Author’s views: The author while debating "Secularism" concludes that the break down of coalition negotiations contributed to an eventual partition of the country in 1947. In the same breath, he also says that Jinnah came to the conclusion that it was the British who wielded the ultimate power and therefore it was they who could share or transfer any part of that power. Therefore there was no need for him to come to any terms with the Congress.
Comments: Very true. That he was prepared to share power with the British denotes that he was emphatic about transfer of power. His continuation of voicing his opposition to British rule was only an eyewash. (As we will see later in page 243 as the author narrates the record of conversation of the Viceroy with Jinnah and his observations during second half of 1938.)
In Page 238, the author concludes that the Muslims had by that time decided that they should be an effective opposition to the Hindu Congress . Because of the misjudgment and combined effect of the actions and policies of the Congress the chances of a united India becoming independent were receding. (The reader is urged to read the original text in the book to truly appreciate as to what the Author implies)
Comments: One fundamental fact seems to have been overlooked here by the author. In spite of winning the elections the Congress declined even to form the ministries for good three to four months. It was not that the electoral gains had gone to their heads and they would knowingly sow the seeds either for delaying the realization of Swaraj or for dividing India. Neither Nehru nor other leaders were so foolish to act as implied by the learned author. What he has written above (Page 236) stands nullified if we take this statement in its facevalue (page 238) and vice versa.
(Why the author should term the Congress of 1939 as Hindu Congress? What was the religious composition of the members of the Congress party of 1939? Were there not members belonging to any other religion apart from Hindus at that time in the Congress Party? Were not many able leaders belonging to other religions and classes including depressed in the Congress at that time? One can understand the leaders of the League terming it as “this Hindu Congress”, but how a learned author and historian of repute like Mr. Jaswant Singh can term it as such is beyond imagination.)
Also it was too early (the year was1939) to arrive at this conclusion. The fact that Pakistan or a buffer state needed to be created for politico strategic reasons on the western side was a long felt necessity for the British Crown, whether India gains dominion status or full freedom at any future date. The NWFP having a Congress majority, though of predominantly Muslim population, was a thorn in their flesh. The fear that at any future date they could join hands with Afghans was also weighing in their heads. A convenient escape route for the British was to assiduously cultivate and prop up the bogey of safeguarding the interest of the minorities and push up the stakes of the Muslim League as a counter balance. This in effect was the actual reason for the partition of India, as we will see later.
In Page 238, the author concludes that the Muslims had by that time decided that they should be an effective opposition to the Hindu Congress . Because of the misjudgment and combined effect of the actions and policies of the Congress the chances of a united India becoming independent were receding. (The reader is urged to read the original text in the book to truly appreciate as to what the Author implies)
Comments: One fundamental fact seems to have been overlooked here by the author. In spite of winning the elections the Congress declined even to form the ministries for good three to four months. It was not that the electoral gains had gone to their heads and they would knowingly sow the seeds either for delaying the realization of Swaraj or for dividing India. Neither Nehru nor other leaders were so foolish to act as implied by the learned author. What he has written above (Page 236) stands nullified if we take this statement in its facevalue (page 238) and vice versa.
(Why the author should term the Congress of 1939 as Hindu Congress? What was the religious composition of the members of the Congress party of 1939? Were there not members belonging to any other religion apart from Hindus at that time in the Congress Party? Were not many able leaders belonging to other religions and classes including depressed in the Congress at that time? One can understand the leaders of the League terming it as “this Hindu Congress”, but how a learned author and historian of repute like Mr. Jaswant Singh can term it as such is beyond imagination.)
Also it was too early (the year was1939) to arrive at this conclusion. The fact that Pakistan or a buffer state needed to be created for politico strategic reasons on the western side was a long felt necessity for the British Crown, whether India gains dominion status or full freedom at any future date. The NWFP having a Congress majority, though of predominantly Muslim population, was a thorn in their flesh. The fear that at any future date they could join hands with Afghans was also weighing in their heads. A convenient escape route for the British was to assiduously cultivate and prop up the bogey of safeguarding the interest of the minorities and push up the stakes of the Muslim League as a counter balance. This in effect was the actual reason for the partition of India, as we will see later.
No comments:
Post a Comment