Two loving and caring brothers, who live together… share one another’s woes and bliss… ever ready to sacrifice their lives for one another… one day, fight out in the open on petty differences and partition their home by erecting a wall in between. What an irony! When this happens not between two individual brothers but between two brother communities, the irony is multiplied. The hatred is multiplied. And the pain is multiplied.
In 1947, partition alongside independence, became a reality for India. It is argued that Muslims – their party Muslim League, and their demand Pakistan – was responsible for partition. Despite adoption of a secular constitution as an extension to freedom movement, it was perhaps only partition that made India opt for Hindi as against an obvious choice of Urdu as national language and Jana gana mana as against an obvious choice of Saare jahan se achcha as national anthem.
We know that it is painful to recall pain. Yet this recollection is vital in order to know who actually inflicted it and why; what were the circumstances and who was behind the scenes, if any.
Turning over the Radiance files the first article that I could trace on the subject appeared in February 1965. It was titled Partition of India: Muslims not to blame. Written under the pseudonym SHAHID, the article perhaps summarises the dilemma of discussing the issue of partition. It points out, “In Pakistan, where partition has come as a blessing, everyone wants to take the credit for it… Contrarily in India, partition suffers the plight of an unwanted child and no one wants to own it. There is a strange spectacle of shifting responsibility from one shoulder to the other.” Could partition have been avoided? The well-argued article says: yes! “If nationalism in India was not ‘Hinduised’ as Nehru pointed out; if Congress leaders had not been stiff and stubborn with regard to Muslim representation, as chronicled by Azad; and if the Nationalist Muslims had not insisted on their ‘pound of flesh’ as revealed by Biswanath Das, there would have been no partition of India.”
As is clear from the article quoted above, Radiance has reflected upon the partition story as several intellectuals and scholars, belonging to both India and Pakistan and elsewhere, have done in the past 66 years since independence. This reflection, many a time, gives a different twist to the sordid tale of partition. Perceptions different from common simplistic ones were spoon-fed and thrust down the throats of the people by media and curriculum. Over the years, Radiance has also effectively and intrepidly dealt with the tragic and baffling question: who actually was responsible for the partition?
Pandit Sunder Lal, in his article Who was responsible for the partition of India? published on 13 August 1967 considers Britain and its divide-and-rule policy responsible for the tragedy. He argues, “It was just on this principle [i.e. divide & rule] that countries like Ireland, Germany, Austria, Vietnam, Korea and even China have been partitioned. The partition of India of 1947 into the present India and Pakistan is quite in line with the above.” According to him, “Hindu-Muslim dissentions were methodically and scientifically engineered and kept up.” The idea of Hindu nationalism and Hindu Rashtra was carefully nurtured which led to several misgivings between the Hindu and Muslim communities.
Sunder Lal raises a pertinent question why a nation which did not accept the partition of even a province i.e. Bengal in 1905, which had to be annulled in 1911 in the wake of sustained public protests, accepted the partition of the whole nation only 36 years later? The partition of Bengal could have been an administrative need while the latter was a total parting of ways.
LALA LAJPAT RAI’S SUGGESTION
In the article Pandit Sunder Lal – a freedom fighter himself – minces no words in pointing out that Lala Lajpat Rai first suggested the “idea of the partition of India into a Hindu India and a Muslim India” in one of his speeches at Gorakhpur. It should be noted that this is coming straight from the horse’s mouth. Pandit Sunder Lal is an able witness as in his own words, “I had been in the closest contact with him [i.e. Lajpat Rai] since 1901. Six years later I was even his Private Secretary at Lahore up to the time he left for abroad for political reasons”. Sunder Lal clearly recalled in the article that a majority of Indian Muslim leaders regarded this nasty suggestion as a “device to exclude the Muslims from the country”.
Pandit Sunder Lal recalled his stint as member of the Committee appointed by the Congress to look into the Kanpur riots of 1931. He also recalled the report that the committee had prepared which however was banned by the British government before even its publication. Pandit Sunder Lal thus is not new to the Hindu-Muslim problem in the country. In the wake of the riots various Hindu-Muslim Unity Conferences were organised throughout the length and breadth of the nation. He attended most of them. He recalled a conference at Allahabad presided by Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and also attended by Dr. BS Moonje. He writes, “Naturally, Bengal and the Punjab always attracted our best attention in those days in this connection. The Muslim leaders of Bengal wanted 52% of the seats in Bengal to be reserved for the Muslim community. Hindu communal leaders were prepared to grant them 51% and no more. The conference broke down on account of the difference between 51 and 52. How sad!”
What was the role of Jinnah in the partition? Pandit Sunder Lal observed, “Mr. Mohammed Ali Jinnah was not in favour of the partition and that the partition was thrusted (sic) upon him”. He knew Jinnah very well. According to him, “Jinnah wanted some sort of an understanding, a compromise between the Hindus and the Mussalmans for a definite period in order to avoid partition”. Jinnah’s ‘12 Points’ was a formula for such a compromise. According to Sunder Lal, Gandhi was prepared not only to accept this formula but also to concede ‘a blank cheque’ to Jinnah and sign it on behalf of Hindus to avoid partition, but was reprimanded severely from Hindu hardliners and he could not do so.
‘GET RID OF MUSLIM MENACE’
Sunder Lal explicitly mentions that when partition plan was being discussed, many staunch Hindu leaders met Gandhi and Nehru and urged them to get rid of Muslim menace once and for all through partition. Sunder Lal in this period was in “closest touch with Gandhiji”. In the end he says, “Let me here say in all frankness that practically all the Hindu leaders even inside the Congress were, for different reasons, at that time, in favour of accepting independence at the cost of partition. I know the terrible mental agony with which the Mahatma yielded at last. But to say that the Muslims, or the Muslim leaders or even the Muslim League or Mr. Jinnah got the country partitioned is neither correct nor fair.”
He does not stop at that but makes a larger point, “I say it in all conscience that Muslim communalism or any communalism in India is the product of Hindu communalism which is still so deeply rooted and not vice versa.”
In an article published on 21 July 1968, SP Sinha, a Senior Advocate of Supreme Court of India regards Congress’ and especially Nehru’s disregard for Muslim League as responsible for partition. He wrote that Pandit Nehru “referred contemptuously to the Muslim League and every Muslim leader outside Congress”. SP Sinha, after establishing the credentials of Dwarka Das by quoting British politician and Prime Minister Attlee that he [i.e. Dwarka Das] was “one of the wisest and fair-minded commentators on Indian affairs”, cites leisurely from his book Ten years to partition. It was argued by Dwarka Das that Jinnah had laughed away the idea of Pakistan in London when someone mentioned it as Iqbal talking of it. “He is poet and poets are dreamers,” Jinnah is quoted to have said. Dwarka Das had also pointed out that Jinnah was careful not to define the concept of Pakistan simply because he did not want it.
KL Gauba, yet another Senior Advocate of Supreme Court, in an article dated 7 December 1969 mentions a great deal about Hindutva agenda from early 1900s regarding either partition of the country on religious lines or making of a Hindu Rashtra in India. With this narration he wants to prove that fears of Muslims, and of Jinnah for that matter, were legitimate. He argues, “How correct Jinnah’s apprehensions were proved in less than a month after the advent of freedom when the Constituent Assembly made a clean wash of all promises and pledges solemnly made to the minorities earlier in the Objectives Resolution of Dec. 13 1946.” He noted, “The opposition of all the Muslims who had been carried away by Congress edges and promises were lost in the lust and passion of new found power and limitless opportunity.” And he finally laments, “The Muslims of the present generations are paying the price of events, for which they were in no matter responsible.”
MAULANA AZAD’S 30 PAGES
On 5 June 1988, two months before the release of much-hyped 30 pages of the Maulana Azad’s book India Wins Freedom, Kuldip Nayar, in one of his articles, made a few “guesses” regarding what’s hidden in those pages. The “guesses” are informed and rightly explain and summarise Maulana Azad’s argument. This also manifests that Azad’s account was neither fictitious nor only a personal viewpoint – as dismissed by many – but a settled fact. What were those guesses of Nayar is well epitomised in the title of his article Maulana Azad’s 30 pages: How Nehru sabotaged the Cabinet Mission Plan?
Ausaf Saied Vasfi, in his lead article Muslims persecuted for the crimes of Patel and Nehru! (13 Nov 1988), summarises the arguments of Maulana Azad who in his words “spilled the beans though after 41 years of the country’s independence and 30 years after his death”. He even mentions, “It was Sardar Patel – sky is perhaps the limit of brazenness – who as the Union Home Minister issued a circular to the various States that Muslims should not be recruited to police, military and intelligence agencies” and challenges the Home Ministry: “If this is a lie, let our Home Ministry deny it.” He does not stop at Maulana Azad and his 30 odd pages but enumerates several other researches and commentaries for example, MJ Akbar’s research which is based on the secret Nehru-Mountbatten-Menon-Patel negotiations. MJ Akbar too holds Nehru equally responsible for partition.
Ausaf Vasfi also quotes OP Mathai, Nehru’s Private Secretary as saying, “Lord Mountbatten used Lady Mountbatten, in his own way, to make Mr. Nehru agree to the creation of Pakistan. The British lady exerted profound influence on the future prime minister of India.”
He concludes: “That the sustained effort to ignore and bypass Muslim League at crucial junctures and lack of magnanimity and catholicity on the part of the then Congress leadership accelerated the process is not part of another story but of this very sordid story of partition, a fact conceived and created by Sardar Patel and Mr. Nehru, with which they, perhaps never reconciled and some of their followers discovered a ‘whipping boy’ in Indian Muslims”. Patel’s role in partition and later discriminating against Muslims in free India were also analysed in Indian Muslims and Sardar Patel: Need for an objective assessment by Dr. Arshi Khan (5 April 1998) and Sardar Patel and Indian Muslims by Dr. Omar Khalidi (12 July 1998).
In the wake of release of Maulana Azad’s 30 pages, several articles found place in Radiance both summarising and developing upon his thesis. For example, a unanimous article Who actualised the great divide of the subcontinent? published in the issue of 13 November 1988. Unabridged India wins freedom (1 January 1989) by Dr. Abdul Moghni too can be mentioned in this regard. Abdul Moghni was actually responding to the hysterical and sinister criticisms of Maulana Azad and argues that his sacrifices and abilities were no less than his colleagues and contemporaries and “the tallest figures of modern Indian history were not taller than him.”
Abdul Moghni argues, “He was the youngest President of the Congress, the biggest national party, and presided over it, for the longest period, in the most crucial phase of transfer of power from the English to the Indians. He had with him all the confidential papers of the political negotiations and knew everything from inside.” He laments on the “undue and inordinate sensitiveness to criticism, however sincere and well-meaning” because “it suggests we have not yet grown mature enough to face facts dispassionately and are swept by sentiments, on the slightest provocation”.
Abdul Moghni argues that Azad’s view cannot be dismissed just as personal views of no consequence as done by a TOI editorial (14 November 1988) and thunders, “The ostrich may bury his head in the sand. But he cannot escape the pursuer, which is history, in this case.” He also argues that the fact that Nehru read those 30 pages after death of Maulana Azad and allowed its publication without any attempt at refuting his friend speaks volumes about the veracity of the account. He is at his eloquent best when he points out that “Providence had chosen” Azad to divulge the truths of partition and he did an excellent job.
Now, “The nations of the Indian subcontinent ought to be thankful to him. Muslims should be proud of his achievement. Indians must objectively consider the points raised by him. Historians have to take note of the cues and clues provided by him. National leaders must go into self-introspection and take lessons from the past for the future betterment.”
As the truth of partition was finally in the open, a lead article on the subject – They owe an apology to Muslims! – by Ausaf Saied Vasfi appeared in Radiance in its issue of 27 November 1988. However, this apology (and several apologies for that matter), never really came!
RARE MATERIAL ON PARTITION
From 30 April to 21 May 1995 Radiance published an exclusive Partition Story in four instalments penned by Mansoor Ahmed, a retired IFS officer. This series was based on latest researches and official documents unavailable to his predecessor writers on the theme. This rare material includes besides 12 volumes of Transfer of power: 1942-47 documents, Wavell: The Viceroy Journal etc. Among secondary sources he relied on HM Seervai (Partition of India: Legends and Reality), Abul Kalam Azad (India Wins Freedom), KK Aziz (The Maker of Pakistan), Dr. Ayesha Jalal (The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League and the Demand of Pakistan), SK Bandopadhya (Qaide Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah and the Creation of Pakistan), besides works of Penderal Moon, SK Majumdar, Kanji Dwarkadas etc. This series ably summarises the essence of all the arguments generated in above mentioned works and much more. Most notably, Mansoor Ahmed takes the ‘allegation’ of Azad and others about Nehru to a step further implicating the whole top leadership of Congress. He argues, “The utterances and assertions of Pandit Nehru as the President of the Congress at Bombay during that fateful press conference was taken by Jinnah as the Congress Party’s repudiation of the Plan. Repudiation, it actually was, because neither the AICC nor Gandhiji did anything thereafter to salvage the Plan. The Muslim League, as could be expected, took no time to withdraw its acceptance of the Plan and announced the launching of ‘Direct Action’, whatever it might have meant then.”
MN ROY’S VIEWPOINT
RM Pal in his article Quit India Stir and Partition published in two instalments on 1 & 8 June, 1997 had explained MN Roy’s viewpoint regarding Hindu-Muslim problem of India and partition. Regarding the role of Jinnah in partition of the country, he quotes MN Roy at length saying, “The fact, however, is that, if distrust and hatred of the British were the hallmark of patriotism, Jinnah was always as stanch a patriot as any other Indian… his ambition was not to gain political power, but avenge the wrong which he believed had been done to him. But he was not the devil of the drama, as he was made out to be… Like a gambler, overconfident of his wits, he staked high, believing that the other party would compromise on his terms. That would have been best of all concerned. But the latter having taken up the attitude of all or nothing, Jinnah was driven to the bitter end – of gaining a victory he himself dreaded and which he did not survive.”
Dr. Mukhtar Ahmed in Muslims and Partition of India (30 August 1998) quotes Ram Manohar Lohia from his book Guilty Men of Indian Partition, “The opposition of fanatical Hindus to partition did not and could not make any sense, for one of the forces that partitioned the country was precisely this Hindu [read Hindutva_Ed.] fanaticism.”
A controversy regarding partition was also created by Jaswant Singh when he wrote Jinnah: India, Partition, Independence. The stir in one respect was comparable to the release of Maulana Azad’s 30 pages which made the partition the topic of drawing room discussion and debate. Several articles were published in Radiance as well.
ROLE OF CLASHES OF EGOS
I had the privilege to review Jaswant Singh’s book for Radiance which was published in the issue of 6 September, 2009. In the review, I pointed out that Jaswant Singh, throughout the book, has carefully avoided saying anything on his own and speaks through the tongues of Maulana Azad, Ram Manohar Lohia, Sir Chimanlal Setalvad and others. The review briefly enumerated tens of opportunities (of keeping India united) that Congress brazenly grounded, besides analysing them in the light of scholarly opinions of Akbar S. Ahmad, Ayesha Jalal and others. Jaswant Singh’s comments that, “Modern Indian historiography has not sufficiently analysed the role of such Muslim parties as the Khaksars, Ahrars, Khudai Khidmatgars, Momins and such others who opposed the partition of India” were lauded.
The core argument in the end, I remember having made, was as follows, “In the end the picture emerges conclusively that partition became a reality – however nightmarish – not due to the clash between nationalism and communalism as is commonly believed in India but on the dispute over the distribution of power between centre and provinces and on disagreements over the provisions for the protection of minorities from majoritarianism in the would-be emerging democratic order. The role of clashes of egos and strained relations between Nehru and Jinnah also played their role.”
Ausaf Saied Vasfi, in his article dated 6 September 2009, points out that BJP’s fury over Jaswant Singh’s book is nothing but their ignorance of their own history. He argues that Jana Sangh’s President Shyama Prasad Mukherjee had supported the partition plan. He also points out that the Sangh ideologue HV Seshadri in his book The Tragedy of Pakistan has blamed both Nehru and Patel for partition. Interestingly enough, the article also quotes KS Sudarshan’s statement in which he said, “It was not Jinnah but Gandhi’s soft corner for Nehru that resulted in the 1947 partition… Gandhi had repeatedly offended Jinnah. One day when Jinnah went to meet the Mahatma, he was made to wait for an hour. Jinnah was a man of self respect… Jinnah had worked with Lokmanya Tilak. He was a man committed to nationalism.”
In Jinnah Alive and Haunting BJP (30 August 2009) Soroor Ahmed argues that though Advani on his trip to Pakistan also regarded Jinnah as secular, he was not expelled from the party, he just ‘voluntarily’ resigned from the presidentship of the party but after writing the analytical book Jaswant Singh was expelled from the membership as well. What more did he do? The answer is, “Jaswant did almost the same but was more balanced and analytical in putting the blame of partition. He was honest enough to hold Vallabh Bhai Patel also responsible. How can this happen in the BJP where Patel is an ideal for Lal Krishna Advani and many others.”
PARTITION IN A NUTSHELL
In short, if the coverage of partition of India in Radiance is summarised in bullet points we may get the following:
- The plural yet harmonious society in India was communally polarised by the British government in its pursuit of the divide-and-rule policy.
- The two-nation theory was coined by Hindutva ideologues.
- In the wake of sustained propaganda of Hindutva hardliners for a Hindu Rashtra, scrapping of Urdu for Hindi, strong unitary state etc., the Muslim fears were legitimate.
- Muslims, including the Muslim League, could have easily been taken into confidence through adequate safeguards for example Cabinet Mission Plan or Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru’s suggestion for parity in central legislature and constituent assembly, etc.
- Highhandedness of Congress leaders like Patel and Nehru cornered Jinnah who was left with no choice but to opt for partition.
- Laying responsibility of partition at the doorstep of Indian Muslims, Hindutva forces have deliberately created misconceptions in the mind of common Hindus; a sense of shame and inferiority complex in Muslims; and sown discord in the society and polity.
WAY-OUT
However, Radiance did not stop just at divulging the truth of partition. Several means were suggested, over the time, to recuperate and salvage the damage and animosities between the two countries and also between the two communities. Some suggestions that may look wild, weird, unpractical, and unrealistic but should be mentioned for the sake of record are as follows:
Pandit Sunder Lal, in his article mentioned above talks of partition of Bengal and argued, “The then Viceroy and Governor General of India declared that the partition was a ‘settled fact’. But the settled fact did become un-settled. The partition of Bengal was annulled in 1911”. The strong desire behind these words of a repeat of history is too visible to be disclosed.
Moinuddin Ahmed in his article Why not a Confederation of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh? (1 October 1972) recalls the charismatic leadership of George Washington and how he united the weak and the scattered States in North America in a single and powerful United States of America. Ahmed argues that this unity began with only 13 States in 1781. “Thereafter, it continued to extend benefits to member States to such a marked degree that the parent body kept growing by attracting new member States one after the other, till it became a vast country now composed of 51 member States.” He then propounds, “…Indian confederation may start with three member States now, but if we correctly draw inspiration from the wisdom and prudence of leaders like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, the Indian Confederation may similarly grow in future by attracting other neighbouring sovereign States whether it is Nepal, Ceylon, Afghanistan or some such other states.”
Similarly, Waheed H. Hashmi, in his article (29 March 1998) The partition: a Misunderstood and Mismanaged Affair, argues, “If Pakistan and Bangladesh in spite of choosing Islamic constitution and rule give equal treatment to the minorities and protect their faith and culture honestly, as the Islamic political system envisages, and if Indian democracy despite its secular constitution, gives its minorities an irrevocable right to live according to their faith and Personal Laws, then we can hope for ushering in a new era of peace, progress and prosperity in the subcontinent. In this perspective we can also think about the formation of a strong confederation of these countries. At present we cannot expect initiative on this count for political parties. This task may be undertaken by non-political organisations and intellectuals who have no political ambitions or commitments. A dialogue on these lines in the print and electronic media is the need of the hour.”