How Gandhi was responsible for Partition

Was Partition inevitable? Yes- so long as Gandhi was alive. Why? He had always insisted that his Party, and his Party alone, should decide India's future and rule over it. But, by 1939, it was obvious his party was corrupt and that it discriminated openly against Muslims. Gandhi himself, when not considered a crackpot, was viewed as an inveterate liar, hypocrite and tireless intriguer. 

Look at the conclusion of an article Gandhi wrote a month or so after the Second World War began-

Consider for one moment what can happen if the English were to withdraw all of a sudden and there was no foreign usurper to rule.

It may be said that the Punjabis, be they Muslims, Sikhs or others, will overrun India. It is highly likely that the Gurkhas will throw in their lot with the Punjabis. Assume further that non-Punjabi Muslims will make common cause with the Punjabis. Where will the Congressmen composed chiefly of Hindus be? If they are still truly non-violent, they will be left unmolested by the warriors. Congressmen won’t want to divide power with the warriors but will refuse to let them exploit their unarmed countrymen. Thus if anybody has cause to keep the British rule for protection from the stronger element, it is the Congressmen and those Hindus and others who are represented by the Congress. The question, therefore, resolves itself into not who is numerically superior but who is stronger. Surely there is only one answer. Those who raise the cry of minority in danger have nothing to fear from the so-called majority which is merely a paper majority and which in any event is ineffective because it is weak in the military sense. Paradoxical as it may appear, it is literally true that the so-called minorities’ fear has some bottom only so long (as the British remain). But the British power will, so long as it so chooses, successfully play one against the other calling the parties by whatever names it pleases. And this process need not be dishonest. They may honestly believe that so long as there are rival claims put up, they must remain in India in response to a call from God to hold the balance evenly between them. Only that way lies not Democracy but Fascism, Nazism, Bolshevism and Imperialism, all facets of the doctrine of ‘Might is Right.’ I would fain hope that this war will change values. It can only do so, if India is recognized as independent and if that India represents unadulterated non-violence on the political field.

Gandhi is saying that non-Gurkha or non-Punjabi Hindus have zero fighting ability. They wouldn't be able to stop an alliance of Punjabis, Gurkhas and non-Punjabi Muslims from 'overrunning the country'. However, because of the magic power of Ahimsa, these Hindus, who are represented by the Congress Party, won't be 'molested'. Using Ahimsa magic, they would prevent the Punjabis 'exploiting' unarmed countrymen. Still, the new masters will take over the Palaces and mansions and pleasure gardens currently in Hindu hands. This is Gandhi's prediction of what would happen if the British left.

Why is he making this prediction? Did he really believe Hindus (except Gurkhas and Punjabis) were utterly shit? Perhaps. But, if so, he ought to be saying 'back the Brits. Otherwise the Punjabis will turn up and boot you out of your bungalows.' 

Gandhi can't accept that Muslims did not believe their Hindu neighbors were arrant cowards without martial qualities. He does not see that a minority really could be in danger if the majority is similar to it in respect of the means and ability to wield coercive power. 

Gandhi says Hindus, though a majority, are weak. British bayonets alone permit the Hindus to 'play at democracy'. Yet the Hindus are demanding that the Brits leave. Is it because they want the Punjabis to rule over them? Or is Gandhi lying?

The answer is, Gandhi is lying. In 1932 he demanded that the Army- including its Muslim and Sikh and Gurkha soldiers- be handed over to the INC. The minorities- including the Sikhs and Dalits united against him and his party. 

In 1939 Gandhi is making the same demand. At the beginning of this article he writes-

 I know that many have been angry with me for claiming

an exclusive right for the Congress to speak for the people of India as

a whole. It is not an arrogant pretension. It is explicit in the first article

of the Congress. It wants and works for independence for the whole of

India. It speaks neither for majority nor minority. It seeks to represent

all Indians without any distinction. Therefore those who oppose it

should not count, if the claim for independence is admitted. Those

who support the claim simply give added strength to the Congress

claim.

Suppose the Muslim League had, in its first article of Association, asserted Islam to be the religion of India and the Muslims of India to be its natural rulers. Then its position would have been the same as the INC which, truth be told, spoke for itself- not the majority though, as Gandhi said,  the Hindu majority did cleave to it. 

Gandhi says 'those who oppose Congress should not count- if India really has a claim to Independence'. This is the doctrine of a One Party State! Not for nothing had Govind Vallabh Pant called Gandhi 'the Il Duce and Fuhrer' of India. It is noteworthy that Gandhi was killed by his own people within a few years of Mussolini. Hitler, of course, took his own life.  

Britain has hitherto held India by producing before the world

Indians who want Britain to remain in India as ruler and arbiter

between rival claimants. These will always exist. The question is

whether it is right for Britain to plead these rivalries in defence of

holding India under subjection or whether she should now recognize

the mistake and leave India to decide upon the method of her own

government.

Gandhi is lying. Britain held India by military and economic might coupled with effective Administration. It did not bother to 'produce Indians before the world' because, quite properly, the testimony of a despised and conquered race is not worth hearing.  

And who are the minorities? They are religious, political and

social: thus Mussalmans (religious), Depressed Classes (social),

Liberals (political), Princes (social), Brahmins (social), non-Brahmins

(social), Lingayats (social), Sikhs (social?), Christians—Protestants and

Catholics (religious), Jains (Social?), Zamindars (political?). I have a

letter from the Secretary of the All-India Shia Conference registering

their claim for separate existence. Who are the majority in this

medley? Unfortunately for unhappy India even Muslims are

somewhat divided and so are the Christians. It is the policy of the

British Government to recognize every group that becomes

sufficiently vocal and troublesome. I have drawn no fanciful picture

of the minorities. It is true to life. The Congress itself has been

obliged to deal with every one of the groups I have mentioned. My

list is not exhaustive. It is illustrative. It can be increased ad libitum.

I know that the fashion is to talk of the Hindus forming the

majority community. But Hinduism is an elastic, indefinable term, and

Hindus are not a homogeneous whole like Muslims and Christians.

But this guy just showed that Muslims and Christians aren't homogeneous wholes! He can't keep his lies straight even over the length of a paragraph! 

And when one analyses the majority in any provincial legislature it

will be found to consist of a combination of the so-called minorities.

In other words and in reality so far as India is concerned, there can

only be political parties and no majority or minority communities.

But if there can only be political parties why should one Party, Gandhi's Party, have what Gandhi demands- viz. 'an exclusive right to speak for India as a whole'? 

Gandhi's demand is totalitarian. It lays the basis for a One Party State. If that isn't tyranny, what is? 

The cry of the tyranny of the majority is a fictitious cry.

Not in this instance. Gandhi is saying Congress should have 'an exclusive right' of representation. 

I observe that Janab Jinnah Saheb has said, in reply to Rajen

Babu’s letter offering to refer the League’s grievances against the

Congress Governments to an arbitration tribunal, that he has

already placed the whole case before the Viceroy and Governor-General and requested him to take up the matter without delay as he and the Governors of the Provinces have been expressly authorised under the Constitution and entrusted with the responsibility to protect the rights and the interests of the minorities.

The matter is now under His Excellency’s consideration, and he is the

proper authority to take such action and adopt such measures as would meet our requirements and would restore complete sense of security and satisfaction amongst the Mussalmans in those Provinces where the Congress Ministries are in charge of the administration.

So far so good. Prasad made an offer of arbitration to Jinnah which Jinnah rejected because he had already taken the correct constitutional step of placing the matter before the Viceroy. 

It is unfortunate that he had rejected Rajendra Babu’s reasonable proposal.

It may have been reasonable, but it was more reasonable yet for Jinnah to avail of the appropriate Constitutional remedy. 

Is it rejection of the proffered hand of friendship?

Well, answer the question, why don't you? Is it or is it not? Why suggest something you won't back up? Is that a friendly act?  

Be that as it may, nobody can have anything to say against

the Viceroy investigating and adjudicating upon the charges brought

against Congress Ministries. Let us hope he will soon conduct the

investigation. Whether the Muslims are regarded as minorities or

otherwise, their as well as any other community’s rights and privileges,

religious, social, cultural and political, must be regarded as a sacred

trust to be jealously guarded. And the independence of India will

make no difference to the protection of those rights. In fact they will

be better protected in every way, if only because in the framing of the

Charter of Independence by the nation’s representatives the Muslims

and other minorities, real or so-called, will have an effective voice.

We know how things turned out. The Brits did indeed give a more effective voice to minorities in Sri Lanka and India than they received after the region became independent. Gandhi goes on to say that Hindus are cowardly and useless in battle. This is not a good argument to make when a country is at war. Clearly the Hindus can contribute nothing to the defense of the realm. Let the Punjabis and Gurkhas and Indian Muslims- who, Gandhi says, are immune to the Hindu disease of being shit at fighting- decide how India should be ruled. After all, once the Brits depart, they will 'overrun' everything though, mercifully, they won't molest the backsides of Hindu cowards- provided those Hindu cowards keep bleating about 'Ahimsa' while shitting themselves copiously.