Date Posted- 03 - March - 2014
India's partition in 1947….
Most of the Indians didn't want that. No one believed that would really happen. No one anticipated that the 200,000 people from both the sides would die in a communal madness. No one believed that millions of people would be uprooted suddenly from the places where they lived for centuries. No one anticipated that billions worth of property would be destroyed in the communal violence. No one imagined that the unrealistic border drawn on the paper map by Sir Cyril Radcliffe to bifurcate India and Pakistan would create a permanent scar on both the countries.
Who was responsible for this great human tragedy?
Of course British were responsible for this tragedy but British could not have engineered the partition all by themselves. They got the support from the affluent Muslim leaders who wanted to have separate country, but again, they were in minority. British could not have forced the partition on India unless there was a support from the majority; i.e. Congress leaders. Who were these Congress leaders and who played what role?
Some common (mis)perception in India….
If you ask,… who was responsible for the partition of India from Congress side, then some people might say it was Mahatma Gandhi.
Then if you ask them further, why do you think so? Then the typical reasons that we hear in support of this belief are;
1) When Barrister Jinha threatened British that “either there would be Pakistan or there would be a civil war”; Gandhiji who was the world champion of “Non Violence” principle, agreed for the partition to avoid the violence. This is because Gandhiji gave more weightage to his personal belief of non-violence than the national interest.
I too had similar views when I was in my teens. I don’t know whether there was systematic propaganda machinery that created these rumors back then, but one thing is sure; lots of people in India have this misconception.
2) Gandhiji proposed Jinha to become the first Prime Minister of India to avoid partition. Had it not been put down strongly by Nehru and Sardar Patel, Jihna would have become first Prime Minister of India.
3) As a part of financial settlement for the partition, British had contracted India to pay 55 Crore Rupees to Pakistan. India did not pay this amount to Pakistan as agreed. Gandhiji went on hunger strike and forced Indian government to pay 55 Crore Rupees to Pakistan as a partition settlement.
4) During the communal massacre, Gandhiji wanted to visit Pakistan to console Pakistani Muslims from the trauma of partition. But he did nothing for the migrated Hindus, Etc Etc….
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All these reasons that we hear, try to project Gandhiji as pro Muslim leader who was involved in Muslim appeasement. A leader who sacrificed national interest to protect his personal belief. I too had similar views when I was in my teens. I don’t know whether there was systematic propaganda machinery that created these rumors back then, but one thing is sure; lots of people in India have this misconception.
Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated shortly after the independence. If you recollect, during this murder trial, the main convict, Nathuram Godse gave a detailed statement in the court explaining why they killed Gandhiji. His disposition in the court received lot of publicity and it further bolstered the public opinion that Gandhiji was responsible for the partition.
But as I grew and started exploring world freshly, I realized my mistake. Ten years back I happened to read a book written British anthers. This book is based on Lord Mountbatten's diary, which explains what exactly happened during that period, who did what, who played what role etc. These details were not known to the public.
But as I grew and started exploring world freshly, I realized my mistake. Ten years back I happened to read a book written by British authors, who described what exactly happened during the partition period (1945-1947). Apparently this book is written based on the diary of Sir Mountbatten. Hence it gives events in a chronological manner and reveals lot of details which are kept secret from the Indian public.
The book explains lot of details during the partition era, what exactly happened, who played what role and why. The book does not explicitly disdain Gandhiji’s role in the partition but explains Gandhiji’s actions.
It was a big shock when I first read this book as it shattered my age old belief that Mahatma Gandhi was responsible for the partition. My initial reaction was “some stupid foreign authors are writing something sensational to discredit Indian leaders and get some quick publicity for their book. They don’t understand Indian history.” I was not even ready to acknowledge the diversity of thoughts. But after initial shock wave passed and I digested this information I thought; let’s cross check these shocking revelations by going through references. And I started researching other materials related to the partition.
Here we have to take a note, the history that Indians know about the partition was mostly written by the Indian people and it is certainly one sided. If we read the books written by the foreign authors on this topic then we see an entirely different perspective. If we pick up the common pieces between Indian authors and foreign authors then we can put together the whole puzzle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gandhiji's role in Partition.... 
First, let’s check what role Gandhiji played during the partition.
When Barrister Jihna threatened saying, either there would be Pakistan or there would be a civil war, Mahatma Gandhi told Lord Mountbatten, ”British should leave India on “as-is” basis. We would assume the full responsibility of what happens thereafter. If India has to face the civil war, then so that be… we would face it. We are confident that we shall emerge much stronger in the process.” This is recorded in Lord Mountbatten’s diary.
He did not stop at that but made a proposal in the Congress Working Committee to this effect. The proposal was rejected by the other Congress leaders. Then as a last ditch effort to avoid partition, he proposed that let Jihna become the first Prime Minister of India and he should have the full freedom to elect his council of ministers. This proposal too was strongly put down by Nehru and Patel.
Nnother historical fact that can be checked out is, on the 15th August 1947, the day of independence, Gandhiji did not attend the flag hoisting ceremony at Red fort in New Delhi. He was in Bengal to stop the communal riots!
Is it not strange that Gandhiji, who fought his entire life to see this day, would not attend the Independence Day ceremony in New Delhi and go to a remote village in Bengal under the pretext of stopping the communal riots? In the subsequent topics we will understand the reason for this action.
If Gandhiji had consented for the partition then he wouldn't have made the efforts to stop the partition or shown his displeasure by not attending Independence Day ceremony.
With this information and few more examples that we will come across in this article, we can surely say Gandhiji did not support partition at any point of time.
But then the question becomes, if Gandhiji did not support the partition then who did? And why Gandhiji maintained silence on this major issue of partition? Why he did not . make his displeasure public?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We need to understand few things before we try to answer this question.
1) By the end of the World War II (by end of 1945), British Empire was financially very fragile. Looking at the unstable political and economic condition in India, British had realized they cannot use Indian colony as a milking cow to bring prosperity to the British Empire. For Briton’s “Her Majesty’s Corporation”, India had become liability rather than a profit center. In short British had come to the conclusion that ruling India was a loss making proposition and it was in their best interest to dump India Inc. from their portfolio. Therefore British decided to give the independence to India at the earliest.
2) Having India as a British colony was a huge pride for the British Empire. Hence British wanted to leave India in a respectable manner, without facing any humiliation and by keeping good relations. In short they wanted to do a golden hand shake.
3) Sometimes, good intentions are difficult to implement. Something similar to that happened here. The fast deteriorating law and order situation was posing major challenge to these good intentions.Congress had initiated the “Quit India” movement, that had started large scale civil disobedience all over the country. The mill workers unions had started strikes that had slowed down the industrial production and created law and order situation. On the top of it, there was huge resentment over the demand of Pakistan. Barrister Jihna not only stopped by making a strong verbal case for the independent Pakistan but he started a movement called “Direct Action Day”, which started communal riots all over India. He thought the communal violence was necessary to polarize the Indians on the communal lines. This was the best and the fastest way to achieve Pakistan.
The communal riots, fear of partition and the prospect of losing all the livelihood, created fear in the minds of Hindus, Muslim and Sikhs. This insecurity further sparked off more communal disturbances in different parts of India. Under this situation, if the British were to give the independence to India as an UNDIVIDED nation then, the unfulfilled aspiration of having a Muslim land would have started communal massacre. Obviously, British would have been blamed for this massacre.
British had portrayed themselves as the messiah of human rights and democracy during WWII. The massacre within the British colony would have become sour wound for the British. This humiliation would have destroyed their international image. This was not acceptable to the British and they started desperately looking for a ways to save their face. The British were caught between the wedge and the hammer!
4) During the first quarter of 1946, Governor General Lord Viscount Wavell had reviewed the law and order situation in India and sent a detailed report to London. In this report he said; “the civil disobedience, the communal riots and the union disturbances were crippling the administration. The law and order situation was worsening by each day and British administration had no strength to quell the disturbances. India was surly heading for the anarchy and he did not see any way to stop it.” In the given situation, he said, “British have only choice; to evacuate India safely.” He then gave a detailed evacuation plan wherein he proposed, first ladies and children would be shipped out, then all the men working in the administration, other than police and military would be shipped out and at last, British police and military would vacate India.
Basically his plan was to vacate India in an orderly manner and leave Indians to their fate.
The new prime minister of Briton, Mr. Clement Attlee did not like this proposal. British had ruled India for 150 years and India was considered as a jewel in the crown for the British Empire. It would have been very disgraceful for the British Empire to vacate India in this way. Therefore Viceroy Lord Wavell was called back and Lord Mountbatten was nominated as LAST Viceroy of India.
5) Lord Mountbatten was sent to India with two major responsibilities to fulfill;
a. Give independence to India AT THE EARLIEST, without earning any bad reputation for the British Empire.
b. Transfer all the British citizens safely back to Great Briton.
Lord Mountbatten was aware about the daunting task in India and therefore he insisted the British government to give a deadline by which India would get the independence. The British government declared that India would get the independence before 30th June 1948. Lord Mountbatten boarded the ship only after getting this commitment from the British government!
But…here is a very interesting point to note, India got independence almost a year before the declared deadline. Lord Mountbatten rushed through the process of handing over power to India. Obviously, he was in a hurry to give independence to India.
But why…?
Let’s see the reasons behind it.
6) After taking charge in India, Lord Mountbatten called a meeting of the governors from all the four presidencies. The governors of Punjab and Bengal gave a clear picture of the communal unrest and the deteriorating law and order situation. In their opinion, with the prevailing situation, if India was to get the independence, then there was almost a certainty of the communal massacre. The administration would have no strength to control the situation. It would be a bloody civil war.
Lord Mountbatten was a seasoned administrator, it did not take long for him to realize; any delay in giving independence to India would further exacerbate the law and order situation. This meant the British Empire and Lord Mountbatten would be blamed for the civil war. Therefore it was in the best interest of British Empire to give independence to India as quickly as possible and make the new Indian government responsible for the after-effects.
Lord Mountbatten quickly implemented this strategy and that is why India got independence almost a year before the set deadline.
7) We need to note an important point here. British had the exigency to give independence to India as quickly as possible because they knew the corollaries of the delay. But this secret was NOT known to the Congress leaders. Hence there was no need for the Congress leaders to be loitered with the British urgency. In fact, Congress leaders should realized that British might have had an ulterior motive in speeding up the process and they should have been more cautious. But Congress leaders not only failed to gather signals from British but they also failed to reckon the unrest within the masses.
8) When British declared news of granting independence to India, they realized following four parties wanted a piece of pie with the forthcoming independence.
a. Majority Hindus who were under the banner of National Congress wanted united India.
b. Majority Muslims under the banner of Muslin League wanted Pakistan.
c. Sikhs demanded a separate country; Khalistan.
d. Hundreds of Kings, Queens, Nawaabs and princely states demanded, their kingdom should be returned to them because British had snatched it from them during 1810-1860!
Out of these four groups, the Congress and the Muslim league were the most powerful contenders. Lord Mountbatten started discussions with each group individually and soon realized that India cannot get the independence without partition.
It was mainly because of the adamant attitude of Barrister Jinha for getting Pakistan. He did not stop just by making provocative speeches but started a movement called “Direct Action Day”, which started nationwide communal riots. The violence further stressed the communal fabric. Jinnah was of the opinion that the communal violence was a must to polarize Hindu-Muslim communities. This was the only way to get Pakistan quickly. British should have countered this aggressive posture with determination, strength and patience, which they did not have.
9) If you look at it from British perspective, they had no other option but to divide India. They had realized that Congress and Muslim League can never coexist peacefully within the united India. The partition was necessary but that was not easy. Gandhiji had earlier opposed the idea of Pakistan in no uncertain terms. He had publicly said, “India would be divided only over his cut body”. Considering Gandhiji’s working style and his adamant nature, British had no doubt that Mahatma Gandhi would never agree for the partition.
Therefore cunning Lord Mountbatten adopted same old British policy; “Divide and Rule”. He completely bypassed Mahatma Gandhi from the discussions of independence and negotiated all the instruments of independence with the second tier Congress leaders. He convinced Nehru, Sardar Patel and few other Congress leaders as why it was necessary to divide India. Mahatma Gandhi had no clue that his lieutenants were negotiating the modalities of independence with British Raj without his knowledge! Gandhiji realized the reality of the partition only at the last moment.
10) During this “behind the scene” diplomacy, Lord Mountbatten was successful in convincing Nehru and Jihna on two points;
a. The independence would come only with the partition
b. The only way to stop the civil unrest was to have quick and speedy handover of the power.
In short, Lord Mountbatten cunningly shifted his responsibility on the naïve and stupid Congress leaders! He knew, the civil war would flare up irrespective, whether India was divided or undivided! But he did not want the civil war to happen under his leadership!
Only the British knew about the certainty of the civil war but they did not want to talk about it with the Congress leaders. It was pity that the Congress leaders, who called themselves as the leaders of the masses, had no clue of what was happening within the masses. They failed completely to anticipate a bloody civil war.
Some of the readers may ask a question, on what basis I am stating that British discussed the details of independence only with Nehru and Gandhiji was not aware about it?
Read this interesting story…
Lord Mountbatten used to maintain a personal diary, noting every day’s meetings, important events, decisions made etc. As per his diary noting, he talked to Mahatma Gandhi only three or four times on the topic of independence during this period. But during the same period he had numerous meetings with Nehru and few other Congress leaders.This gives the confirmation; Gandhiji was deliberately kept away from the negotiations of independence.
There is also an interesting note in his diary. Lord Mountbatten knew about his wife’s close relations with Nehru and he used his wife’s relations with Nehru to change Nehru’s decisions on some difficult matters!
After all the negotiations with Congress leaders and Muslim League leaders were over, Lord Mountbatten called for an all-party meeting to officially declare the partition of India. Mahatma Gandhi and Jinnah were also invited to that meeting. But this meeting was deliberately kept on June 2nd 1947, which falls on Monday. The day Monday, was deliberately chosen because Mahatma Gandhi used to observe silence on every Monday. The idea was, if the meeting was kept on Monday then Gandhiji would not speak in the meeting! And it happened as expected.
During the meeting, Mahatma Gandhi realized, lots of important decisions were already made without his knowledge and this meeting was mere formality to officially inform the partition. Therefore, Gandhiji walked out from the meeting halfway through. If Gandhiji was part of all the discussions then there was no reason for him to be upset.
The decision to divide India was officially declared to the public on June 3rd 1947, which is also known as Lord Mountbatten’s plan.
Gandhiji was colossally hurt because his lifetime contribution towards the independence of India was insulted by deliberately sidelining him during the secret discussions with Mountbatten. Therefore, soon after the all party meeting he said, these Congress leaders call me “Mahatma” (Mahatma – pious soul) but they don’t give me a respect of a “Chapraasi” (Chaparaasi – office boy). Gandhiji was immensely hurt….
Another point to note….
Gandhiji did not attend the main Independence Day ceremony of flag hoisting ceremony at the Red Fort in New Delhi on the night of the independence; 15th August 1947. He went to Calcutta under the pretext of bringing the peace between rioting Hindus and Muslims. It was certainly odd to know that Gandhiji who fought for his entire life for that one day, would abstain from Independence Day ceremony. If all the decisions were done with his consent then there was no reason for him to be upset.
This again shows, Mahatma Gandhi was not aware about all the terms and conditions of the independence and therefore he was not responsible for the partition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nehru and some of his followers were so impatient to get the independence that they were not ready to listen to any word of wisdom that would have come in their way of grabbing the power!
Look at the following example which shows what blunders Nehru and some other Congress leaders made during that period.
1) British played a foul and a canny role while deciding the fate of Kings, Nawaabs and erstwhile princely states. Instead of persuading this group to join the country where they geographically belong to, British gave autonomy to the owners of these princely states to decide whether to join India or Pakistan or remain independent! This meant, the newly born country “India” would have lots of pockets within its territory where Indian rule cannot be implemented!
Nehru did NOT object to this dangerous decision!
The only person who opposed this decision was Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. He told Lord Mountbatten that “He wanted a basket with all the apples on the tree. Even if one is not there, then he would not take the basket”. Meaning, even if ONE princely state within the Indian border decides not to join the Indian state then he would reject independence.
This hard talk forced the British to engage the princely states in the discussions and convince them to join new Indian state.
But still few princely states did not budge to the British pressure and decided to remain independent. The princely states like Junagarh on the border of Pakistan was secretly in contact with Jinnah to see whether they can retain the kingdom by joining the Pakistani state. King of Kashmir decided to remain independent. The Nawab of Hyderabad decided to remain independent and so was the Portuguese in Goa. In Short, there was no vision to create united India. Our Congress leaders who were negotiating terms of independence with British government did not make any attempt to have a clear policy on the geography of independent India. Nehru was accepting everything that was thrown at him by British. He was impatient to grab the power and become first Prime Minister of India. He and his followers were not ready to listen to any suggestion that would have delayed getting the independence. Ultimately India got independence without few princely states.
These princely sates were situated right in the middle of India and were functioning as an Independent country! To correct this situation, Sardar Patel had to take an unpleasant step of “Police Action” to merge “independent” states Junagarh, Hyderabad and Goa with union of India. It took years for him to take this action. This action had diplomatic ramifications.
Even to date, Pakistan taunts India for employing double standards on this. Junagadh, Hyderabad and Goa were states with majority of Hindu population but ruled by non-Hindus. Hence India took a stand that if it was a Hindu dominated area then it must come to India (this was the basis on which partition was done). However Jammu Kashmir was a Muslim dominated state but ruled by Hindu King. In J&K case, India pressurized the Hindu King Hari Singh to join Indian union though majority population was Muslim!
All these mistakes done at that time have become chronic issues for today’s date. And India is still struggling to find a peaceful solution till to date. Now when we think about it, we realize, India could have saved the embarrassing Police Action in these states and saved herself from a major diplomatic embarrassment if Congress leaders had forced British to do a clean division. But Congress leaders who negotiated with British had no vision or statesmanship. Gandhji was not part of these discussions!
2) British appointed Sir Cyril Radcliffe and his team to create map for India and Pakistan. They used a very unrealistic principle to divide India; wherever Hindus were in majority, it would be India and wherever Muslims were in majority that would be Pakistan. They literally started marking the Indian map with colors to identify the majority religion.
It was a very unrealistic way of partition because Hindu and Muslim population had traditionally lived together in entire India with different concentrations in the same part of the region. For example; a city like Aligarh, which falls in the middle of India has majority Muslim population whereas nearest city like Mathura or Bulandshar has Hindu majority. How Redcliff could have carved out India and Pakistan based on the religion with this kind of mix?
The border that Redcliff was drawing was not just a line on the map but it was going to affect millions of people. Redcliff and his team did not consider what would happen to the lives of common people if they were suddenly uprooted from a place where they lived for centuries? Whether this kind of division was practical or not? What would be the impact on the social fabric? This team decided the borders between the two new countries as though they were dividing cattle farm property!
British were secretive about the Redcliff and his team who were defining the border. Obviously, they were secretive because they knew what was going to happen once the border was declared.
But it is despicable to know that Congress did not find it necessary to participate in defining the border between the two countries. If they had participated then they would have comprehended how insensitive approach was being taken. They could have instantly realized, this partition was going to uproot millions of people and could cost hundreds of thousands of lives. Congress could have taken a corrective action by pushing back British to reconsider the approach taken to create a border. This could have saved so many innocent lives. But again, Nehru and some Congress leaders had no understanding of the implication of this partition and had no appetite to accept any delay in getting the freedom.
3) Sir Cyril Radcliffe completed his assignment and gave the recommendations to Lord Mountbatten well before the independence. But here again, British deliberately kept it as a top level secret. They did not reveal the border details till the independence was officially given! (It was stated in some news clip that few important details were unofficially shown only to Nehru and Sardar Patel just a few days before the independence. And Sardar Patel took objections on the Punjab border. The existing border would have deprived Indian part of Punjab of all the water resources coming from the five rivers flowing in united Punjab. Hence a minor change was done to include few canals on the Indian side. But there is no confirmation of this meeting.)
The two independent countries came into existence on 14th August and 15th August 1947, but on the day of the independence, both the countries did not know the border between the two countries. The border was officially declared on 16th August 1947, a day after the power was officially handed over to India and Pakistan.
Look at this incidence with the following perspective. When ordinary people like us buy a property, we measure the area and make sure it is correct and only then we proceed with the deal. While taking independence, why this simple, practical logic was not used? It was an utter disgrace to assume the independence of a country whose borders were not decided. What was the use of taking the independence of a country whose geographical limits to enforce the law of the country was not known? Why Congress leaders did not force the British to declare the border before the independence? It was the most shameful act from Congress.
The British intentionally kept this report secret because they knew perfectly, what would have happened if this report was released before independence. The news would have instantly triggered large scale communal violence and that would have become nasty problem for British. They wanted to make sure; this violence should become India’s problem and not British problem! Plus there was a great risk that violence would have marred the Independence Day celebrations and perhaps forced to postpone the date!
The point here is, though British were outsiders, they knew exactly what was going to happen after the independence but our Congress leaders, who claimed to represent local population, had no idea of what was going to happen. What kind of people were these leaders who did not gauge the pulse of the public resentment?
All this proves that Nehru and his close confidants were extremely impatient to get the independence at any cost. They sacrificed India’s pride and self-esteem to grab the power at the earliest.
Instead of rushing through the independence and accepting worst propositions, Congress should have taken its time to evaluate the situation and put forward following conditions as a prerequisite for the independence. British would have had no option but to agree to it. Otherwise; the only other option for British was to vacate the country in a disgraceful style. This would have been very insulting for British.
They could have put following conditions…
1) Without any exception, all the princely states within the Indian Territory must be dismissed and they all must join India.
2) Define a well documented international border between India and Pakistan and get written acceptance from both the parties.
3) British should assume the responsibility to transfer the government property which would be divided as per 82% and 18% formula and this must be done before independence.
4) The British should take the responsibility to inform minorities from both the sides about the partition. Migration of all the people, who wants to migrate, must happen under British supervision and protection.
Even if we accept that the partition was probably inevitable but still India could have achieved lot of benefits by forcing British to accept the points mentioned above. For example;
1) British would have been forced to take full and complete responsibility of the partition.
2) A well defined international border would have avoided lot of complex issues that India face today.
3) India could have avoided unpleasant situation of police action in some states, if all the princely states were persuaded to join Indian state before independence.
4) Most important, if the migration of people would have happened under British protection, it would have saved lives of 250,000 people and billions worth of property from both the sides.
Unfortunately, the lack of vision of Congress leaders and their impatience led to the most unwanted situation for everyone,… the “Civil War”. This did not just create a temporary problem but has created a very complex array of problems even for today.
During all this turmoil, where was Gandhiji? What did he do to stop these events?
Mahatma Gandhi was completely sidelined and naturally he was hurt and humiliated. The only way left for him was to go to the public, express his views and oppose the partition. He decided to do speak up during the evening prayers while he was in Delhi. Lord Mountbatten got the news that Gandhiji was going to oppose the partition publicly. He knew if Gandhiji would have publicly opposed the partition then that would have become a major headache for British. He called for an urgent meeting with Gandhiji.
During the meeting, Lord Mountbatten appraised Gandhiji with the prevailing law and order situation. He further said, “Aspirations for an independent Muslim state are running very high. If you oppose the partition at this late stage then that would instantly trigger a horrible blood bath and a massacre. You have stood up for nonviolence principles all throughout your life and at this last phase, you don’t want to lose your credibility by starting a horrible massacre. History would discredit the non-violent Indian freedom struggle as the most violent freedom struggle.”
After hearing this argument from Lord Mountbatten, Gandhiji who was already politically isolated, had no option left. Gandhiji thought if he still went ahead and opposed the partition in spite of warning from Mountbatten and, if indeed, the violence would erupt then he would be blamed for that. It was classic case of blackmailing…
Gandhiji decided to keep quiet, and this was his first big political mistake.
Though Gandhiji kept quiet but the politician within Gandhiji was not going to keep quiet for a long time. He waited for the proper opportunity to corner those Congress leaders, who had sidelined him. He picked up the first opportunity after independence and started “Hunger till Death” agitation and forced the Indian government to pay fifty five crore Rupees to Pakistan as per the 88%, 12% formula to share the government resources. This move was a political pay back to Nehru but the common people who did not understand the internal squabbling, thought it was a bad move from Gandhiji.
We have to understand the prevailing situation in India when Gandhiji started his agitation to pay 55 Crore Rupees to Pakistan. Common people were facing the brunt of partition. Many had lost their loved once in the riots or lost all the means of livelihood. Millions of migrated people from Pakistan were staying in the makeshift camps, facing hunger, cold and contracted deceases. They had lost everything in their life and future was looking very bleak. The press was printing their horrible stories and such stories had created anger with the common people.
In such charged atmosphere, people learnt about Gandhiji’s hunger strike to pay 55 Crore rupees to Pakistan.
We often experience, perception becomes truth and the same thing happened here. People did not understand, Gandhiji’s hunger strike to pay 55 Crore Rupees to Pakistan was just a political move to corner Nehru rather than a love for Pakistan. But people perceived, Gandhiji who was India’s leader was not sensitive about the sufferings and the pain of our people but he was more concerned about the well-being of Pakistan. Some people thought, for Gandhiji his image and his nonviolence principle was dearer to him rather than the interest of the nation. This was a very unwanted image that Gandhiji wanted for himself at that time.
Starting the hunger strike just after the independence was Gandhiji’s second big political mistake.
Few days later, the news broke out that Gandhiji had secretly sent one of his trusted aids to Pakistan to arrange for his visit. Gandhiji was planning to visit Pakistan to console the Pakistani families who had suffered in the partition. This news further damaged Gandhiji’s image.
The Hindu fanatics, who were against the partition, against Muslims and against Pakistan started a venomous propaganda against Gandhiji by siting the example of his offer to Barrister Jihna to become first Prime Minister of India or his hunger strike to pay 55 Crore Rupees to Pakistan, etc. and painted him as anti-Indian.
See the irony of the fate….Gandhiji fought most of his life to get independence for India, but after getting the independence, he became a Villain for some people! And he could not explain his position to the public!!
Soon after independence, first Punjab burst into communal violence then Bengal was engulfed. The communal violence flared up all throughout India just like a wild fire and entire country was reeling under this situation. Very soon the Punjab riots reached New Delhi too. These riots had threatened the existence of new born state of India. During all this happening, the Nehru administration was paralyzed and was in total helpless situation. They did not know how to control the situation. At that stage, India needed a strong leader who could guide the administration to control the situation quickly. But the first Prime Minister of India, Mr. Nehru had no such quality.
At that time Lord Mountbatten was vacationing in Shimla. Nehru called Lord Mountbatten at night and asked him to cut short his vacation and return to Delhi overnight. After reaching Delhi, Nehru asked him to take charge of the government and control the rioting.
Nehru’s ineptitude to understand the serious of the situation and lack of experience was not only seen in this case but it kept coming back over and again….
His impatience, greed for power, short temper and manipulative shrewdness has put India in lot of unwanted difficult situation.
The subsequent murder trial got wide scale publicity. During the trial, Nathuram Godse gave a very detailed disposition as why he killed Gandhiji. His disposition also got huge publicity. He basically blamed Gandhiji for taking pro Muslim, Pro Pakistan stand and blamed Gandhiji for the partition.
All these factors bolstered the perception (not the truth) that Gandhiji was somehow responsible for the partition, the massacre and the sufferings of migrated Hindus.
Gandhiji did not realize, within his own country, some people had started hating him.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gandhiji was a firm believer of human rights; human dignity and so on. But he was not a saint, rather he used this belief for the political purpose. He was a shrewd politician who knew when the agitations like hunger strike or “Satyaghrah” (Agitation for truth) can be successful and when it would not? For example, he went on hunger strike to quell the communal riots in Calcutta, he went on hunger strike to make Indian government pay 55 Crore Rupees to Pakistan but he did not go on a hunger strike to stop the massacre on the Punjab border or he did not go on a hunger strike to stop the violence in Kashmir in 1947.
That is because he knew; these actions would not change the situation. He was a shrewd politician who understood the limitations of different types of agitations.
Mahatma Gandhi’s muted response on the partition was a blunder and country paid a very steep price for this mistake. Even if we agree that the partition was inevitable, still things would have turned a lot better if Gandhiji had publicly expressed his opposition to the partition. Couple of very good things would have happened in that case.
a) British would have come under pressure and this would have forced them to take full responsibility of the partition. This would have forced British to clearly demarcate international border, acceptable to both the countries.
b) It would have reigned in the impatient and unrealistic ambitions of leaders like Nehru and his supporters.
c) India would have avoided the disgraceful situation of accepting the independence of a country whose boundaries to exercise the law of the land, were not defined at the time of independence.
d) This would have forced British to plan for the structured migration and take full responsibility of the security of all the migrants. This would have saved millions of lives and billions worth of property.
The last point alone would have become Gandhiji’s true tribute for the non-violence principle!
On one side Indians had British who were more than eager to hand over power to India at the earliest, and, on the other side, Indians had day dreaming, unrealistic, power greedy leaders like Nehru who were equally impatient to take power from British at any cost.
The only person who could have avoided the massacre was Gandhiji but he decided to keep quite at the crucial moment.
Nehru and his close supporters were under a foolish expectation that everything would be very smooth once Nehru becomes Prime Minister. But just after the independence, the situation turned from bad to worse. He did not know how to handle the situation because he was naïve to the administration and had no skills to run the government. Here are some examples of how immature Nehru’s leadership was.
Soon after independence, first Punjab burst into communal violence then Bengal was engulfed. The communal violence flared up all throughout India just like a wild fire and entire country was reeling under this situation. Very soon the Punjab riots reached New Delhi too. These riots had threatened the existence of new born state of India. During all this happening, the Nehru administration was paralyzed and was in total helpless situation. They did not know how to control the situation. At that stage, India needed a strong leader who could guide the administration to control the situation quickly. But the first Prime Minister of India, Mr. Nehru had no such quality.
At that time Lord Mountbatten was vacationing in Shimla. Nehru called Lord Mountbatten at night and asked him to cut short his vacation and return to Delhi overnight. After reaching Delhi, Nehru asked him to take charge of the government and control the rioting.
After hearing this request from Nehru, Lord Mountbatten asked “Your people fought for this independence for 65-70 years. And now, within few weeks after getting the independence, you are calling British back to take charge of the country?”
Nehru honestly replied, “We have spent our entire life in organizing political movements, agitations and rest of the time, we have spent it in jail. How could we have the experience of running administration and the government? You have dealt with such situations many times hence you know how to handle it.”
This incidence is noted in Lord Mountbatten’s diary.
Was it not shameful to ask British to take back the control of the nation within few weeks after the independence?
Though Nehru’s answer was correct still it was a great shame. If Nehru did not have the capability to lead the country then why did he become Prime Minister?
Nehru’s ineptitude to understand the serious of the situation and lack of experience was not only seen in this case but it kept coming back over and again….
His impatience, greed for power, short temper and manipulative shrewdness has put India in lot of unwanted difficult situation.
For example;
In 1947, just after independence, he referred the matter of Pakistan’s incursion in Kashmir to UN. This impatient action has created a chronic problem for the last 67 years.
When UN was formed, they were looking at India or China to get the permanent member position in UN Security Council. India being a friendly nation to the western countries was a favorite choice to get this position. All the western countries were supporting India to get this position. But Nehru gave it away to China saying India and China are traditionally similar countries, having same social, economic problems hence it does not matter whether India gets it or China gets it. As a result, China got this position and it has become a permanent problem for India since then. The point here is, Nehru could not contemplate the importance of such an opportunity and was driven by the emotional character.
Same lack of experience and foresight was seen during war with China in 1962. Nehru constantly ignored the Chinese activities on the eastern border for number of years. This resulted into an unwanted war and a humiliating defeat for India.
On the economic front too he had unrealistic, Utopian expectations. The following incidence was heard many times but there is no confirmation. In mid-1950’s, a noted Indian industrialist got an offer from a French aviation company to manufacture helicopters in India. At that time helicopter technology was new and the idea was, manufacturing in India would be cheap and that would be very competitive in the international market. The Indian industrialist made a detailed proposal and sent it to Nehru for obtaining the license. Nehru rejected this proposal saying, 70% of Indian population lives below poverty line and they need food, water, shelter, education etc. We don’t need hi-tech helicopter manufacturing plant here but we need factories to meet basic needs. Nehru did not see an opportunity for the big employment. He did not realize an opportunity to obtain the technical know how to make helicopters. As a result, even after 67 years of independence, India still imports helicopters!
Coming back to the main point……
All the above writing is to drive down the point that only Nehru and his supporters were responsible for the India’s partition and the subsequent massacre.
Impatient Nehru brokered a deal with British accepting the partition without fully understanding the consequences. He wanted to quickly get the independence and get the position of Prime Minister, at any cost. He did not feel it was necessary to check why British were planning to give independence almost a year ahead of schedule. He did not care to understand the implication of creating Pakistan. He did not feel it necessary to consult Gandhiji during the discussions of independence. He did not care to see what would happen to the people if they migrate between India and Pakistan. He did not care whether all the princely states within the Indian Territory join the union state of India. He did not care how the borders were drawn between India and Pakistan and what would be the limits of independent India?
It is Nehru’s impatient, greedy, short tempered nature coupled with shortsightedness and inexperience that was responsible for the most of the problems.
But some Indians have a different perception when it came to fixing the responsibility of the partition.
During the partition, not only the country was divided based on the religion but the leaders too were divided by religion. Mahatma Gandhi’s agitation to pay fifty five crore rupees to Pakistan, his plan to visit Pakistan and some other similar actions, which were basically ill timed, sent a wrong message to the common public. Media indirectly painted him as pro-Muslim. Some people were very upset with Gandhiji. Soon after, the Hindu fanatics killed Gandhiji.
All these factors bolstered the perception (not the truth) that Gandhiji was somehow responsible for the partition, the massacre and the sufferings of migrated Hindus.
Nehru, who knew the full truth that Gandhiji was not responsible for the partition did not say anything. He maintained a golden silence and allowed this false perception to continue. But as a hypocrite, he did not miss an opportunity to blame Hindu Right Wing organizations like RSS, Hindu Mahasabha etc. for killing Mahatma Gandhi and branding them as “Communal”.
But the main point remains….Nehru was responsible for the partition and all other problems. However Nehru went Scott free and Gandhiji took the blame!
At that time, if people would have understood the Gandhiji's point of view then they would have certainly asked a question; if Gandhiji was not responsible for the partition then who was? Naturally Nehru’s name would have emerged. But unfortunately that did not happen.
Nehru was blessed with a good luck!
Mahatma Gandhi was killed within five months after the independence, Sardar Patel too died within three years after independence (December 15th 1950) and so were some other leaders who passed away quickly after independence. Basically there was no one left to tell the truth. But Nehru lived for next sixteen years to rule India!
After Nehru, his daughter Indira Gandhi ruled India for seventeen years, then her son Rajeev Gandhi ruled for six years and now Rajeev Gandhi’s widow is ruling the country for last ten years. This means out of sixty seven years of independence, the Nehru dynasty has ruled India for forty nine years.
This gives enough time to fabricate the history and teach wrong history to the next generations!