It took me quite some time to finish reading the above-mentioned book, published by the Oxford University Press in 2010. Quite some time, because it deals with Mohammad Ali Jinnah, and through him, Mahatma Gandhi also, in a very different way from many of the existing ones.
To be very short, its conclusion is that 'the last clear chance of averting the mishap', (p.220),meaning the partition of India and Pakistan and all the accompanying destruction, bloodshed, etc.,was not in the hand of Jinnah and the Muslim League, but that of Gandhi and the Congress. Therefore 'the final responsibility for partition was not his'(pp.269-70).
Indeed very few works apart from the official records of the Muslim League have written in this clear mode.
One notable thing that the author has been persistently fair to Gandhi, or Jawaharlal Nehru, though they have been the target of severe criticism by the author many times in the book.
For instance Nehru has often been criticized of being cold to Jinnah, the Muslim League or the Muslims in general. But once the country was divided, and he was put in the topmost administrative post, 'Nehru...fought manfully for secularism and for the Muslims' place in India till his dying day'. Similarly on Gandhi the author writes that 'Gandhi bravely fought communal violence...He knew he was courting death. Gandhi consciously chose the path and died a martyr's death'(both p.262).
The author's criticism of Nehru, and more so of Gandhi, most conspicuously concern their role in breaking up the idea of the three-tier federal system, a way of keeping a united India without creating Pakistan, presented by the British Cabinet Mission in May 1946. Gandhi's intellectual and physical energy as is shown in Chapter 5, entitled The Gandhi-Cripps Pact, and the author's persistence in reading a consistent motive on the part of Gandhi of wrecking the proposed Indo-Pakistani unity, is really startling.
What Gandhi thought at that time may not have been legally completely wrong. But once he torpedoed the original Plan by his own interpretation, what could he have done to save the situation? Did he have a different idea of keeping the unity of India? Did he have something with which to make the Muslim population at ease? No, nobody was able to see any other way of keeping peace then, Gandhi or no Gandhi. Once the idea of unity was broken up there was only carnage and bloodshed. This has been testified time and again until now, 2012.
My point of writing this piece, however, is not to attribute responsibility to Gandhi. That has been done enough by the author. I would like to say a little bit rather on Jinnah, as the author, though having been fair to him also, has not said enough about him.
First, even seeing the end of the Mission Plan, where was the reason of the direct action in Calcutta, and elsewhere by the Muslim League? It was massacre and arson and destruction on an un-heard of scale in modern Indian history. It is this that decided that the coming partition would be full of bloodshed.
Second, the author writes that Gandhi 'was mentally prepared for partition' in his letter of 17 December 1946(p.218). The letter in question must be a small note titled "Note on Constituent Assembly". It was from Noakhali, where Gandhi was almost single-handedly facing the communal animosity, the hatred by the Muslim League, and said that one must understand what Pakistan is like from Noakhali. He was not necessarily pre-determined.
Third, as Dr.T.R.Sareen's recent work has shown, the Muslim League's position was assured not just once by the British authorities, who had almost confirmed the Pakistan resolution of March 1940. Jinnah was not on the same level as Gandhi. He was in a much more privileged position.
Fourth, was there anything Jinnah thought of giving the Muslims by carving Pakistan, apart from the limited number of legislators, civil servants, and army officers posts?
Finally, fifth, the author rightly says that the Hindu-Muslim composite culture was damaged a great deal by the partition(p.268). It is Gandhi, if at all, who showed feeling of deep sorrow on this point. Jinnah did not care himself at all, as is shown in his Pakistan speech where he stressed the divisiveness of different cultures of the different nations in India.
To be very short, its conclusion is that 'the last clear chance of averting the mishap', (p.220),meaning the partition of India and Pakistan and all the accompanying destruction, bloodshed, etc.,was not in the hand of Jinnah and the Muslim League, but that of Gandhi and the Congress. Therefore 'the final responsibility for partition was not his'(pp.269-70).
Indeed very few works apart from the official records of the Muslim League have written in this clear mode.
One notable thing that the author has been persistently fair to Gandhi, or Jawaharlal Nehru, though they have been the target of severe criticism by the author many times in the book.
For instance Nehru has often been criticized of being cold to Jinnah, the Muslim League or the Muslims in general. But once the country was divided, and he was put in the topmost administrative post, 'Nehru...fought manfully for secularism and for the Muslims' place in India till his dying day'. Similarly on Gandhi the author writes that 'Gandhi bravely fought communal violence...He knew he was courting death. Gandhi consciously chose the path and died a martyr's death'(both p.262).
The author's criticism of Nehru, and more so of Gandhi, most conspicuously concern their role in breaking up the idea of the three-tier federal system, a way of keeping a united India without creating Pakistan, presented by the British Cabinet Mission in May 1946. Gandhi's intellectual and physical energy as is shown in Chapter 5, entitled The Gandhi-Cripps Pact, and the author's persistence in reading a consistent motive on the part of Gandhi of wrecking the proposed Indo-Pakistani unity, is really startling.
What Gandhi thought at that time may not have been legally completely wrong. But once he torpedoed the original Plan by his own interpretation, what could he have done to save the situation? Did he have a different idea of keeping the unity of India? Did he have something with which to make the Muslim population at ease? No, nobody was able to see any other way of keeping peace then, Gandhi or no Gandhi. Once the idea of unity was broken up there was only carnage and bloodshed. This has been testified time and again until now, 2012.
My point of writing this piece, however, is not to attribute responsibility to Gandhi. That has been done enough by the author. I would like to say a little bit rather on Jinnah, as the author, though having been fair to him also, has not said enough about him.
First, even seeing the end of the Mission Plan, where was the reason of the direct action in Calcutta, and elsewhere by the Muslim League? It was massacre and arson and destruction on an un-heard of scale in modern Indian history. It is this that decided that the coming partition would be full of bloodshed.
Second, the author writes that Gandhi 'was mentally prepared for partition' in his letter of 17 December 1946(p.218). The letter in question must be a small note titled "Note on Constituent Assembly". It was from Noakhali, where Gandhi was almost single-handedly facing the communal animosity, the hatred by the Muslim League, and said that one must understand what Pakistan is like from Noakhali. He was not necessarily pre-determined.
Third, as Dr.T.R.Sareen's recent work has shown, the Muslim League's position was assured not just once by the British authorities, who had almost confirmed the Pakistan resolution of March 1940. Jinnah was not on the same level as Gandhi. He was in a much more privileged position.
Fourth, was there anything Jinnah thought of giving the Muslims by carving Pakistan, apart from the limited number of legislators, civil servants, and army officers posts?
Finally, fifth, the author rightly says that the Hindu-Muslim composite culture was damaged a great deal by the partition(p.268). It is Gandhi, if at all, who showed feeling of deep sorrow on this point. Jinnah did not care himself at all, as is shown in his Pakistan speech where he stressed the divisiveness of different cultures of the different nations in India.
No comments:
Post a Comment