and the beneficiaries (The League, The British) were every one else other than the Congress. Is it not absurd to equate the acceptance of partition as a reality by the Congress as ‘engineering' of the same?
It is left to the reader to deduce as to who did the so-called “engineering” of the partition.
The author very cleverly quotes Mahatma Gandhi out of context to prove his point. After the Lahore Resolution of the League of March 1940,Gandhi wrote an article entitled “A Baffling Situation”, (Excerpts) "A question has been put to me; Do you intend to start general civil obedience although Qaid-e-Azam Jinnah has declared war against Hindus and has got the Muslim League to pass a resolution favouring the vivisection of India into two? If you do, what becomes of your formula that there is no Swaraj without communal unity?”
“I admit that the step taken by the Muslim League at Lahore creates a baffling situation. But I do not regard it so baffling so as to make civil disobedience an impossibility. Supposing that the Congress is reduced to a hopeless minority, it will still be open to it, and indeed it may be its duty to resort to civil obedience. The struggle will not be against the majority but it will be against the foreign ruler. If the struggle succeeds the fruits there of will be reaped as well by the Congress as by the opposing majority…….I know no non-violent method of compelling obedience of eight crores of Muslims to the will of the rest of India……Any member may claim a division …..Thus so far as I am concerned, my proposition that there is no Swaraj without communal unity holds as good today, as when I first enunciated it in 1919.”
Gandhi’s acceptance that Muslims as a member of a joint family can claim a division is to be seen in the whole context of Gandhi’s views of communal amity as a pre-requisite for attaining Swaraj and not to be quoted out of context to say he was a party to the "engineering" as the author has done. (Gandhi also drives home the point (in the above article) whether you are in majority or minority, your fight sould be against the foreign ruler and not amongst own countrymen! Why the author has missed this portion ?)
It was Jinnah in 1944 who insisted that “Let Mr. Gandhi join hands with the Muslim league on the basis Pakistan in plain, unequivocal language, and we shall be nearer the independence of the people of India. ….. But at last – and it is good and conducive to further progress –Mr. Gandhi has, at any rate, in his personal capacity accepted the principle of partition or division of India. What remains now is the question of how and when this got to be carried out….. As regards the merits of the proposals, Mr.Gandhi is offering a shadow and a husk, a maimed, mutilated and moth-eaten Pakistan” Is the author referring to Gandhi’s above proposals as modalities his discussed with Mr. Jinnah? Does it mean that Gandhi "engineered" the partition?
Much has been said about the Cabinet Mission Plan and the acceptance of the same by Congress no way becomes a part of the “engineering” by the Congress for partition.
It is absurd to conclude that the Congress ‘engineered” the partition of the Country while the basic demand for the same came from and the beneficiaries (The League, The British) were every one else other than the Congress. Is it not absurd to equate the acceptance of partition as a reality by the Congress as ‘engineering' of the same?
No comments:
Post a Comment