Behind every successful Jinnah, there is a Gandhi – 2
by Radha Rajan on 09 Sep 2009 11 Comments

Hindus lack political objectives and strategic intent
“Partition”, like Surf-ka-daag, “accha hai”, repeated Arun Shourie, quoting a similar view expressed by the late Shri Girilal Jain. The writer can see no reason for Shourie to parrot ‘partition was good’ unless it was meant as a short-sighted and faulty stratagem to exonerate Patel and Nehru of the culpability pinned on them for Partition by Jaswant Singh.

A meticulous study of the sequence of events leading up to Partition from any of the primary sources cannot but lead us to Gandhi; but rather than look honestly in the direction pointed by these sources, or even if he did, Arun Shourie has nevertheless chosen not to cast his eyes above Nehru and Patel. Shourie, uncharacteristic of his reputation for forthright writing, has instead opted to go along with Jaswant Singh that Patel and Nehru were indeed responsible for Partition, but adds they are not to be held guilty of the deed because Partition was good for us.

If Partition was indeed a good thing, then not only Patel and Nehru, but Jinnah, too, cannot be held guilty and cannot be held up as history’s villain. Arun Shourie cannot fault us for coming to this ridiculous conclusion.

The unprecedented and completely avoidable vivisection of the Hindu nation in 1947 was effected because –

- Important Hindus have never understood that both Islam and Christianity are predatory political ideologies masquerading as religions

- Muslims demanded vivisection of the Hindu nation bluntly in the name of their religion and it was granted and realized by the Christian-colonial British government which had its own reasons for vivisecting the Hindu nation

- Hindus made no decisive and organized effort at any point in the long drawn-out process to avert vivisection; the Muslim League and the British government merely allowed us, the defeatists, to cut our losses and retrieve whatever we could of our territory

- Gandhi was the sole deciding voice in the INC speaking and acting for the entire non-Muslim League Indian people, of which the Hindus constituted the absolute majority populace; Gandhi and Gandhi alone made all the choices and decisions in the INC, at least until the moment the Cabinet Mission returned home at the end of June 1946, admitting failure to get the INC and Muslim League to come together for transfer of power

- Nehru went along with Gandhi between 1942 and 1947, even after Gandhi’s closest colleagues and friends had distanced themselves from him, because as Gandhi’s political heir, anointed by Gandhi himself, Nehru wanted to inherit this Hindu civilization as a de-Hinduised personal fiefdom, without the violent Muslim elements which he knew he could not handle

- Sardar Patel, Rajaji, Rajendra Prasad and all other Hindu leaders in the INC, like Aurobindo, Tilak and Lajpat Rai before them, did not have the capacity or the vision to make the INC a Hindu vehicle; they also did not dare or did not have the capacity to depose Gandhi; this is the nature and the extent of their culpability for vivisection

- Gandhi, even in 1946, still holding on to the belief that the British Empire was essentially a just power, welcomed the Cabinet Mission proposals with alacrity within the first two days after the Cabinet Mission and the Viceroy made the document public, and endorsed it as being the best formula that the British government could have produced under the circumstances; the nation was thus stuck with the Cabinet Mission proposals as the only means to get the British out of the country

- Gandhi chose to make the Imperial Government’s dangerous and loaded Cabinet Mission proposals the instrument by which the British would effect transfer of power, instead of using his authority and power to place the well-drafted Sapru Committee proposals as the alternative Indian instrument

- Gandhi’s insistence on doing politics for which he did not have the sagacity or understanding, made it possible for Mountbatten to present Gandhi in April 1947 with Hobson’s choice – accept the Cabinet Mission proposals or accept vivisection

- The Muslim League under Jinnah’s leadership had demonstrated that they would not stop until they achieved Pakistan, through the Cabinet Mission route, through British-aided and abetted vivisection, or through violence

- The Muslim League was led by a man who ensured Pakistan through all routes, while the Congress was led by a man who led the Hindu nation to humiliating defeat and vivisection through any route 

The readiness with which we are willing to retain Jinnah as the sole villain of our freedom movement, and our unwillingness to look beyond Patel and Nehru in the Congress to apportion blame for vivisection, tells us something about ourselves – as a people we lack the courage to ask the right questions because we are afraid that the answers may reveal something about ourselves or bring down our little gods from their pedestals.

Vivisection of the Hindu nation could have been averted only –

- If Gandhi and the other tall Hindu leaders in the INC had understood the political objectives of Islam and Christianity

- If Gokhale, Gandhi and the others had understood the diabolic intent behind the first Partition of Bengal

- If the INC had understood in 1906 the purpose behind the creation of the Muslim League in December 1906 as being the natural progress of the trend that began with the creation of the INC in 1885 and the Partition of Bengal

- If the Hindus in the INC had understood that Islam is always ready to attain its political objectives through sustained and determined violence

- If the Hindus in the INC had rejected at least in 1942 the paralyzing Gandhian non-violence and rejected Gandhi’s leadership and at least then sat down to discuss how the Muslim League could be stopped from attaining its stated objective of creating Pakistan

- If the Hindus of the nation had demonstrated to the Muslims from the time of the Moplah massacre that they would defend the territory of the Hindu nation by all and every means

- If at least in 1940 when the Muslim League declared in Lahore that they would now work for realizing Pakistan, the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha had joined hands to stir the Hindus of the nation to a sense of the impending danger to their nation’s territory and provided the Hindus with a determined Hindu leadership

A self-respecting and determined nation and its people would take stock of a given situation, consult the necessities and proceed to the invention, as Aurobindo remarked; which means a nation devises, invents appropriate tools as demanded by the situation. After reading the corpus of the brilliant and inspirational political writings by Aurobindo from 1893 to 1910, and after reading the Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, it emerges that the British government and the Muslim League had always acted with a sound understanding of politics and the determination to achieve their respective political objectives.

Had the Hindus in the INC, the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha understood this then, they would have realized that the Muslims and the British both threatened the territory of the Hindu nation. That they did not consult the necessities is evident because they did not proceed to the invention. The Hindu leadership of the times did not, could not stop vivisection of the Hindu nation.

And yet, the INC and/or the RSS-Hindu Mahasabha could have averted vivisection of the Hindu bhumi; the INC because it was the largest and most potent political instrument with a preponderance of Hindus as members and cadre, while the RSS-Hindu Mahasabha though not as large as the INC was however wholly Hindu with the potential to evolve into a powerful, forceful and aggressive Hindu combine and an effective political instrument. Whatever the reasons, while one refused to be a Hindu vehicle, the other failed to become a political instrument.  

There is no doubt that the British manufactured the INC first to wean away important sections of the Hindus from ideas of armed resistance for freedom from colonial rule, and then manufactured the Muslim League as a thorn in the flesh of the INC. From 1885, when the INC was created and until 1947 when the British government and the Muslim League had both attained their respective objectives, the INC, especially the INC under Gandhi, remained faithful to British intent. It abjured ideas of nationalism, abjured armed resistance, abjured the Tilak-Aurobindo demand for total and non-negotiable political freedom, flirted with Hindu-Muslim unity on the one hand and coquetted with the British government on the other. 

Gandhi’s INC vacillated between political freedom struggle and his social mission, thus blunting the political edge and losing focus; this was in sharp contrast to the Muslim League which saw the possibilities that the first partition of Bengal threw up for Muslims and from then on worked to return Muslim rule over India. The Muslim League and the Muslim leadership was determined to either bring the Hindu nation under Islamic rule yet again, or tear the Hindu nation apart to create a Muslim state. The growth and increasing stridency of the Muslim League was in direct proportion to the lack of focus and the confused drifting of the INC under Gandhi, between a diluted political mission and a challenging social and economic mission. Gorbachev made the same mistake that Gandhi made decades ago and with the same catastrophic results.

From December 1906, when the Muslim League was created, the leaders of the INC ought to have designed their battle-gear to confront both the Muslim League and the British government in the three-cornered war which was nothing less than conquest and control of the Hindu nation. Gandhi led the INC into the battleground with only one instrument – his brand of non-violence, while the British government stood with the full might of state power, and the Muslim League was armed with jihad in its armoury. All other non-Congress Hindus stood on the sidelines and watched Gandhi leading the war decisively towards vivisection.

The Hindu nation must begin the process of asking the right questions with the first set of related questions –

- What was the ultimate objective of the Gandhi-led freedom struggle?

- Was it only to end colonial rule or also to prepare the nation for the consequences of an ascendant Islam?

- Had Gandhi tested his brand of non-violence against organized violence enough to come to the conclusion that his non-violence always succeeded as he claimed in Hind Swaraj?

- Why, if Gandhi’s political leadership was failing under their very noses, did other important Hindus in the INC and other Hindu organizations not lift up their voices against Gandhi’s methods and leadership of the INC?

(To be continued)
The author is editor

User Comments Post a Comment

Back to Top