Jaswant Singh's Book Review Page 226

Book Reference: Page 226 Line 11-18

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!

Jaswant Singh's Book Review Page 205

Book Reference: Page 205 Last para

Author’s Views: Quoting Percival Spear from his essay that as per Bolitho, Jinna by championing the cause of Hindu-Muslim Unity in the twenties had greatly damaged his political career. In 1934, when he returned to India , this thought was weighing upon him. The author concludes that it was Congress attitude of totalitarianism rather than the wounded vanity of Jinna which made Jinnah a “communalist.”

Comments: The author in page 220, commenting on the “coalition controversy” and the results of elections of 1937, says that the real tragedy (of the electoral verdicts) was the collapse of Jinnah’s assumptions on which he based his policies for twenty years. His hopes on separate electorates, organising Muslims on a separate political platform, formation of maximum possible Muslim majority provinces, enforcing a weighted representation for them where they were in minority and the like did not result in favourable electoral verdict even in those provinces where Muslims were in the majority . It rather resulted in a disaster as the author quotes.

The point to ponder is, if Jinnah in the previous twenty years has been working on the above policies, where was the question that Congress attitude precipitated his change of approach as claimed by the author. If that was the approach pursued by Jinnah from 1934 onwards, as concluded by the author, where is the further need to project him otherwise in the following years (in subsequent chapters) by the author. The author in page 226, recalling his address at 25th session in October 1937,says that Jinnah’s central argument of unity between Congress and the Muslim League was beyond reproach. Now, one has to distinguish between Hindu-Muslim unity and the unity between Congress and the Muslim League. If the leadership of the League has been assiduously promoting separateness of the people ( “the famous Fourteen Points”) and the Congress was stoutly opposing most of it , how can the author claim that he was the champion for promoting unity of the Congress and the League. After all the parties are made up of people.

Jaswant Singh's Book Review Page 192

Book Reference: Page 192 Line 3-9

Author’s Views: The author quotes Agha Khan from part of his personal memoirs (on the Second RTC) as having said that the Congress attitude seemed unrealistic. The Congress held stubbornly to their one-nation theory, which they ( Agha Khan and his likes)  knew to be historically insupportable. They maintained that before the coming of British Raj the various regions of the Indian Subcontinent had never been one country. It was the Raj which created an artificial and temporary unity, and when the Raj went, that unity could not be maintained. The author qualifies that though these were subjective opinion of Agha Khan, he wants to  convey them as they intensely portray the feeling in those times in general and certainly the feel in the Conference and of the Conferees( of the RTC).

Comments: Though the views were of Agha Khan, the emphasis comes from the author and he has not offered any other proof on these views in his book. As the author is emphatic about the feel of the Conferees, does he mean that the feeling was felt by every single Indian and British Member  taking part in the Conference. How is the author so sure  that was certainly the feeling in the Conference itself? How can the demand of  the Muslim League  and its supporters become the feel of the entire Conferees as the author puts it?  Did all the members, other than those of  Muslim League and its sympathisers,  also display the above feel?  Where is the narrative to substantiate his conclusion?

Secondly why India as one nation is historically un-supportable? What was India during the time of Mouryas and Guptas and much later even during the height of Mughal empire? Is the so-called transient unity was the creation of Raj or of Mahatma Gandhi?
Was the transient unity  restricted to only the British Provinces or did include the so called Princely States also? 

Is not India post partition standing united against external aggressions and internal political turmoil? Has it not proved to the world that it continues to follow the path of democracy?

Agha Khan's observation only proves that irrespective of the stand held by the Congress and other parties and in spite of any compromise getting reached, the mind set of the Muslim League was such that India could not remain as one nation.  The seeds for that was sown at the Muslim Conference of 1st January 1929 and later accepted by Muslim League in toto. ( They began to be called "Jinnah's fourteen points".) If that was the mind set nurtured as far back as 1929/1930, where is the argument for blaming any one else for the partition of 1947 in the later years?

It was not Congress attitude during the RTC , but to a large extent Gandhi’s imposition on the Congress to “ let us sort out the problems between us ourselves rather asking a third party (the British) to mediate”,  the fundamental condition of his that was unnerving Agha Khan and his likes.
The reader may  refer to future posts which deal with other aspects of the RTC.

Jaswant Singh's Book Review Page 147

Book Reference: Page 147 Line 15-16

Author’s Views: The author narrating the events leading to the 'parting of the way' in the previous pages concludes that the rejection of Jinnah’s offer by the All Party Convention was the reason for Jinnah to part ways and narrates an anecdote of 1927 of Hector Bolitho that the rejection of his demands by the Congress Session in Calcutta  was the "parting of the ways."

Comments: There is nothing on the records to show that Jinnah’s offer (or were they demands of his party as the author quotes Hector Bolitho- page 148)  were rejected during the session of the Congress in Calcutta in 1927. Gandhi attended only the open session but did not attend the Working Committee meetings. The Congress accepted the proposals submitted by Mr. Jinnah and laid down certain rules dealing with the religious and the social aspects of the problem. It recommended arbitration and abandonment of all forceful means. One of the main clauses of unity resolution was on cow and the music before the masques. These are on record.

But some of the demands(increased from earlier four to seven)  of Jinnah were opposed by Hindu Mahasabha, the Sikhs and the Liberal Federation on various issues as the author himself says (Page 146) during the All Parties Convention in 1928. Gandhi supported even the demand for 33% representation in the Centre.

Therefore the ‘parting of ways’ refers to whom? With the Congress or with all other parties. It is to be noted, that in the year 1928, Muslim league itself parted ways, one meeting under Sir Mohamed Shafi at Lahore and another under Mr.Jinnah at Calcutta; one welcoming the Simon Commission and the other deciding to boycott it. Moreover, it is on record that the session held at Calcutta in 1928 under Mr. Jinnah decided to appoint a committee to take up with Congress and other political organizations the work of drafting the constitution and suggesting necessary safe guards. If that was the case where was ‘the parting of ways’in 1927 as narrated by Jamshed Nusserwanjee( page 148) or were there ‘too many parting of ways’ or is the anecdote concocted?

Jaswant Singh's Book Review Page 107 to 110

Book Reference: Page 107to,110

Author’s Views: The author in these pages wants to drive a point that Gandhi’s so called approach to Hindu-Muslim unity by supporting the Khilafat Movement, his opposition to forcible occupation of Palestine with British Support were more for obtaining support from local Muslims to forsake the slaying of cows. He further states that even when Gandhi believed in their (Muslims) wrongs (read Khilafat Movement), it was a perfect deal.

The author quotes parts of Gandhi’s own statement in Young India of 20 October 1921, “in laying down my life for the Khilafat, I ensure the safety of the cow from the Musalman knife, that is my religion.” to substantiate his conclusion. ( Page 124)

The author states that Gandhi’s written statement of principle for a settlement in Palestine can be found in the Central Zionist Archives. He ridicules Gandhi  that by publishing a newspaper article titled ”The Jews” he  damaged his own credentials and his capacity to intervene further.

Comments: The reader is invited to  the contents of the article in Young India of May 29, 1924, which was devoted to Hindu-Muslim question. This was later published as a pamphlet with a long introduction from Gandhi. Excerpts from the article “ had I been a prophet and foreseen all (ie abolition of Kaliph in Turkey) that has happened, I should still have thrown myself into Khilafat agitation. The awakening of the masses was a necessary part of the training. It is a tremendous gain. I would do nothing to put the people to sleep again”. It can therefore be seen that the association with Khilafat agitation was purely political to promote Hindu-Muslim unity (and not Muslim support ) of which the British were squeamish. He was very clear in his aim.

The author fails to elucidate in what all other wrongs of Muslims, Gandhi believed in and still took them as perfectly straight deals to promote himself.

 

On cow slaughter Gandhi chides the Hindus and Hindu organizations “ What is it but compulsion, if Hindus will kill a Musalman for saving a cow? It is like wanting to convert a Musalman to Hinduism by force. …... I have never been able to understand the antipathy towards the Musalmans on that score. We say nothing about the slaughter that daily takes place on behalf of the Englishmen. Our anger becomes red hot when a Musalman slaughters a cow…All the riots that have taken place in the name of cow have been an insane waste of effort. They have not saved a single cow but they have on the contrary stiffened the back of the Musalmans and resulted in more slaughter... In no part of the world, perhaps, are cattle worse treated than in India. …The half starved condition of the majority of our cattle is a disgrace to us. The only effective and honourable way is to befriend the Musalmans and leave it to their honour to save the cow. They (Hindus) commit no sin, if they cannot prevent cow slaughter at the hands of the Musalmans, and they do sin grievously when in order to save the cow, they quarrel with the Musalmans.”

Again later (on Bakr-Id_day) in Harijan dated February 27, 1937 he wrote “Though I hold the cow in veneration as any Hindu, I have never sympathized with the Hindu grief and implied anger against the Musalmans on Bakr-Id. … Hindu ignorance is responsible for many more deaths of cows than the death caused by the Musalman’s slaughter of the cow for one day of the year. Be it noted Hindus are apparently reconciled to cow slaughter on days other than Bakr-Id.” This was more than two decades later than his support for Khilafat movement. Was Gandhi promoting Hindu- Muslim Unity more or Muslim support more? Was Gandhi bartering cow protection?

Regarding his Stand on the Israel-Palestine settlement: His stand on the question of Jews is well documented in the papers published by him in India itself and therefore there is no need to verify its authenticity from the Central Zionist Archives as the author’s implied proof. More importantly Gandhi never clamoured for credentials or capacity to intervene and his views when sought were honest and true to his belief. So there is no question of any self-inflicted damage to his credentials or to his capacity to intervene.  

The first editorial after his return from the tour of Frontier Provinces in 1938 was on the plight of Jews in Europe calling them “the untouchables of Christianity”:

“My sympathies are with Jews. I have known them intimately in South Africa. …. They have been the untouchables of Christianity. The parallel between their treatment by Christians and the treatment of untouchables by Hindus is very close. Religious sanction has been invoked in both cases for the justification of the inhuman treatment meted out to them. There is the more common universal reason for my sympathy for the Jews. But my sympathy does not bind me to the requirement of justice. The cry for the national home for the Jews does not much appeal to me. …Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood? Palestine belongs to Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. What is going on in Palestine to day cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct. The mandates have no sanction but that of the last war ….The nobler course would be to insist on a just treatment of the Jews wherever they are born and bred….This cry for the national home affords a colourable justification for the German expulsion of the Jews. But the German persecution of the Jews seems to have no parallel in history…. If there ever could be a justifiable war in the name of and for humanity, a war against Germany to prevent the wanton persecution of a whole race would be completely justified”. (Please note this is coming from the pen of the person who abhorred war and swore by non-violence. … by then not even America had joined the war. Nor were they anxious to join the war to put an end to the German atrocities.)
“And now a word to the Jews in Palestine. I have no doubt that they are going in the wrong way. The Palestine of the Biblical conception is not a geographical tract. It is in their hearts. But if they must look to the Palestine geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. ( This is what is happening in to days world , that every terror act being sanctified as religious and rightly condemned by all right thinking people.) They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs. They should strive to convert the Arab heart. They can offer satayagraha… there are hundreds of ways of reasoning with Arabs, if they will only discard the British bayonet. I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen non-violence in resisting what they rightly regarded as unwarrantable encroachment. Let the Jews who claim to be the chosen race, prove their title by choosing the way of non-violence for vindicating their position on earth.”
 
On a larger issue have Israelites or for that matter the Palestinians ever lived in peace or will they ever live in peace? Has not Gandhi’s views vindicated? Why decry Gandhi? Why only quote parts of his writing to decry him?

Jaswant Singh's Book Review Page 101& 102

Book Reference: Page 101 Last Para and page 102 up to line 15

Author’s Views:  The author after detailing Gandhi’s return to India in January 1915, compares Jinnah’s and Gandhi’s political standings. He compares Gandhi’s imperial leanings during First World War and Boer Wars and contrasts his stand during Second World War. He concludes Gandhi’s leadership was oriented religiously and provincially whereas Jinnah was filled with nationalistic non-sectarian passion.

(As I cannot quote the author verbatim, due to Copyright constraints, the reader is urged to read the original content to appreciate the true import of the Author)

Comments: The author implies that while Gandhi helped the British in their war efforts Jinnah was there in England to lobby with the Secretary of State and other members of parliament for opening up of the Council of India to at least three non-official Indians who would be elected by the Imperial and Provincial Legislative Councils.

To the extent that Jinnah went as a member of the Congress delegation and put up the above proposal of the Congress it is correct. But it was the proposal of the Congress party and not his own. As far as Gandhi, his entry into active and involved mainstream Indian politics was only after his return from South Africa in 1915 that too at the bidding of Gokhale.

It is therefore absurd to compare what Gandhi did in England to organise an Ambulance Corps to help the British during First World War and what Jinnah did as a member of the Congress delegation and arrive at the conclusions as the author has done. Gandhi’s earlier work in South Africa was neither religious nor provincial.

Any one who has gone through the life of Gandhi  would have noted that it was not his wont to take advantage of the unfavorable situation of the adversary. We can read the excerpts from his biography. “At the conclusion of the Satyagraha struggle in 1914 (South Africa), I received Gokhale's instruction to return home via London. So in July Kasturba, Kallenbach and I sailed for England. War was declared on the 4th of August. We reached London on the 6th. I felt that Indians residing in England ought to do their bit in the war. English students had volunteered to serve in the army, and Indians might do no less. A number of objections were taken to this line of argument. The opposing friends felt that was the hour for making a bold declaration of Indian demands and for improving the status of Indians. I thought that England's need should not be turned into our opportunity, and that it was more becoming and far-sighted not to press our demands while the war lasted.”

His efforts in South Africa are well documented and are verifiable. This is what Gandhi writes in his biography. “When the Boer war was declared, my personal sympathies were all with the Boers, but I believed then that I had yet no right, in such cases, to enforce my individual convictions. Suffice it to say that my loyalty to the British rule drove me to participation with the British in that war. I felt that, if I demanded rights as a British citizen, it was also my duty, as such, to participate in the defence of the British Empire. The Indian community became better organized. I got into closer touch with the indentured Indians. There came a greater awakening amongst them, and the feeling that Hindus, Musalmans, Christians, Tamilians, Gujaratis and Sindhis were all Indians and children of the same motherland took deep root amongst them. Everyone believed that the Indians' grievances were now sure to be redressed. At the moment the white man's attitude seemed to be distinctly changed. The relations formed with the whites during the war were of the sweetest.” This moral standing helped Gandhi in later years when he fought the South Africans and the British on moral grounds.

The policy he vowed to follow during the Second World War was that he would not embarrass the British Government when they were fighting the war. Why he chose the cry of ‘Quit India’ when the Japanese were on the eastern gates of India is fully and substantially elucidated by Gandhi himself, which to a great extent highly logical even in hindsight. He did not want the British to leave India at the mercy of Japan as they did in Singapore, Malaya and later on in Burma or for them to conclude a treaty with Japan as they did in Munich in 1938 with Germany. He was painfully aware of the infamous “Western Betrayal.”

In the Harijan dated August 2, 1942 Gandhi pleaded for reason: “The justice of the demand for ending the British power has never been questioned, the moment chosen for enforcing it, is the target of attack. … India is not playing any effective part in the war. Some of us feel ashamed that it is so, .. if we were free from the foreign yoke we should play a worthy, nay, decisive part in the World war, which is yet to reach its climax. …”. On August 3, in a moving appeal to “ American friends” he wrote “ Singapore, Malaya and Burma taught me that the disaster must not be repeated in India. I make bold to say that it cannot be averted unless Great Britain trusts the people of India to use their liberty in favour of the allied cause”.

During 1942 no one was sure when the allied forces would drive out Japan. Atom bomb was unknown. Gandhi, though he prayed and hoped for the British victory, was also painfully aware of the atrocities Japanese forces could commit if the British withdrew. It was thanks to the Atom bombs that brought the end of war. But did any one else in the world excepting a handful few in America even had an iota of idea that such a bomb was in the making and the War in the East would end the way it did?

Sir Frederick Puckle, Secretary to the Government of India by his circular dated Jul17, 1942 gave instructions for government actions. Excerpts: “ We have to encourage those on whose support we depend, win over the waverers and avoid stiffening the determination of Congressmen…. Please intensify your publicity through all available channels with the aim of openly securing openly expressed and reasoned opposition to the scheme of the resolution (of the Congress party), from individuals of influence and important non-congress organizations”. References are obvious! Gandhi said, referring to such similar circulars of the past which came to his light, “ Heaven knows how many such secret instruction have been issued that may not see the light of the day. Meanwhile let the public know that these circulars are an additional reason for the cry of ‘Quit India.’"

Is it not ridiculous to compare and comment Gandhi’s stand during Second World War, (that the Indian masses would give voluntary and un-stinted support to the allied war effort if the British would only grant her immediate freedom), to his stand in the Boer War or First World War? How absurd still it is to compare Jinnah who was then a leading member of the Congress Party with Gandhi who was yet to set sail to India from England? Any one who had read the deeds of Gandhi in South Africa, about his Tolstoy Farm and the Phoenix Settlement will realise that Gandhi's leadership  transcended national, religious, language and social  barriers. The author's description of  Gandhi's leadership as "religious and provincial oriented at that time" is not substantiated by the author anywhere in the book and it appears to be a wanton and motivated projection of Gandhi's image by the author.

Jaswant Singh's Book Review Page 99

Book Reference: Page 99 Line 8 to 12

Author’s Views: The Author says that Jinnah had kept the Indian political forces together upto and until 1920. He was successful in doing so. Because of Gandhi’s civil disobedience call and Gandhi’s methodology, the pressure that Jinnah could exert on the government dissipated resulting in the British Raj remaining in India till 1947. The learned author implies that, had Gandhi not been there and not pursued his program of non co-operation, Jinnah would have brought freedom for India much earlier.

(Here again I would suggest that the reader goes through the original book  , where the author has concluded to the  above effect)

Comments: The question which comes to mind are : What were the standing of various political forces in India upto and until 1920 which the author claims that Jinnah kept together to exert force on the British Government? What were the achievements gained from the British vis-à-vis the pressures exerted by Jinnah? Were there any radical changes to Montford Report because of Jinnah? To conclude that Gandhi’s methodology resulted in the delay of attaining freedom from British Rule by more than three decades, is patently  illogical.

 It is but natural for the author to glorify Jinnah, because he is basically writing a book on him. No qualms on that. But to condemn Gandhi and his methodology for the delay in attaining independence is totally unjustified.

Here are the other facts.

Calcutta September 7, 1920 Jinnah said, " there is no other course open to the people except to inaugurate the policy of non co-operation, though not necessarily of Mr. Gandhi."  What was Jinnah's alternate plan ? Can the author throw some light on it?

Dec 26, 1920 in the Nagpur Congress, Gandhi proposed the goal of the Congress was the attainment of Swaraj within the British Empire if possible and without it if necessary. Jinnah wanted the goal of attaining Swaraj within the British Empire only. Jinnah said India would never get her independence without blood shed. He wanted Gandhi to cry a halt to the call of Swaraj.

The reason is: Jinnah was getting more and more flustered by the growing mass popularity of Gandhi among all sections of the people of India. He wanted to be the head of the other political centre. As later events show, his prophesy that India would not get her independence without bloodshed proved false, though partition advocated and achieved by Mr. Jinnah did result in enormous bloodshed and wanton destruction of property in the process of creation of Pakistan and its aftermath. Could it be that Mr. Jinnah predicted that independence would not come without partition and the attended bloodshed?

Jaswant Singh's Book Review Page 49

Book Reference: Page 49 Line 25 till para ends

My Preamble: The Author after narrating the events leading to a deputation of prominent Muslims to meet Lord Minto at Simla ( 1 Octbr 1906) and the response of Minto, questions whether the British encouraged the tendency of separatism amongst Muslims or the existing situation of the time was the cause.

Author’s Views: The Author concludes that there will always be two differing views on the above as above.

Comments: Thank God, to some extent the learned author has questioned the divisive decision of Lord Minto. There is no ambiguity as far as the British intents are concerned. That is why Mahatma Gandhi always maintained that Minto- Morley were the architects for the division of India. That Mr. Jinnah wrote a letter to the editor of the ‘ Gujarati’ was due to the fact he was still in Congress and more so because none of the delegates who went to meet Minto was a true elected representatives of the Muslims. The British, through Minto had thus achieved “ pulling back of 62 millions (read Muslims) of people from joining the ranks of the seditious opposition (read Congress)”. The author himself in page 51 quotes Ramsay McDonald as saying that Montford Reforms were the cause for communal franchise to get embedded and the British Official mindset was biased favourably to the Muslim community as a counter to the nationalism. As the author points out in page 54, the British would always cover themselves by pointing that the differences were not their making and were already in existence. Any impartial reader who has followed the sequence of events leading to the passage of Indian Councils Act 1909 will definitely discern that it was the British who devised the means of separate electorate to divide the country on communal lines. The Simla Delegation of 1906 sowed the seeds of separation and Lord Minto nurtured the saplings.
Still the author feels that there will be two differing opinions. Still he feels that the British cannot be blamed(refere previous  post). Is it not obvious that the author is trying to exonerate the British at least partially, in order to put the blame on the Congress door steps?

Jaswant Singh's Book Review Page 35

Book Reference: Page 35 Line 11-16

My Preamble: The Author while discussing Islam’s image and reality in page 35 of the book refers to Lord Dufferin describing the Muslims of then India of 1888 as a nation of some 50 million .He then goes on to say that their nostalgic yearning of their glorious past was the reason for first to demand a special position politically in British India and then later on for seeking their own land, Pakistan.

Author’s Views: The author concludes that the Muslims held that they belong to a separate nation and demanded the same in in the 1940s because of the nostalgia of their past and not because Dufferin terming them as such.

Comments: The condensation and conclusion are factually not tenable. It was not the Muslim masses but the Muslim League and their leaders who claimed to be the sole spokesman of the Muslims of the entire sub continent and it was they who claimed a separate nation. The fact remains that, as late as in 1937, The Congress secured absolute majorities in Madras and Bombay, the United Provinces and the Central Provinces, Bihar and Orissa. In Assam it was the strongest party. In the predominantly Muslim Frontier Province, Congress candidates were elected in 15 of 36 seats reserved for Muslims. In Bengal it won 60 of 250. In the predominantly Muslim provinces only 4% voted for Jinnah and his League. Similar was the case in early forties. It is therefore illogical to say that the entire Muslim masses wanted a separate nation either at that time or later. The Bengal and NWF Provinces having majority Muslim population, for example were not supportive for a separate nation. In addition there was a sizable Muslim population in the Princely states who had no voice or voting rights. It is therefore wrong to conclude that the Muslims (by implication all Muslims for a lay reader) were spurred to demand special position and then their own land because of nostalgia of their glorious past.

On the other hand, it is the electoral verdict, which spurred Jinnah, who found no scope of capturing power in a democratic undivided India, to gun for a separate nation. Added to that was the British long-term strategy to have a buffer state in the Northwest to counter the influence of Russia. Long term strategic interest of the British dictated creation of a buffer state in any case, call it by any name, irrespective whether Muslim League wanted it or not. (Refer Appendix IX in the book, of May 1946.) But such thought process with the British especially after their reverses in Afghan wars, began much earlier. Jinnah and the League made their (British) task simpler and gave a holier-than-thou image of the British. The British could hide their ill design behind Jinnah’s claims.

Contrasting his own theory of “nostalgia of the past glory” as the reason for their demand for a separate nation , the author in page 39 says that by 1857,  the Muslim population in the territories of the Provinces under East India Company became indifferent (unconcerned) to the Mughals. May be the author wants to convey that they were more concerned to serving the British at that time and later on their memories got revived and they became nostalgic to demand a separate nation in 1940s!

Jaswant Singh's Book Review Page 27

Book Reference: Page 27 Line 9 to11
Author's View: The author after analysing the attitude of the British towards Muslims in the aftermath of 1857 Mutiny ,concludes, in effect  the following: ( I cannot quote verbatim due to Copyright restriction)
1. They were always apprehensive that they could be driven out of India if the two great fanaticisms of India combined.
2.The British believed that they  are needed as impartial umpires for the Indian Society in general and between Muslims and Hindus in particular.
3. Whenever they could do so, they exploited the division existing between Hindus , Muslims  in particular and in the society in general  which gave scope for own safety.
The author concludes that inspite of all this , he finds it difficult to put all the blame on the British for dividing the two communities.
My Comments:
It is well to recapitulate how the East India Company started, established itself, expanded and ultimately captured power over time by exploiting not only the divisions existing among Hindus and Muslims, but also among Muslims and Muslims, Hindus and Hindus. It was therefore inherent in the British scheme of things to perpetuate and enlarge the division between the masses, once they had made all the Princes impotent.  Later they enlarged the scope to include the depressed classes and other minorities like Anglo-Indians, Parsees etc As we will see later by detailed analysis , how  and why the Round Table Conference failed and other events in the History of  our Freedom Struggle ; how the British promoted the division in our society for their advantage. It is therefore surprising why the author finds it difficult to place the blame on the British. As per the author , it was the Indian National Congress  which should shoulder the blame to the maximum extent  as the author concludes elsewhere that they "engineered" the division of the country.
The reader will see in subsequect posts, my analysis of the recorded events to refute the author's theory.

Jaswant Singh's Book Review Page 29

Book Reference: Page 29 Line 15-22

My Preamble: I would urge the reader to read the original, to fully appreciate the mental disposition of the Author towards the Indian National congress of 1886 . As I have said earlier, the Copyrights restrictions preclude quoting the original verbatim. I also want to emphasize that, I have either now or in the past any political leanings.

Author’s Views expressed and implied: The author implies that The Congress Session of 1886, even at that time took pains to include more Muslims as delegates to the Second Conference (as there were only two unimportant members for the First Session) to project itself as having a supposedly (author's adjective)national character. Even with all their efforts there were, out of a total of about 430, only about 30 odd Muslim participants who were of no consequence.  Sayyid Ahmed Khan condemned the Movement of Congress as “seditious”.

My Comments: Founded in 1885 with the objective of obtaining a greater share in Government for educated Indians, the Indian National Congress was initially not opposed to British rule. The Congress met once a year during December. Indeed, it was a Scotsman, Allan Octavian Hume, who brought about its first meeting in Bombay, with the approval of Lord Dufferin, the then Viceroy. The other founding members were Dadabhai Naoroji, Dinshaw Wacha, Womesh Chandra Bonnerjee, Surendranath Banerjee, Monomohun Ghose, and William Wedderburn.

The Indian National Congress when it was founded was not fighting to end the British Rule. It was composed of highly educated Indians and foreigners to bring to the Government, proposals for better administration for improvement in the living conditions of the masses. From the composition of the members and their aim it can be seen that it was not  projecting a "supposedly” national  character as vilified by the learned author. That it had only two non-prominent members from the Muslims in attendance at the first session is reasoned by the author himself. The author, in the same page, describes the Muslim elite (prominent Muslims) of that era as those who were well known for their attachment to power and the privileges that go with the office and their uncanny ability to stick with the seats of power. It is therefore natural only  a few non- prominent educated Muslims  could make it to the First and Second Session of the Congress. It is very evident that even as far back as 1887, when the Indian National Congress had no agenda for claiming independence or for even home rule in the Centre, Sayyid Ahmed Khan warned, that the Muslims would invite disaster if they supported Congress( as per the author in the same page) so as to be true to British interests. The question arises as to why should Sayyid Ahmed Khan get alarmed if only a few non prominent Muslims attended the Congress Session in 1886. If Congress was only projecting a supposedly national character even as early as 1886, how come Mr. Jinnah was one of the leading members of the same party for quite a number of years?  (who was eulogized by none other than Gokhale)

Why not appreciate the fact that the Congress of 1880s and later was secular in its composition and outlook and was seeking to enforce better governance for the welfare of all, which included Hindus, Muslims and others. There was nothing supposedly national in its character at that time. It was national in its character. I have no comments as to what it is now as I have no interest in  today’s politics.

Jaswant Singh's Book Review Page17

Book Reference: Chapter 1 Page 17 Line 16 to 22
Author's view: The author blames albeit in part the  Historiographers for creating a divisive mindset amongst us by not terming the British, French and Portugese as Christian invaders as opposed to terming  those who came from West and North West as Muslim invaders.

My Comments: The European Imperialists did not bring their Navy or land forces to invade India. Their aim initially was purely commercial. They came here as traders and obtained trading rights by agreeing to pay taxes or rent or bartered real estate either among themselves or from the local chieftains. Those who came from North and West engaged in battles, looted treasures ( 18 times by a well known one) and carried them home, captured and overrun territories.Barring Portugese, neither the British nor the French imposed their religion under duress.(though by inducement).  How the French and British settled their scores using the (Indian) resources of our princely states and extracting a heavy price from the Maharajas and Nawabs are very well documented. It is a different story as to how the kings, the princes  and nawabs fell prey to the designs of the British, French and Portuguese (East India) Companies who exploited to the hilt their palace intrigues, their petty jealousies, plain greed and lust. Why blame the  Historiographers for not calling them invaders?
The author himself in page 36 says that that the Muslim settlers came to India as invaders or raiders or with the invaders!!!

Partition, India & Jaswant Singh Book Review General

I do not profess to be a professional reviewer of books. In fact during my 32 years of Army Service, I could not find time to read books needing concentration. Except perhaps, when we have to do book reviews as part of on going training in the Army, the only books I read were mostly periodicals like Reader's Digest and fiction. After retiring from the Army, I have more than made up for it in the last ten years.

In addition to reading  books on biography and history , I also had the good fortune to edit some of the books published by a famous publishing house based in India.

When a serious controversy broke out regarding a book on "Jinnah  India Partition Independence" by Mr. Jaswant Singh, I was curious to read that book. Having read already the biography of Mahatma Gandhi , his Collected Writings and the story of India's freedom struggle, I found , while going through this  book , some of the conclusions, comments and narrations by the author to be off-the mark.

I read the book again and again (a total of six times) marking on the margin, events, comments and conclusions which to my mind needed cross verification from other sources.

Having done my work, I approached the publishers of the book who hold the copy rights to grant me permission for reproducing the excerpts so as to make it easily discernable for the reader of my review.

I had even promised them that I would send them a copy of my review and they may even publish it if they found it fit for publication.

They have not agreed to give me permission to publish excerpts from the above book. Therefore, I have to find an alternate way of quoting the page numbers and line numbers of the book only.

It therefore becomes necessary that you must have a copy of the book " Jinnah India- Partition Independence" authored by Jaswant Singh to read his contents in original.

But even if you do not have the book with you, I will briefly explain what the author says in my words ( not in the words of the author as it would infringe on the Copyrights), you will still be able to appreciate my review.

I will continue to post in this blogspot my review of the book which will be essentially where and what I differ from the author.

I hold Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah in high esteem. He was undoubtedly one of the greatest leader of the sub-continent of the century. His championing the cause of Hindu-Muslim unity as lauded by Gopal Krishna Gokhale needs no further elaboration. He was a great orator and an incisive analyst of political and social realities. His obduracy was matching and even excelled that of Gandhi's. While Gandhi would relent ultimately to the 'inevitable', what Jinnah said and believed in were inevitable. In my comments whereever I have referred Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah as Jinnah , they have to be assumed as having the full adjectives and honour he commands. He is referred as "Jinnah" only because of the sources from where the context is taken refer him as such. No disrespect is meant by the commentator.