Jaswant Singh's History of Freedom Struggle

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

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.

Book Reference: Page 194 Line 13-14

Author’s Views: The author after describing the stand taken by various delegates of the Second Round Table conference concludes their hair splitting arguments were sad, ironic and tragic. ( The reader is urged to go through the book as I can not quote the text verbatim due to copyright constraints)

Comments: It would be better to follow the proceedings of the conference in toto before arriving at any conclusion/ comment on the wisdom of the people who attended the conference irrespective they belonged to Congress or Minorities or Depressed Classes (who all indulged in the so called circular hair splitting). The author while narrating events as told by Aga Khan , Begam Shaw Nawaz etc conveniently by passes the actual proceedings of the Conference. A brief on the same is given below.

The work of the RTC was done by two Committees namely, the Federal Structure Committee and the Minorities Committee. Gandhi was a member of both. He demanded control by the Federal Legislature of the Army and Foreign Affairs. He objected to the provisions suggested in regard to commercial discrimination and to the proposed financial safeguards. He wanted that, before they were taken over by a National Government, financial obligations of the Government of India would have to be scrutinized. What was the contribution/ stand of other Indian members to the Federal Structure Committee on these issues? None, as they had no clue as to what Gandhi was driving at. A scrutiny or financial audit of the Government would have put extensive financial obligations on His Majesty’s Government.

Gandhi took part in the negotiations with persistence in the proceedings of the Minorities committee. Dr. Ambedkar demanded separate electorates for Depressed Classes and he was supported by other minorities barring Sikhs. Dr.Ambedkar declared “ the Depressed classes are not anxious, they are not clamorous, they have not started any movement for claiming that there shall be immediate transfer of power from the British to the Indian people”. Muslim and Sikh speakers made it clear that they could not commit themselves to the federal scheme until the communal issue has been solved. Aga Khan presented a memorandum to the Prime Minister demanding, in addition to the maintenance of the statutory rights, special representation through communal electorates and a declaration of civil rights. Gandhi was agreeable if the Prime Minister gives his decision only in so far as it related to Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs. He would press congress to accept MacDonald’s award. Aga Khan, Shoukat Ali, Jinnah, Shafi and Iqbal, declared that they would not be a party to any document unless it included all minorities. (Why? Because they wanted to scuttle any decision being arrived at).

When Mcdonald during his speech on November 13, included the Depressed Classes demand for separate electorates in the Minorities pact, Gandhi was determined to oppose it. He declared that the different communities were encouraged to press, with all the vehemence at their command, their own respective views, and pointed out that this question was not the main fulcrum, but the central fact was Constitution Building. He pertinently asked whether the delegates were brought here 6000 miles from India to settle the communal question? He was very vehement that he did not want “on our register and on our census untouchables, classified as a separate class”. This was his principled stand and it was no circular hair splitting. He, very rightly felt that the Communal Question / Minority Issues are internal and not to be resolved by an outsider (ie. The British). It is surprising how the author omitted the stand taken by the representative of Depressed Classes and Gandhi’s stand during the Conference.

It is also worth the while to recapitulate what Gandhi spoke during the Plenary Session on November 28 (almost at midnight.) “ I do not think anything I can say this evening can possibly influence the decision of the cabinet. Probably the decision has already been taken. Matters of liberty of practically a whole continent can hardly be decided by mere argumentation.” He reemphasized that the communal problem might be solved if the wedge of the foreign rule was withdrawn, driving the point that it would be better to solve the problem in-house rather asking a third party to mediate.

The wedge of the foreign rule was the root cause of the communal problem, which Gandhi correctly diagnosed where as all others were asking the perpetrators of the problem to solve the same! Yes this is what is ironic.

The outcome of the Second Round Table Conference may be sad and tragic but definitely not ironical.

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.

Book Reference: Page 188 Concluding Line 5 to 7

Author’s Views: Narrating the Gandhi–Irwin Pact and Gandhi’s doubtful participation in the Round Table Conference and Lord Willingdon’s efforts, the author concludes that Lord Wellingdon did not yield any vital postion nor let off any interest of the government. The author questions to the effect as to what had Gandhi gained in all this drama? (This is regarding the Settlement of 5th March 1931 and Congress Working Committee's decision not to send Gandhi to attend the Round Table Conference and later on Gandhi changing the decision )

Comments: On 20 August 1931, Gandhi’s wrote in an editorial entitled “ The Real issue”. Excerpts: “ Though apparently very little difference between the Government and the Congress led to the decision of the Working Committee not to send me to London (for the RTC), really the difference was fundamental. …The charge sheet will give a glimpse of the breeches alleged by the Congress to have been made by the respective provincial governments. If the settlement were a legalized document, the Government would be suable in a court of law. The fact, however, is it is not legalized, throws a double responsibility on the Government of giving Congress a tribunal, where it can prove those breeches, or where it can get authoritative ruling on the interpretation of several clauses of the settlement or of its implications…In their opinion, co-operation means acceptance of their orders and authority and not mutual trust and accommodation between parties to the contract. If the Congress was unworthy of confidence or if its demands are distasteful or unacceptable to the British government, the settlement should not have been entered into. Further if the congress by any action on its part proved itself unworthy of confidence, the settlement should have been repudiated”

After corresponding with Gandhi, the Viceroy who was in Calcutta hastened to Simla and on Gandhi’s request (to personally explain and clear up any misunderstanding )granted him an interview on 25 August . Following the discussion with Mr. Emerson, the Home Secretary and later his talk with the Viceroy, a communiqué was published on August 28. This was generally refereed as ‘the second settlement”.

It provided a) that the Congress would be represented at the RTC by Gandhi. b) that the settlement of 5 March would be operative. c) that the congress complaint regarding the repression in Bardoli would be made the subject of an inquiry by a Collector under the precise terms of reference. d) that the future complaints would be dealt with in accordance with ordinary administrative procedure, including the question of holding an inquiry. Most importantly Gandhi made it clear that “if any grievance is so actually felt that it becomes a paramount duty of the Congress to seek some method of relief, in the absence of an inquiry, in the shape of defensive direct action, the Congress should be held free to adopt such remedy notwithstanding the suspension of civil disobedience”. This most important clause was an integral part of the second settlement. These were what Gandhi gained. That is why he agreed to leave for the RTC on Aug 29 . May be the author was unaware of the 'second settlement'.

Book Reference: Page 150 Concluding para

Author’s Views: Concluding the Chapter 3, the author says , the political forces in India got divided, with one side composed of the Government and Muslims and the Hindus on the other. Due to Gandhi’s Civil Disobedience Movement and Dandi March ( Salt Satayagraha), the Muslims who were the beneficiaries of the system stood by and defended the Raj and the system.

Comments: The conclusions are not borne out of facts. Does the learned author imply that all Muslims were siding with the government and became its beneficiaries and as a corollary all Hindus opposed the Government and were part of the Congress? There was a sizable population of Muslims who stood shoulder to shoulder with Gandhi and an equally sizable Hindu population who were siding with the Government, the system and thereby the Raj. Secondly the Indian body politic was not composed only of the religious segments of Muslims, Hindus and the Government. (the first line of the paragraph in the book). There were many political parties, the Congress, The Indian Muslim League, The Hindu Maha Sabha, The Justice Party et all. The author’s division of the Indian body politic purely on two major religions is mischievous. There were many Muslims who were members of the Congress and likewise there were many Hindus who were staunch opponents of Congress and supporters of the British.

It is apparent that the author wants to decry the Civil Disobedience Movement of Gandhi and the Dandi March only because Jinnah was opposed to them. It is beyond controversy that the Dandi March was the unifying force and the spark that ignited the mass awakening of the subjugated Indians to stand up to the might of the Raj of 1930s. While the British Press suppressed the Jalianwala Bagh massacare and subsequent excesses in Punjab from international exposure and succeeded in it to a great extent, the Dandi March (and its aftermath ), no doubt was the first major political struggle which drew attention of the international press highlighting the plight of Indians and the non-violent struggle lead by Gandhi.

The fact that the British had a tacit understanding with those opposed to Indian National Congress and Gandhi’s political appeal was the real reason why the beneficiaries of the system supported the Raj. All Muslims were not the beneficiaries of the Raj and like wise not all Hindus were with Gandhi as the author wants us to believe.

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(Jinnah's) demands by the Congress Session in Calcutta was the reason for 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?

Book Reference: Page 107 to 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?