In my previous post, I looked at Tara Chand's History of the Indian Freedom Struggle. In this post I will briefly remark on R.C Majumdar's rejoinder to it.
Political exigencies gave rise to the slogan of Hindu-Muslim fraternity.
& the slogan that Britain was draining all India's imaginary wealth.
An impression was sought to be deliberately created that the Hindus and Muslims had already shed so much of their individual characteristics, and there was such a complete transformation of both and a fusion of their cultures that there was no essential difference between the two.
Ganga-Jamuna tehzeeb. Also, it was very difficult to tell a Muslim man from a Hindu woman. Firaq Gorakhpuri was constantly having sex with the former under the impression that it was the latter he was embracing.
Though every true Indian must ever devoutly wish for such a consummation, it was, unfortunately, never a historical fact. Sir Syed Ahmad, M. A. Jinnah and other Muslim leaders who never believed in it entertained more realistic views in this respect than either Mahatma Gandhi or Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru.
Who only pretended to believe in it.
To accept as a fact what is eminently desirable but has not yet been achieved, though perhaps attainable by prolonged efforts, is not only a great historical error, but also a political blunder of the first magnitude, which often leads to tragic consequences. So it has been in the present case. The Hindu leaders deliberately ignored patent truth and facts of history when they refused to recognize the fundamental differences between the Hindus and Muslims which made them two distinct religious, social and political units.
They had got it into their heads that Muslims were stupid and that they could hoodwink them. Just say 'we will give 5000 percent reservations! Just acquiesce in our getting control of the Army. After all, Hindus are totally non-violent. Army is needful to protect us from Firaq Gorakhpuri. Sodomy, you know, is condemned in Islam.'
The consequence was that no serious effort was ever made by the Hindu leaders to tackle the real problem that faced India, namely how to
raise productivity so the country could feed & defend itself? Fuck that! Majumdar was Indian. He didn't think productivity mattered at all.
make it possible for two such distinct units to live together as members of one State.
By raising productivity together. You get along well enough with others who are equally engaged in solving a collective action problem.
Whether the solution of such a problem was within range of practical politics, no one can say today with any degree of certainty.
Just get everybody working on raising total factor productivity by raising taxes from those who would most benefit by infrastructure investment, agronomic research, better financial markets etc.
But with the examples of Canada or Switzerland before us, the attempt was worth making, But such an attempt was never made in India,
the British did make that effort. But India didn't want a Federation.
as the existence of two such fundamentally different political units was never fully realized by the Hindu, leaders. Even today the Indian leaders would not face the historical truth, failure to recognize which has cost them dear.
i.e. there will be demographic change & by the time the Hindu reacts it will be too later.
They still live in the realm of a fancied fraternity and are as sensitive to any expression that jars against the slogan of HinduMuslim bhai bhai, as they were
to those who said 'Hindi-Chini bhai bhai' was eye-wash.
Being a Bengali, Majumdar knows that the Hindus in Bengal welcomed the Brits or other Europeans as a means to escape Islamic rule. Even the predatory Marathas were preferable.
A strong feeling of antipathy towards the Muslim rule is expressed by the great Bengali poet Bharatchandra in his magnum opus, the Annadamangal, composed in 1752 A.D. only five years before the Battle of Palasi (Plassey). He denounces the iconoclastic activities of Nawab Alivardi Khan and refers to the Maratha ruler as the chosen instrument of god Siva for punishing the wicked Yavana.
The traditional Hindu aversion to Muslim rule was voiced by Raja Rammohan Roy, who was the greatest personality in Bengal at the beginning of the 19th century and is justly regarded as the representative of the most advanced political thinking of the time. He was a sound scholar in Arabic and Persian and adopted Muslim diess and food ; so nobody can accuse him of anti-Muslim bias. His views on the point at issue are scattered in his writings, but the following extract from his petition to the King in Council in 1823 is enough to indicate them. "The greater part of Hindustan having been for several centuries subject to Muhammadan Rule, the civil and religious rights of its original inhabitants were constantly trampled upon, .and from the habitual oppression of the conquerors, a great body of their subjects in the southern Peninsula (Dukhin), afterwards called Marattahs, and another body in the western parts now styled Sikhs, were at last driven to revolt ; and when the Mussalman power became feeble, they ultimately succeeded in establishing their independence ; but the Natives of Bengal wanting vigor of body, and adverse to active exertion, remained during the whole period of the Muhammadan conquest, faithful to the existing Government, although their property was often plundered, their religion insulted, and their blood wantonly shed. Divine Providence at last, in its abundant mercy, stirred up the English nation to break the yoke of those tyrants, and to receive the oppressed Natives of Bengal under its protection.” Rammohan concludes his final Appeal to the Christian Public with the following words : "I now conclude my Essay by offering up thanks to the Supreme Disposer of the events of this universe, for having un¬ expectedly delivered this country from the long-continued tyranny of its former Rulers, and placed it under the government of the English : — a nation who not only were blessed with the enjoyment of civil and political liberty, but also interest themselves in promoting liberty and social happiness, as well as free inquiry into literary and religious subjects, among those nations to which their influence extends”
Niradh Chaudhuri, it seems, was writing in the finest tradition of his race when he demanded that White people return to rule over Bengal.
Dwaraka Nath Tagore, by no means an orthodox Hindu, writes in a letter to the Englishman, dated 6 December, 1838 : "The present characteristic failings of natives are want of truth, a want of integrity, a want of independence. These were not the characteristics of former days, before the religion was corrupted and education had dis¬ appeared. It is to the Mahomedan conquest that these evils are owing, and they are the invariable results of the loss of liberty and national degradation. The Mahomedans introduced in this country all the vices of an ignorant, intolerant and licentious soldiery. The utter destruction of learning and science was an invariable part of their system, and the conquered, no longer able to protect their lives by arms and independence, fell into opposite extremes of abject submission, deceit and fraud. Such has been the condition of the Natives of Hindustan for centuries."
Byron and others had supported the Greek struggle for Independence. They were a hardy people but, it was obvious, they had lost much of their lustre under Islamic rule.
Majumdar gives a good account of various insurrections against British rule in Greater Bengal. Those of a Muslim character alienated Hindus but so did others where the estates of co-religionists (or even relative) were attacked. There was economic discontent but no understanding or willingness to find a peaceful solution by coming together to solve collective action problems and thus raise productivity. Thus, though British rule was expensive it was preferable to Anarchy. Incidentally some 'revolts' were purely non-violent. But palliative methods could not succeed because the root problem was stagnating productivity.
Majumdar took note of the problem of indigo (Gandhi's first foray into Indian politics was in this connection)
The outrages perpetrated by the indigo-planters in Bengal •constitute one of the blackest chapters in the history of British rule in India.
because some of the planters were White though the land they leased was owned by Indians.
The cultivators were forced to sow indigo against their will though it meant a heavy loss to them ; recalcitrant -cultivators were arrested, severely beaten, tortured, and confined in the dark dungeons of the factories for months ; their houses were burnt ; and it was frequently alleged that the modesty of their women was outraged. All this was not unoften done with the connivance, if not with the active support, of the British officials.
Otto Trevelyan says otherwise. He blames the 'Anglo-Saxons' (i.e. Europeans who settled in India to make money unlike the 'Anglo-Indians' who were ICS officers like himself)
At last unable to bear the oppression which went on for half a century the Bengali cultivators organized, themselves in 1858 and refused in a body to cultivate their lands with indigo even “at the sacrifice of their hearth and home, nay of their lives". This heroic stand, which was rewarded with success, had also a bearing on the future struggle for freedom in India.
It was as wholly irrelevant as Gandhi's sojourn in Champaran.
The following passage in the Amrita Bazar Patrilta of 22 May, 1874, clearly elucidates this view, as it struck a contemporary young Bengali patriot. “It was the indigo disturbances which first taught the natives the value of combination and political agitation. Indeed it was the first revolution in Bengal after the advent of the English. If there be a second revolution it will be to free the nation from the death grips of the all-powerful police and district Magistrate.
In which case, anarchy would prevail.
Nothing like oppression ! It was the oppression which brought about the glorious revolution in England and it was the oppression of half a century by indigo planters which at last roused the half-dead Bengalee and infused spark in his cold frame."
Dwijendranath Tagore- Rabindranath Tagore's eldest brother- was adverse affected by the non-violent campaign of the Pabna tenant-farmers who formed an Agrarian League in 1873. Their demands were fully met by the 1885 Rent Act. The landlords dreamed of a day when the Brits were gone & they could raise rents to their heart's content while slaughtering anyone who resisted.
The differences between the Hindus and the Muslims were undoubtedly accentuated by the policy of ’Divide and Rule systematically pursued by the British throughout the 19th century.
Nonsense! If the ruler doesn't distinguish between two types of people, differences between them decrease.
As far back as 1821 a British officer wrote in, the Asiatic Journal : “Divide et Impera should be the motto of our administration,”
'Should be' doesn't mean 'is'. Carnaticus was a young Irish Captain who served in the Madras Army. What he thought Company policy should have been was irrelevant because he was merely a mercenary.
and the policy was supported by high British officers.
No. Their policy was to unite, gain economies of scope and scale and thus turn a higher profit.
At first the policy was to favour
the loyal & fuck up the disloyal
the Hindus at the expense of the Muslims, for, as Lord Ellenborough put it. “that race is fundamentally hostile to us and therefore our true policy is to conciliate the Hindus.”
Because they were loyal. Reward what you want more of.
It was not till the seventies when the Hindus had developed advanced political ideas and a. sense of nationalism that the British scented danger and began to favour the Muslims, now turned docile, at the expense of the Hindus.
They were cool with Hindus who did useful things. Blathershites they had no time for.
From about the eighties it became the settled policy of the British to
slap down Hindu or Parsi blathershites. Those who waged war against the Queen were killed out of hand or shipped off to the Andamans.
play the Muslims against the Hindus and break the solidarity of the people.
There was none.
Since then the British argument against conceding the political demands of the Congress has always been 'that it would be impossible for England to hand over the Indian Muslims to the tender mercies of a hostile numerical majority.’
What they meant was 'you blathershites are shit at fighting. Muslims aren't. Shut the fuck up.'
This British policy was undoubtedly productive of great evil, but it would be a mistake to suppose that the Hindu-Muslim cleavage was a creation of the British or even of the Aligarh Movement. The cleavage was there from the very beginning, as mentioned above the British policy merely exploited it for the safety of the British rule, and the Aligarh Movement widened it in order to serve the Muslim interests.
British policy was to sensible things. The Hindus might say 'their diabolical policy was to make us stupid and useless.' The Muslims might say 'their satanic conspiracy caused people to think Christianity isn't completely shit'. But guys who run countries don't care what stupid shitheads say.
One question which puzzled me was why Parsis tended to feel closer to Hindus than to Muslims.
A serious riot took place in Bombay in 1851. An article written by a Parsi youth on the Prophet of Arabia gave umbrage to the Muslims. At a meeting held on 7 October, 1851, they proclaimed a jihad (holy war) against the Parsis. They overwhelmed the small police force on duty and marched triumphantly to the Parsi quarters of the Bombay town. The Parsis were belaboured mercilessly by the rioters.” "For weeks together that part of Bombay was a scene of pillage and destruction, and the Parsis had to put up with shocking atrocities such as defilement of corpses.” Throughout the trouble the Parsi community failed to secure any police protection.
It appears that the police had special maps prepared by the mid 1850s showing relative concentration of Muslims and Parsees and places of safety- e.g. Government buildings to which civilians could be evacuated. The odd thing is that Parsees probably outnumbered Muslims in 1851. They should have been able to protect themselves or hire sturdy locals to do so.
There was again a similar riot in Bombay in 1874, °f which there are eye witnesses' accounts from two great Indian leaders like Dadabhai Naoroji and Pherozeshah Mehta. In a book written by a Parsi vaccinator there was a reference to the Prophet which was regarded as objectionable by the Muslims. The publication, was accordingly suppressed by the Government and the author was made to apologize for the affront he might have inadvertently offered. Nevertheless, there was "a brutal and unwarranted attack on Parsis by a mob of Mohamedans.” They “invaded Parsi places of worship, tore up the prayer- books, /extinguished the sacred fires and subjected the fire-temples to various indignities. Parsis were attacked in the streets and in their houses and free fights took place all over the city. Thanks to the weakness and supineness of the police and the Government, hooliganism had full play and considerable loss of life and damage to property were caused.”
It was the Parsees who were weak and supine.
The riot continued for several days till the military was called out. Both Pherozeshah Mehta and Dadabhai, whom no one would accuse of having any special animosity against the Muslims or the British Government, have laid emphasis on the callousness of the police and the indifference of the Government. “The attitude of the Commissioner of Police was particularly hostile and objectionable. Even the Governor advised a Parsi deputation, that waited on him, to make its peace with the Muhammadans and to learn the lesson of defending itself without dependence on the authorities.”
What's wrong with that? Don't start a fight you can't finish. Beat the shit out a publisher from your community who prints shite which causes riots and thus harms peaceful commerce.
Majumdar having shown, with innumerable examples, the dramatic difference between what Muslims wanted or thought important and what non-Muslim nationalists hoped for, condemns Congress making a pact with Khilafat in no uncertain terms. The problem is that nobody really believed non-Muslims (or Shias for that matter) gave a fart for the Ottoman Caliph.
The Hindu leaders failed to realize that the Khilafat agitation was really inspired by the Pan-Islamic movement,
No. The clue was in the name. Khilafat means Caliphate- i.e. Muslims ruling over everything.
and the policy of Hindu-Muslim entente was merely an ingenious device on the part of the Muslim leaders to secure help against British imperialism,
what help? Hindus were useless. Majumdar quotes Gandhi as saying (in 1921) “ I claim that with us both the Khilafat is the central fact, with Maulana Muhammad Ali because it is his religion, with me because, in laying down my life for the Khilafat, I ensure the safety of the cow, that is my religion, from the Mussalman knife.’ The problem here is that Gandhi didn't lay down shit. Also he knew very well that it was the anti-beef riots in Bihar in 1917 which saved the cow. He himself was sent to Champaran to distract attention from this. The Muslims were prepared to trade Khilafat for cow-protection if cow-slaughter was in any case off the table.
then regarded as the greatest enemy of Islam. There was no reason to suppose, as subsequent events clearly proved, that the Muslim leaders were inspired by a genuine desire to make up their differences with the Hindus in order to form an Indian nation. The Hindu leaders fell into the trap.
No. They thought they were hoodwinking the Muslims some of whom may have believed that supporting Khilafat was the first step to converting to Islam.
Too eager to arrive at a political settlement with the Muslims at any cost, they jumped at what they conceived to be a unique opportunity for achieving that end,—an oppotunity which, as Gandhi put it, might not occur in a hundred years' time.
Muslims are stupid. We can lead them down the garden path. What would be hilarious is if they took to spinning cotton.
Why did Gandhi call off the Non Cooperation movement. Majumdar does not know. But the thing is obvious. Gandhi had himself visited Chauri Chaura. Lots of the rioters had paid a small sum of money and joined the Congress party. Some were bound to turn approver and say 'the Mahatma told us to kill policemen'. Gandhi & Co could be charged with 'waging war on the King Emperor'. They could be transported to the Andamans. Their property could be seized. By contrast, doing a spot of porridge for 'seditious libel' was a walk in the park.
The first phase of Non-co-operation movement ended with Gandhi’s cry of halt, and any chance of its revival at an early date was removed by
the fact that Ataturk was winning the war. He had stopped the Greek offensive the previous year. By September he had chased out the Greeks. He ended the Sultanate in November. It suddenly occurred to the Muslims that the Brits wanted the Caliph as a puppet. Anyway, it turned out, the Viceroy had been quietly lobbying for them while Gandhi & Co had promised much but delivered zilch.
his confinement behind the walls of prison, for, the whole movement centred round one person, and his disappearance gave a deathblow to it at least for the time being.
He had said he would deliver Swaraj if a certain sum of money was collected. It was, but he didn't deliver shit.
It is not indeed a sign of healthy public life in any country that a great movement should rest upon the exertions and guidance of one man alone.
It wasn't a great movement. In Egypt, Allenby forced the hand of the British Govt. to capitulate & bring back Saad Zaghloul. Why? Because the uprising there was genuinely spontaneous. It hadn't been cooked up by blokes who hoped to profit immensely after the Brits fucked off.
But in the case of Non-co-operation movement, it was even worse still, for it depended wholly upon the personal whims and predilections of Gandhi
suppose he had been transported to the Andamans & the unrest worsened. They the Brits would have to give India what they gave Ireland & Egypt & Afghanistan. The problem was that an independent India wouldn't need Gandhi. He was welcome to fuck off to some village and spin cotton there.
which did not always appeal to his followers as based upon a clear process of reasoning intelligible to them. Nevertheless, he was obeyed without question, and retained the implicit confidence pf millions, such as has never fallen to the lot of any other political leader before or after him.
Nobody obeyed him unless they wanted to do stupid shit. Why? You feel stupid if you are doing stupid shit off your own bat rather than because some Mahatma told you to do it.
The secret of it lies in the combination of a saint and a political leader in his person. Gandhi, by his loin cloth and high ideals of an ascetic life of renunciation, succeeded in canalising the traditional reverence and unquestioning faith in a spiritual guru in India to the service of politics.
No. He got money from textile mill owners by getting people to burn foreign cloth. But, it must be said, he could be very useful. When Nehru's sister married a Muslim, he broke up the marriage & even found a suitable Brahmin boy for her to marry.
Whether Gandhi was the most saintly politician or the most political saint, will ever remain a matter of opinion.
He was a crackpot who needed money for his stupid schemes. By pretending he could deliver Swaraj he gained obligatory passage point status. But no Swaraj was delivered. Thus, he pretended he was uplifting the Dalit or embracing the Mussalman of helping the weavers or encouraging 'Basic Education' without the Education or other such shite. If only he had taught yogic levitation he could have become a billionaire like the Maharishi.
But the combination of the dual capacity in him introduced a new element in Indian politics—the idea of a political guru—which worked wonders during his life and which he left as a legacy to this country.
i.e. shitheads like Vinobha Bhave or Anna Hazare.
In the meeting of the All-India Congress Committee at Delhi Gandhi had tried hard to maintain that the resolution of suspension did not in any way nullify the resolution on Non-co-operation passed in the Nagpur session of the Congress.
He was right. All that Congress was doing was non-cooperating with itself to do non-cooperation.
But neither his eloquence nor his prestige could conceal the fact that Non-co-operation was dead. This was fully admitted by the Congress Enquiry Committee, which observed ; '‘There can be no doubt that the principle and policy laid down at Ahmadabad were completely reversed to the great disappointment of an expectant public", and the Congress "failed to create sufficient enthusiasm to carry on the constructive programme
it had none
with the earnestness it deserved’’.
The thing was stupid. Spinning cotton on a chakra destroys the value of the cotton. Weavers want good quality Mill yarn.
The last is a very significant admission, and should be borne in mind in making a proper study of the Nonco-operation movement, both in 1922 and thereafter. It means that the enthusiasm which sustained the movementwas really kept up by its fighting programme, and the constructive programme, such as weaving and spinning,
which destroyed the value of cotton
removal of untouchability etc.
why not cooperate with the Brits to do that? They don't have any such practice.
which was not likely to involve any collision with the Government, really fell flat upon the masses who looked upon them as merely of secondary importance, to be tolerated for the sake of Gandhiji, if not as an unnecessary hindrance to the real fight.
The real issue was land. Where was the Indian Lenin who would let the peasant kill the landlord and take his land?
The Congress Enquiry Committee had also the candour to admit that ‘'no man other than the Mahatma could lift the wet blanket thrown upon most of the workers by the Bardoli and Delhi resolutions, or effectively divert the course of Congress activities into the channels marked out by these resolutions.
By then, nobody gave a fuck about its resolutions.
They believed that if Gandhi could "make one of his lightning tours through the country", the whole aspect of things would have been changed. This may be seriously doubted in view of the callous indifference which which Gandhi’s imprisonment was looked upon by the public. As has been remarked, not a leaf stirred in this vast country on that occasion. The Congress inquiry Committee and the orthodox followers of Gandhi have taken pains to explain this indifference as merely ‘the homage of reverence which the people paid to Gandhiji by observing that exemplary self-restraint and perfect nonviolence which were so dear to his heart . One is constrained to observe that these were no less dear to his heart in 1919, when the mere rumour of his arrest created serious troubles in the Panjab and Bombay ; in 1922, only a few months before, when Chauri Chaura incident took place ; or in 1942, when Gandhi was again arrested and put into prison.
The difference is that Gandhi unilaterally surrendered & then cooperated fully with the prosecution by proclaiming his own guilt and asking for the law's highest penalty. Basically, Gandhi admitted that India was not ready for Independence. First everybody should give up sex and eating nice food and punching a bloke who tried to fuck them in the ass.
We must, therefore, look for some other reasons to explain the all-pervading calm after Gandhi’s incarceration in 1922.
I just gave it. Gandhi begged to be put in jail.
That these included popular resentment at his action and the consequent waning of his popularity will probably be disputed by none, except the blind followers of Gandhi. The Congress Enquiry Committee rightly observed that it would be "unprofitable to inquire what would have happened if Mahatma Gandhi had not been arrest-ed and sent to prison.'
Some Khilafati might have knifed him.
What actually happened admits of no doubt. The first phase of the Non-co-operation movement had ended and there was no chance of its revival, so^ long af least as Gandhi was in prison
He was let out early but stayed quiet for the entire duration of his sentence.
As a Bengali, Majumdar naturally focuses on 'Direct Action Day' in 1946 as the cause of Partition. He blames Nehru though Nehru wasn't Bengali. Azad's dad had been a big 'Pir' in Calcutta. But he was useless. Suhrawardy was in the saddle. The only way he could be defeated was by Hindu goons, assisted by Sikhs & Gurkhas & financed by Marwaris, to slaughter Muslims on a bigger scale. That's what happened.
the real spirit of the 'Direct Action' was expressed by Jinnah himself immediately after the resolution was passed by the League Council. He said : ‘*What we have done today is the most historic act in our history. Never have we in the whole history of the League done anything except by constitutional methods and by constitutionalism. But now we are obliged and forced into this position. This day we bid goodbye to constitutional methods."
In other words, the League could no longer ally with non-Congress forces. It would be a war to the knife. Muslims in non-Muslim majority areas were fucked. So were non-Muslims in Muslim majority areas- but that was already the case prior to the establishment of the British Raj. I suppose Jinnah finally realised that to gain a place in history, you must either link yourself to religion or else found a dynasty. His daughter had married a Christian Parsi. He himself was dying. 'A moth-eaten' Pakistan might grow by itself. He would be reminded as its founder.
"He recalled that throughout the fateful negotiations with the Cabinet Mission the other two parties, the British and the Congress, each held a pistol in their hand, the one of the authority and arms and the other of mass struggle and non-co-operation." "To day," he said, "we have also forged a pistol and are in a position to use it.'’
Oddly, Gandhi seemed to approve. He told Wavell- if India wants a blood-bath, India must get a blood-bath. Nehru was more conciliatory.
Whatever Jinnah might have in view when he uttered these words, the 'Direct Action' was interpreted in the light of these remarks by the Muslim League in Bengal with the full backing and support of the Muslim League Ministry under Mr. H. S. Suhrawardy, ruling over that unfortunate Province. The ‘Direct Action’ in certain localities in Bengal was merely a camouflage for an organized anti-Hindu campaign of loot, arson and indiscriminate murder of men, women and children in broad daylight with impunity. The worst holocaust took place in Calcutta. The League Ministry had declared 16 August as a public holiday. Long processions were taken out by the Muslim League along the prominent streets of Calcutta, and suddenly the members of the procession began to attack and loot the Hindu shops. Then the horrors of Muslim goondaism in its worst form were let loose upon the Hindus in the predominantly Muslim areas in Calcutta. The Hindus were taken unawares and had the worst of it at the beginning; they were butchered like sheep, their women were ravished, and their houses looted and occasionally burnt. It has now been proved beyond all doubt that this great killing and outrage were deliberately organized beforehand with the active support of the League Government. It was even then openly alleged that the Chief Minister, Suhrawardy, shielded the worst ruffians in Calcutta and encouraged them to do their worst without any fear. Azad writes : I found there ( Dum Dum, Calcutta ) a large military contingent waiting in trucks. When I asked why they were not helping to restore order, they replied that their orders were to stand ready but not to take any action.
Because there was Provincial Autonomy. The Premier called the shots.
Throughout Calcutta, the Military and the Police were standing by, but remained inactive while innocent men and women were being killed. This was indeed the strangest and the saddest part in the whole tragic episode ! The British Governor, all the while in Calcutta, sat inactive, and the Central Government did not take any effective step even though they received secret official reports that the Muslim League Goveinment was at the back of the whole affair.
The story would become similar in the Punjab. A Parsi journalist was invited by British officers to observe how the entire population was arming itself while the Government did nothing. The Parsi praises a Sikh commanding officer for trying to protect lives regardless of creed. But, it was obvious, the politicians simply didn't care. As Gandhi said, India would have its blood-bath. This could be seen as a 'Vishodhan'- a ritual cleansing like that which occurred at Kurukshetra in the Mahabharata.
This unwillingness of the British Government to maintain law and order for which they were still responsible under the existing Constitution
This would have involved ejecting the elected administration in Bengal. Nehru did not ask Wavell to instruct the Governor of Bengal to dismiss Suhrawardy. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee did. But he could be dismissed as a 'Hindu Mahasabha' bigot whose party got only one seat in the Jan 1946 election. Suhrawardy had 114 seats. Congress, notionally under Sarat Bose, had 86. But Sarat was a chum of Suhrawardy (and previously of Fazl). If Nehru had twisted Atlee's arm & got Wavell to dismiss Suhrawardy, there would be new elections. Hindu Mahasabha might gain seats at the expense of Congress.
rendered the Hindus desperate and forced them to organize themselves. Then followed what may be described as a Civil War between the Hindus and Muslims, members of each community indiscriminately killing those of the other whenever any opportunity offcied itself. When it was realized by the Government that the butchery, pillage and arson were no longer one-way traffic, they cried halt and peace was restored after about a week. No regular inquiry was made, but according to a rough official estimate at the time, nearly 5,000 lives were lost, over 15,000 persons were injured, and about 100,000 were rendered homeless. According to Mosley, ‘'between dawn on the morning of 16 August 1946 and dusk three days later, the people of Calcutta hacked, battered, burned, stabbed or shot 6,000 of each other to death, and raped and maimed another 20,000.
Small potatoes. Things got worse after the Brits handed over all power.
The Statesman wrote on the Calcutta riot of 16 August : “The latest estimate of dead is 3,000, who have lain thick about the streets. The injured number manythousand and it is impossible to say how many business houses and private dwellings have been destroyed. This is not a riot For three days, the city concentrated on unrestrained civil war. Upon whom the main guilt for it rests is manifest. ... Where the primary blame lies is where we have squarely put it—upon the Provincial Muslim League Cabinet... and particularly upon the Chief Minister. “
Sarat was happy to play footsie with Suhrawardy in pursuit of a chimeral 'United Bengal' scheme.
During an interview with the Viceroy Maulana Abul Kalam Azad “severely criticized the Bengal ministry (Premier Suhrawardy in particular) and alleged that, although the Government of Bengal had apprehended trouble, they had not taken sufficient precautions ; that they had been much too late in enforcing Section 144 and a total curfew, and in calling out the troops. The declaration of a public holiday on 16 August had made the hooligans of Calcutta's underworld believe that they had the licence of the Government to behave as they liked.''
Why was Azad so utterly useless in Calcutta? He was supposed to be a great Maulana. How come Muslims in Bengal ignored him completely? Why did the League get 113 out of the 118 reserved seats? To be fair, Azad wasn't Bengali. He was an Urdu speaker and did get elected from Rampur in 1952.
VI. INTERIM GOVERNMENT Far-sighted observers could realize that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to bridge the river of blood that flowed between the Hindus and the Muslims in Calcutta during August, 1946. Azad mournfully observes that “the turn that events had taken made it almost impossible to expect a peaceful solution by agreement between the Congress and the Muslim League.''
The agreement was implicit. India would get a blood-bath.
He justly regards this as "one of the greatest tragedies of Indian history”, and, "with the deepest regret", lays the main responsibility for this at the door of Jawaharlal Nehru,
who had nothing whatsoever to do with it. Sarat was the INC leader in Bengal. He wasn't demanding dismissal of Suhrawardy's administration. Indeed, in April, he had proposed a united Bengal pact alongside Suhrawardy & Kiran Shankar Roy. This was shot down by the High Command. Patel said 'we must have Calcutta'. This was the outcome of the violence. The Hindu majority prevailed.
though he adds : "Jawaharlal is one of my dearest friends and his contribution to India’s national life is second to none".
Azad wanted Muslims to have disproportionate power in a united India. Nehru wanted Congress, under his command, to have the same thing. However, what the Brits had found easy to do, the Indians found impossible. Why? They were incompetent and untrustworthy.
But Nehru does not seem to have fully realized the consequences of his own folly.
What folly? He had nothing to do with the Bengal Congress. He was a Hindi speaker from the cow-belt where he prevailed.
While Calcutta was the scene of an unprecedented holocaust, Nehru was busy negotiating with the Viceroy about the Interim Government.
What should he have been doing instead? If Sarat was cool with Suhrawardy, who was Nehru to demand his dismissal?
On 17 August, i.e., the very next day after the "great killing" had begun, but not ended, nor shown any sign of abating, he submitted his proposals to the Viceroy, and after discussion for a week the personnel of the Interim Government was announced on 24 August, 1946, in the following communique. "His Majesty the King has accepted the resignation of the present members of the Governor-General’s Executive Council. His Majesty has been pleased to appoint the following : Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Dr, Rajendra Prasad, Mr. M. Asaf Ali, Mr. C. Rajagopalachari, Mr. Sarat Chandra Bose, Dr. John Matthai, Sardar Baldev Singh, Sir Shafaat Ahmad Khan, Mr. Jagjivan Ram, Syed Ali Zaheer and Covesji Hormusji Bhabha. Two more Muslim members will be appointed later. The Interim Government will take office on September"
So, Sarat was signing off on this. The plain fact is Bose sold the pass. If the younger brother couldn't establish Japanese hegemony, the elder would try to establish Muslim hegemony over a united Bengal.
In a broadcast on the same day, the Viceroy made an earnest—almost pathetic—appeal to the Muslim League to join the Government. "The door of coalition is not closed," said the Viceroy, and he gave all possible assurances to remove misgivings about the Congress tyranny, but Jinnah refused to budge an inch.
Because of Punjab where Congress was part of a coalition. There had to be further polarisation and blood-letting. West Punjab was where most Muslim soldiers came from. Bengalis are shit at fighting. Pakistan would be nothing without the greater part of Punjab.
Majumdar's thesis- which has much truth as far as his native Bengal was concerned- was that the essential factor was Hindu-Muslim enmity which the Brits were able to overcome. Once they decided to quit, Partition was inevitable. For those, like Niradh Chaudhuri, who were from the East, it was perfectly sensible to praise Britain and lament their departure.
The end of the Second World War in 1945 also marked the end of India’s struggle for freedom which had commenced just about a quarter of a century before.
After 1917, multi-ethnic Empires were doomed. Gandhi prevented India getting what Ireland, Egypt & Afghanistan got but the truth is India could not defend itself and thus freedom would have been largely cosmetic. The Second World War completed what had begun with the Great War. This time around, you had a lot of young officers- not NCOs- with military experience. In any case, British naval hegemony was in terminal decline. There was no alternative to complete independence. Never again would British soldiers turn up to secure the borders of India (though Malaya- which had valuable raw materials- did get the benefit of British Army support to end its Communist insurgency).
TheNon-violent Non-co-operation and Civil Disobedience movements had practically come to an end in 1933. The violent revolutionary movement which had started early in the twentieth century spent its force by 1935. A combination of the above two movements in August, 1942, was ruthlessly crushed by the Government before the year was over. Lastly, the efforts of Subhas Bose to fought the battle for India’s freedom with the help of foreign powers, culminating in the campaign of Azad Hind Fauz or Indian National Army on the eastern frontier of India, came to an end with their retreat along with the Japanese forces in July, 1944- So, in the early months of 1945, when the end of the War was within sight, the prospect of India’s achieving freedom from the British yoke looked very gloomy indeed.
Not in England. Churchill was considered insane on the topic of India. Once the war was over, the Tories would bypass him with American help and complete what they had begun with the 1935 Act. In the event, Labour won a majority. But rising Tory stars like R.A. Butler- who was from a Punjab ICS family- had no desire to hang on to the place. He knew that the working class Tory voter had grown suspicious of Imperialism. It was a form of 'outdoor relief' for the Aristocrats who got to escape rationing at home on the pretext that they were preserving British glory in some sunny tropical clime.
The power which refused to grant freedom to India in the darkest hours of its national peril was not likely to concede it in the days of its triumph and glory.
Bankruptcy. The UK needed American money to survive. They called the shoots. Only if there had been a Communist threat in India could lingering there be justified. However, the 'Cold War' mindset didn't fully develop till the 'loss' of China. But Marshall had getting fed up with Chiang Kai Shek in 1946. Since Commies were virtually wiped out in the 1946 elections and since America didn't have a dog in a fight between non-Christian religions, it followed that even Churchill, had he been re-elected, would have had to withdraw from India. Atlee just did it faster.
Such misgivings must have haunted the minds of Indians in general. But the future of India was being shaped by unforeseen factors. It did not take Britain long to realize that she had after all won a Pyrrhic victory. She saved herself and her empire by inflicting a crushing defeat upon Germany and Japan, but this fight to a finish exhausted her manpower and economic re8ource% to such an extent that she could never hope to recover her old power and prestige.
She didn't want it. In the Thirties, UK decided that its first line of defence must be the air-force. After Hiroshima, the race was on to get first the Atom bomb in 1952 & the H-bomb in 1957.
Majumdar invokes the spectre of the British Empire turning into a bunch of British Umpires. But countries can't be ruled by Umpires.
. The British were now sincerely anxious to grant freedom to India, but the Indians were slow to take it, for they could not decide among themselves what form it should exactly assume. The role of the British was that of a mediator between two disputants, sometimes degenerating into that of a judge in a boxing bout between two prize-fighters.
This was untenable. Either they could unite and rule or divide & run the fuck away. But this was also true of the new nations. They went in for centralization not subsidiarity or devolution. Instead of serving as umpires, the Police & Army took one side and smashed the other to smithereens.
Majumdar concludes thus.
It is hardly necessary to say that August 15 was hailed with joy all over India, and no words can adequately describe the tumultuous scenes of wild rejoicings witnessed in every city and every village. Lord and LadyMountbatten, driving in state, were greeted with resounding cheers by the enthusiastic crowds that lined the streets. This heralded a new era of goodwill between India and Britain. Stories of many hard and bitter stiuggles between India and Britain, and of animosities between the Indians and the British fill the pages of this work. Let it end with a note of goodwill, trust, and confidence which manifested itself on the streets of Delhi on 15 August, 1947. How the author wishes that he could have closed this volume with a similar note in respect of the relation between India and Pakistan. But that was not to be. Instead of an era of goodwill, the independence ushered in one of communal hatred and cruelty of which there is perhaps no parallel in the recorded history of India.
Majumdar explains why. There had to be a river of blood between Muslim & non-Muslim for the Muslim League to prevail in Pakistan. Sadly, the League was shit. Pakistan became a military state.
It -is unnecessary to recount that story of shame and barbarity as it falls beyond the period under review. It will suffice to quote a few lines written by Leonard Mosley, by way of indicating the price which India paid for her freedom : "Both sides had signed, on 20 July, at Mountbatten’s behest, a declaration that they would respect the rights of minorities. But Mountbatten was right in suspecting that they did not know what they were signing.'
They didn't care what they were signing.
TheSikh policy was to exterminate the Muslims in their midst. The Muslims, with their eyes on the rich Sikh farmlands, were content to drive the Sikhs out and only massacre those who insisted on remaining. It is sad to have to admit that in their deliberate disobedience of their signed pledge they were encouraged by the British Governor of West Punjab, Sir Francis Mudie, who wrote to Mr. Jinnah on 5 September, 1947 : T am telling everyone that I don’t care how the Sikhs get across the border ; the great thing is to get rid of them as soon as possible.’
Not as horrible as it sounds. Sikhs & Hindus needed to make their own arrangements & fuck the fuck off. The Government was useless. Why? Darkies were in charge.
“600,000 dead. 14,000,000 driven from their homes. 100,000 young girls kidnapped by both sides, forcibly converted or sold on the auction block.” Mosley continues : “It need not have happened. It would not have happened had independence not been rushed through at such a desperate rate. A little patience and all the troubles might have been avoided.. ..Jinnah was dead within a year. A little patience. A refusal to be rushed.”
Lots of money from Uncle Sam so as to keep the show on the road? Maybe that would have helped. Maybe not. Mountbatten got the Whites out safely. It's all Wavell thought he himself could accomplish. Incidentally, the previous Viceroy, Linlithgow seems to have agreed with Wavell.
This seems to be too optimistic a view. The question whether Mountbatten or his critics were right may be safely left to the verdict of history.
Mountbatten covered for Atlee provided because the moment you start blaming him, you remember that he was a sailor with zero knowledge of India.
History's verdict favours Majumdar not Tara Chand. Islam really does have a different political horizon from that of the Kuffar. However, a Muslim country may prefer to protect minorities for commercial reasons. Nothing wrong in that at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment