The partition
tragedy has been a multifaceted phenomenon in which lot
of factors played their role. Unmindful of that, various
formulations are popularized to suit the political interests
of vested interests. One of the most common causes for
partition, propounded by the RSS and its progeny (Sangh
Parivar, SP), has been that it was Gandhi's appeasement
of Muslims, which emboldened them to demand Pakistan.
Also, Jinnah has been given the 'distinction' of the man
who broke up India by some of the scholars. A new theory
comes from Dr. Murli Manohar Joshi. According to him CPI's
resolution on linguistic and religious nationalism provided
Muslim League with the logic of the much-needed 'Two Nation
theory'. While RSS chief Mr. Sudarshan states that as
the division of India has been done into Muslim Pakistan
and Hindu India, so the to complete the partition process
Muslims should be packed off to Pakistan and Hindus from
Pakistan should be brought back.
Partition tragedy needs to be related to
the complex social roots and the goals of imperial powers
in the region. With the control of India by British, to
plunder its raw materials and to create the market for
their industrial goods, railways, telegraphs and modern
education were introduced. Due to this came up group of
Industrialists, educated civil servants, professionals,
modern businessmen and workers. These groups started forming
various citywide and region wide associations, the culmination
of which took place in the formation of Indian National
Congress (INC). This organization started putting forward
the demands related to more provisions for industrialists
to set up their industries here, bigger role in local
administration, better facilities for education and land
ceiling. Rising assertion of newly emerging classes put
the Feudal lords and Kings of princely states, belonging
to both religions, to unease, and they came together to
form United India Patriotic Association (UIPA) just a
couple of years after the formation of INC. This association
condemned the INC demands and saw this as an indication
of disloyalty to the British crown. They resolved to cultivate
the loyalty of local population for the Queen of England.
Incidentally it was the same decade in which communal
riots began for the first time. Over a period of time
mainly due to the British policy of divide and rule this
association gave way to the formation of religion-based
bodies like Muslim League (ML) and Hindu Mahasabha (HM).
Remarkably the leadership of these organizations was coming
from the same sections that formed the UIPA.
Later on RSS also joined in as another outfit
for the 'building of Hindu Nation', it had predominant
support base from Brahmin and traditional Bania communities.
Most remarkably these both outfits (ML on one side and
HM+RSS on the other) spewing venom against each other
shared the common premise of Nationalism in the name of
religion. The only difference being that HM+RSS said it
is a Hindu Nation so people of other faiths have to remain
subordinate to Hindus if they do not accept Hindu culture,
while ML asserted that since Muslims are separate Nation
and they should have a separate country to themselves.
They were critical of National movement led by INC, and
most significantly they shared the same class base to
a great extent (Kings, Feudal Lords)
With INC's movement becoming mass movement,
people from different communities irrespective of their
religion started joining it. This movement was the movement
for India Nation in the making. For this nationalism the
Nationalism propounded by ML and HM+RSS was like a fly
in the ointment but this fly was given life and blood
by the British policies in a very subtle and overt ways.
While Muslim League was overtly recognized and acted as
'the representative of Muslims', unmindful of the fact
that majority of Muslims were with the INC. The majority
Muslims stalwarts, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Khan Abdul
Gaffar Khan being the most well known amongst them, the
Olemas of Barelvi and Deoband School, all supported this
Nationalism. The Hindu Nationalists though they were not
'officially' recognized as the representatives of Hindus,
they were merrily operating through the INC itself. The
foundation of Two Nation theory emerged parallel amongst
Hindu Nationalists and Islamist Nationalist. Savarkar
articulated it most powerfully in his 'Post Andaman' book,
'Who is a Hindu', while Chowdhary Rahmat Ali conceptualized
Pakistan (Punjab, Afghans, Kashmir, Sind) around 1930s.
The negotiations for the single united country
were bound to fail with these diverse pulls, pressures
and machinations. In the wake of Nehru committee (1927),
Muslim League kept certain demands, which though accepted
initially, had to be backtracked due to the pressure of
Hindutva elements. Again in 1937 elections first the request
for joint alliance with ML was rejected and later the
request to accommodate it in the ministry was rejected
by Nehru on the ground that he was keen on land reforms
and alliance with feudal elements of ML will make it impossible
to achieve the same. Similarly after accepting the Cabinet
mission plan, which called for a federation of states,
Nehru practically backed out on the ground that for a
proper development of a strong center is a must. This
was like the last straw on the camel's back after which
Jinnah became adamant on his demand for a separate homeland
for Muslims.
It is worth noting that the popular support
for ML or HM as reflected in the election results shows
that both these parties had a very narrow base, and both
these had abysmal performance at the hustings. The passing
of Pakistan resolution in Lahore in 1940 was met with
a march of thousands of Ansari Muslims to oppose it. As
ML used the religious symbolism it succeeded in raising
a bogey of demand for Pakistan, due to the emotional appeal
associated with the propaganda laced in religious idiom.
So it gave the impression as if all Muslims are in support
of the Pakistan. The Two Nation theory was repeatedly
proclaimed from the sessions of ML and HM, In 1937 Hindu
Mahasabha Session a resolution was passed stating that
Hindus and Muslims are two separate Nations. While a year
later Bhai Paramanand in his Presidential address stated
that "Mr. Jinnah argues that there are two nations in
the countryIf Mr. Jinnah is right, and I believe that
he is right then the congress theory of building a common
Nationality falls to the ground. This situation has two
solutions, one is the partition of the country into two
and the other is to allow to grow the Muslim state within
the Hindu state."
We can see here that the failure of negotiations
had more then what meets the eye. The goals and perceptions
of different actors in this play were different. Jinnah
under the mistaken notion that ML represents all the Muslims
and following the communal vision of politics like its
counterpart HM+RSS, assumed that 'Hindu' INC will subjugate
the interests of Muslims once the British left. Mahatma
Gandhi kept brokering peace all through, at all occasions
but here Nehru and Patel's wish to have a strong center
finally broke the possibility of negotiations and compromise.
Nehru wanted a strong center so that the development could
be done in a planned manner and landlordism could be abolished,
while Patel wanted a strong center for an overall strong
state. It was a tragedy, which played with lives of millions
and its ghost continues to haunt us till the day. The
result of the partition was a truncated Pakistan, which
further broke down into Bangla Desh and Pakistan, just
to prove that religion cannot be the basis of Nation states,
and India, did inherit the mantle of struggle for independence,
the values emerging from the biggest mass movement of
twentieth century, the values of Liberty, Equality, and
Fraternity. It came up as the true representative of the
aspirations of the participants of the freedom struggle
for whom their Indian ness bound them in a single thread.
For them religion was not the primary identity. For them
a composite Indian Nationalism rising above the other
varieties of narrow nationalism (Race, Language, Religion)
was the primary principle of society and country. It is
precisely these values, which came to be enshrined in
our constitution.
At this point to say that the two Nation
theory got boost from the CPI resolution is nothing but
travesty of truth. We have seen the genesis of Two Nation
Theory and its sustenance by ML and HM+RSS had been going
on for decades before CPI resolution came up. About Sudarshan's
statement the less said the better. It is no surprise
that this patriarch of Hindu Rashtra politics can never
understand as to what Indian Nationalism is. His ideology
and organization was never a part of Indian National movement
barring few exceptions. The concept of secular democracy
is Greek and Latin to the followers of Hindutva ideology.
Could the concept of Secularism and Indian Nationhood
come up and survive without the crucial contribution of
all the communities to the process of Indian Nation building?
India and Indian secularism survive because most of the
people of India choose to be Indians first by rejecting
the narrow Nationalism based on Religion, be it Muslim
Nationalism or Hindu Nationalism.
