ENCOUNTERJinnah, Nehru and partition

[sandesh]

   

        ENCOUNTERJinnah, Nehru and partition

 

By Asghar Ali Engineer

 

Sunday, 23 Aug, 2009
taken from DAWN: a leading English newspaper from Pakistan
 
  
 

 

MR Jaswant Singh, a former foreign minister of India, has been expelled from BJP for writing a book on architect-founder of Pakistan Mohammad Ali Jinnah and describing him a secular person. He was a senior leader of the BJP and has been associated with it for long.

 

He was known for being an independent-minded leader. Mr Jaswant Singh has thrown responsibility for partition on Jawaharlal Nehru.

 

Earlier Mr. L. K. Advani, another senior leader of the BJP, had also described Jinnah a secular leader while visiting Jinnah’s mausoleum in Karachi and had paid heavy price for his remark as there erupted a controversy on his status in the party and RSS asked him to resign as president of BJP. However, the matter was settled after Advani’s explanation which convinced the leadership.

 

No doubt Jinnah is a highly controversial figure in India. He is greatly admired and is father of the nation in Pakistan. He is often referred to as Baba-e-Qaum by Pakistanis. But he is hated by many in India and is considered mainly responsible for creation of Pakistan and hence a villain of the piece. Such extremes can never adequately define a person, let alone being understood adequately.

 

The motives for describing Jinnah as secular by two top BJP leaders may be different but there is an element of truth in what they say.

 

Shri Advani was speaking as a politician during his visit and may be he tried to please his hosts in Pakistan. Mr. Jaswant Singh is under no such obligation and is speaking as a scholar as he is known to be of fairly independent mind and would not be much concerned about what RSS and BJP leaders would say.

 

It is not only in India that Jinnah is subject to various interpretations, some hate him for dividing India while others absolve him of total responsibility for partition. He is also presented in different lights in Pakistan itself where some moderate and liberal Muslims describe him as secular and often quote his speech in the Constituent Assembly as a proof of his secularism. The conservatives and orthodox Muslims, on the other hand, project him as a believer in two-nation theory and a true Muslim who created Pakistan for Islam and Muslims.

 

We have the same problem with Mahatma Gandhi in India. Some Dalit and RSS leaders hate him but for different reasons. Dalits do so for he was an upper caste Hindu leader who upheld the concept of caste, if not of untouchability.

 

And RSS leaders hate him, though they may not take such a position publicly for obvious reasons. They hate him as they consider Gandhi as betrayer of Hindu cause and supporter of Muslims. They even indulge in propaganda that Gandhiji was responsible for partition of the country.

 

Many people hold Nehru responsible for partition and among them are all types of people — secular as well as communal. The question arises who is really responsible? It is interesting to note that Indians and Pakistanis while holding their leaders responsible have completely exonerated the British rulers of their responsibility in partition.

 

Though secular elements at times do refer to the role of the British, communal forces in both the countries have completely absolved the British. In RSS perception main culprits are Muslims led by Jinnah while in Pakistani propaganda it is Hindus led by Gandhi who are mainly responsible for partition. If one studies the complex developments carefully which took place in mid-fifties it is difficult to fix total responsibility on any one person or party. Different actors played different roles adding up to partition of the country.

 

First, let us see the role of Jinnah since he is at the centre-stage of partition issue. Before this we will also have to look at him whether he was a secular or communal. It must be noted that we cannot go by western definition of secular and communal.

 

We have accepted these terms in our own sense and in our own context. Gandhiji was secular despite being highly religious in his attitude. Nehru, of course, was secular more in western sense than in Indian sense.

 

Similarly, Jinnah was also secular more in western sense. Both Nehru and Jinnah were never as much religious as Gandhi and Maulana Azad were. Nehru was closer to Jinnah than to Gandhiji and Maulana Azad was closer to Gandhiji than to Jinnah. Maulana Azad was also a deeply religious person like Gandhiji though he was more liberal in religious matters than Gandhiji.

 

Jinnah was a thoroughly westernised person right from his younger days. He never had any religious training. He did not strictly avoid things that were deemed as taboos in Islam. He never observed religious rituals.

 

He even disagreed with Gandhiji about involving Ulema in politics and he opposed Gandhiji’s idea of taking up Khilafat question. He believed in separation of politics from religion. He was described as Muslim Gokhale by friends. Gokhale was liberal and so was Jinnah.

 

Jinnah was certainly a secular leader in this sense. Until 1935, he described himself as Indian first and then Muslim. And, until 1937 he had never thought of partition even in his dreams. He even entered into an informal understanding with the Congress in 1937 elections in UP. His differences with Indian National Congress had begun from 1928 onwards when his demands were rejected by the Nehru committee set up by the Congress to solve communal problem. He had even ridiculed the concept of Pakistan initially propounded by Rahmat Ali, a Cambridge University student.

 

The two-nation theory was deeply flawed and Jinnah had formulated it as a sort of political revenge against the Congress leaders like Nehru who refused to take two Muslim League nominees in the UP cabinet after Muslim League lost 1937 elections and Nehru was responsible for this.

 

Maulana Azad tried to persuade Nehru to take the two nominees but unfortunately Nehru did not budge. Some scholars suggest that Rafi Ahmed Kidwai, an influential Congress leader from UP, prompted Nehru. Whatever the reason, politically it was unwise not to take the two Muslim League nominees in the cabinet. Maulana Azad has pointed this out and has criticised Nehru on this count in his political biography India Wins Freedom.

 

Jinnah took it as an outright betrayal and he decisively turned against Congress and gradually this attitude of Nehru led Jinnah to propound the two-nation theory. Thus, the two-nation theory was a politically contingent proposition rather than any religiously grounded proposition.

 

Had Nehru shown some political sagacity this theory would not have come into existence at all. And in no sense of the word Jinnah ever wanted to establish an Islamic state in Pakistan. He would not have even approved of Pakistan having Islam as its official religion.

 

That was not his bent of mind. If one goes by Jinnah’s speech in the Pakistan Constituent Assembly it is doubtful if he wanted even a Muslim state, let alone an Islamic state. He was all for a secular state in Pakistan.

 

Then if we call Jinnah communal in what sense can he be described as one? Or can he be? In those days when we were fighting for freedom of our country communalism was not opposite of secularism, but of nationalism. Anyone who was anti-national was described as communal. Thus, if at all Jinnah could be described as communal it is in this sense. And as pointed out above, Jinnah opted for partition not as part of his conviction but as a result of political contingency.

 

Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru was responsible in a way as he was not very happy with the Cabinet Mission Plan which he though would have resulted in a weak centre and that ex

 

cept defence, foreign policy and communication all residuary powers would have rested with the federating states.

 

Both Nehru and Sardar Patel were not happy with this scheme. And as Azad has pointed out in his book Nehru, on being elected as president of the Congress in 1946, gave a statement that Cabinet Mission Plan could be, if necessary, changed. This infuriated Jinnah as Muslim League had accepted the Plan and a composite government was formed after 1946 elections.

 

This finally drove Jinnah to accept nothing less than partition. The greatest culprit were British rulers as they also wanted India divided so that they could easily establish intelligence and military base in Pakistan to stem the tide of revolution which by then had become a certainty in China. Nehru government would have never allowed such bases in United India. Lord Mountbatten got Nehru, through his wife Advina to endorse the partition plan.

 

Thus it would be seen that apart from Jinnah the British and Nehru were also responsible for partition of the country. In my opinion the greatest responsibility of partition lay on the British shoulders. They cleverly manoeuvred the complex situation in a way to make partition a reality. Partition, as Maulana Azad also pointed out, was neither in the interest of India nor in the interest of Muslims themselves.

 

The ultimate result of partition is that Muslims of Indian subcontinent stand divided into three units and Kashmir problem is also an offshoot of this event. And both the countries are spending billions of rupees on their armies and now such powerful interests have developed in keeping conflict between the two countries alive that all efforts to hold peace talks are not succeeding.

 

If European countries could form a viable union despite the fact that they were at each other’s throats until late forties why can’t we in South Asia?

 

The writer is an Indian scholar and also chairman of Centre for Study of Society and Secularism, Mumbai.

 

E-mail: cs...@mtnl.net.in
 

[Raj Kumar Pandey]

Raj Kumar Pandey

Yog Teacher,

Bharat Swabhiman Vishisht Member,

Patanjali Yogpeeth Sammanit Member

Noida 

 

To

All followers of Pujya Swami Ramdevji

 

OM !

 

Yes, I entirely agree that both the Britishers and Nehru were responsible for the partition of country.

 

2. In this country, unfortunately, Nehru Rajvansha (Indira, Rajiv, Sonia, Rahul, Priyanka) is still ruling India and allowing MNCs to loot this country. Spineless sycophants of this country still praise this person (Nehru) who is responsible for entire angrezi vyavastha and poverty of more than 85 crores of Indians due to loot of MNCs.   

 

3. A little sacrifice from Nehru, by allowing Jinnah to become 1st Prime Minister of India, could have saved us from partition and its consequences which we are facing even after 63 years. 

 

4. I also request all Bharat Swabhiman members to please listen to all the 20 CDs of Bharat Swabhiman which includes lessons on Indian History and stories of how because of this Nehru-Jinnah personal ambitions, this country was partitioned leading to massacre of several lakhs innocent Hindus and innocent Muslims. Even today, we have to remain vigilant and safegaurd against further division of our truncated country, because these present day politicians will again agree for another division for the sake of becoming PM for a smaller part of divided country.   

 

5. But let us not lose hope. We can still unite under a federation or a union (like European Union) called Akhand Bharat (comprising India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Srilanka, Myanmar, Nepal, Ahghanistan) under the guidance and leadership of Yogrishi and Rajrishi Pujya Swami Ramdevji, provided Swamiji start taking interest in building the organisation of committed workers at district/tehsil/block level, which is presently under the control of vision-less persons (Prabharis at all levels) who are not interested in Yog, Swadeshi and Selfless Service, but only interested in making money and promoting their selfish interests by encashing the popularity of Swamiji. All these Prabharis speak/behave in the most dictatorial manner, whenever we talk to them.  Thousands of old and new members have left our Sanstha and thousand others are hesitating to join our Sanstha, only because of insult/non-recognition from these Prabharis.  

 

Jai Bharat !

Vande Mataram !

 

---

From: sandesh <sandesh...@gmail.com>
To: bharatswab...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, October 6, 2010 12:33:43 AM
Subject: [BST] ENCOUNTERJinnah, Nehru and partition

--
Manage emails receipt at http://groups.google.com/group/bharatswabhimantrust/subscribe
To post ,send email to bharatswab...@googlegroups.com
Visit http://www.rajivdixit.com for Rajiv Dixit audio and videos lectures.

[roop shur]

Om Raj Kumar Pandeyji, This is Roop Kumar from Chennai. I was fortunate to be trained directly under Bhabaji in the first batch of teachers in 2006. Since our return we had worked hard for the development of Yog and Bhabha's vision. I was the first Organising Secretary of Patanjali Yog Samiti in Tamilnadu. My brothers in Yog and me spent money from our own pocket to develop the vision. Now with the advent of New Office bearers (like the way you have mentioned and money from Haridwar the movement has lost its focus) I have left the movement totally disillusioned and there many such others who have left after sacrificing their time and money - because of the current situation. Jai Hind - only Bhabha should find methods to save us from these vagaries and protect true and honest devotees. Roop Kumar --- On Wed, 6/10/10, Raj Kumar Pandey <pandey....@ymail.com> wrote:

[Ashwini Soni]

ॐ

राजकुमार जी मैं आपकी बात से पूरी तरह सहमत हूँ, संगठन के सभी लोगों को सबसे पहले भारत और इससे जुडी समस्याओं एवं भारत स्वाभिमान आन्दोलन एवं इनसे जुडी ज्यादा से ज्यादा  जानकारी अर्जित करके अपना लक्ष्य पक्का कर लेना चाहिए जिसके लिए स्वामी जी और राजीव जी के ज्यादा से ज्यादा व्याख्यान सुने और उसके बाद अपने आप को पूरे समर्पण भाव से इस आन्दोलन में झोंक देना चाहिए| लेकिन साथ ही अगर कोई संगठन का व्यक्ति स्वामी जी एवं इस आन्दोलन के नाम और पवित्रता का गलत फायदा उठाते हुए मिले तो उसका भी वही हाल होना चाहिए जो एक देशद्रोही का होता है|

मेरा यह मानना है की अगर कोई इंसान इस संगठन के नाम पर कुछ भी गलत करता हुआ मिले चाहे वो हमारे ही संगठन का कोई वरिष्ट हो तो भी पहले उसे अपने स्तर पर समझाएं और अगर नहीं माने तो सभी लोग साथ में हरिद्वार संपर्क करें और जिम्मेदारों को इससे अवगत कराएँ और ऐसा करने में ज्यादा समय न लगाये क्योंकि ऐसे लोगों की वजह से ही हमारी गति धीमी होगी और साथ ही दुष्प्रचार भी बढ़ जायेगा|

जय भारत

वन्दे मातरम

[Sudhir Sahni]

Few months before partition it was confidencially known to NEHRU
,Mehta &mt baton that J[NNAH is suffering from TB & will not live
long.They did not let others know it .Had the indep day been delaid by
few months, BHARAT would have been greater. But nehru wanted chair
.Read FREEDOM AT MID NIGHT.JAI BHARAT.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Raj Kumar Pandey <pandey....@ymail.com>
Date: Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 12:10 PM
Subject: [BST] Partition of India
To: bharatswab...@googlegroups.com
Cc: Raj Kumar Pandey <pandey....@ymail.com>

[Anil Mittal]

आदरणीय भाई रूप सुर जी,

                                           सप्रेम ओम! निवेदन है कि भारत स्वाभिमान् का आन्दोलन राष्ट्र धर्म है जिसको निभाने का दायित्व एवं कर्तव्य हर मा भारती के धरती मे पैदा होने वाले मनुष्यो का है। योग एवं प्राणायाम हमारी निज के संतुलित  जीवन के लिये आवश्यक नित्य क्रिया है, पतन्जलि योग पीठ से जुडकर ये दोनो कार्य हमारे  सिद्ध् होते है। हमारे स्वार्थ, अहन्कार, मान अपमान, द्वन्द, प्रलोभन, प्रतिस्पर्धा, वाणीदोष आदि का इसमे समावेश होने से हम सब् व्यथित होते है। हमारा सत्य और कर्म निरन्तर हमे रोशनी दिखाते हुए लक्ष्य कि तरफ़् अग्रसर करता है, किसी भी हालत मे संगठन का उल्लन्खन उचित नही है।

 

जय भारत वन्देमातरम!

अनिल मित्तल

[sandesh]

This is really shocking.
if possible, kkindly tell me where to download this book from.
Regards,
Sandesh

OM !

ENCOUNTERJinnah, Nehru and partition

By Asghar Ali Engineer

described Jinnah a secular leader while visiting Jinnah�s mausoleum in

Karachi and had paid heavy price for his remark as there erupted a
controversy on his status in the party and RSS asked him to resign as

president of BJP. However, the matter was settled after Advani�s

all types of people � secular as well as communal. The question arises

he opposed Gandhiji�s idea of taking up Khilafat question. He believed

That was not his bent of mind. If one goes by Jinnah�s speech in the

they were at each other�s throats until late forties why can�t we in

[Shankar Dutt Fulara]

बी.एस.टी. गूगल समुह के सभी सदस्यों के लिए जानकारी  | क्या  हम अपने ऐसे सद्विचारों को, जिनसे  आम जनता को भी जान कर प्रेरणा मिले, सीधे ब्लॉग में लिख सकते हैं ? अभी हम केवल समुह के सदस्य ही अपने इमेल बोक्स में अकेले एक दूसरे के विचारो को पढ़ पाते हैं,वैसे स्वामीजी का ब्लॉग भी है और भा,स्वा.आ क़ी वेब साईट भी है पर वह भी हमारी आवश्यकता को पूरी नहीं कर पा रहे, इसीलिए ग्रुप इमेल की आवश्यकता पड़ी पर उससे भी अच्छा है ब्लॉग का विकल्प | कृपया देख कर अपने सुझाव और सहमती-असहमति अवश्य दें |

स्वाभिमानी भारत

भारत स्वाभिमान न्यास से जुड़े सदस्यों के लिए खुला आमंत्रण

"स्वाभिमानी भारत"
कृपया देखिये और अपने विचार अवश्य दीजिये |
धन्यवाद |
शंकर दत्त फुलारा, विशिष्ट सदस्य भा.स्वा.ट्रस्ट, एवं यो.शि. , अध्यक्ष तहसील-भिकियासेन,जिला,अल्मोड़ा, उत्तराखंड |  

2010/10/6 Raj Kumar Pandey <pandey....@ymail.com>

[Vijay Mohan]

ॐ,

बहुत अच्छा सन्देश !

कभी कभी मैं यह सोचता हूँ के जितनी उग्रता से हम हिन्दू और मुस्लमान लादे , येदी उसकी ५०% भी उग्रता हमने अंगेजों के खिलाफ दिखाई होती तो वे कभी न टिकते !

अंग्रेजों ने कई गुना ज्यादा अत्याचार किये हिंडौन और मुसलमानों दोनों पर उनकी माँ बहिन बेटियों पर पर हम वो सह गए , लेकिन केवल किसी से यह सुनकर के हिन्दू या मुसलमान ने यह किया , न सह पाए ! यह एक गंभीर विषय है , आज भी यह स्वभाव देखा जा सकता है !

मै १००% सहमत हूँ के विभाजन के लिए अंगेज़ ज़िम्मेदार थे और हम धर्म के नाम पर चिंतित थे ! धर्म देश से ऊपर हो गया था !

जय भारत 

2010/10/6 sandesh <sandesh...@gmail.com>

--