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!!!