Tara Chand, in his 'history of the freedom movement' began thus-
In the eighteenth century India passed under the sway of Britain.
Parts of it did. But other parts of it had passed under the sway of the Portuguese in 1510
Almost for the first time in her history an alien people whose homeland lay at a distance of several thousand miles from India assumed the reins of her government and the guidance of her destinies.
It was by no means obvious that the Brits would retain much territory in India till it prevailed in the Napoleonic wars. Ultimately, it had to withdraw from its Empire in the East because it had to focus on a threat from across the Channel.
Such an occupation of the country was a new experience.
No. The Moghuls claimed descent from Genghis Khan & spoke Chaghtai Turkish- a language wholly alien to India. But there had once been Indo-Greek kingdoms. Demetrius reached Patna in Bihar.
For, although in the past India had suffered many invasions, and from time to time parts of die Indian territory had fallen temporarily under the dominion of the conquerors, the occasions had been few and their duration short.
What Tara Chand means is that the invaders became Indianized or else imposed their own religion and culture on their subjects. But Britain could be said to have done the same thing in India. Nehru himself described himself as the last Englishman to rule India.
What is odd about Tara Chand's work is that it came out in 1967. India had not only been partitioned on the basis of religion, it had fought two wars with Pakistan which claimed to be a completely separate 'nationality' on the basis of its people spiritual and cultural inheritance from Arabia.
The only conquerors who established permanent empires
not permanent at all as Tara Chand could clearly see
over the greater part of India were the Turks
who originate amongst the Altai mountains in far away Mongolia.
The achievement of freedom by India is a unique phenomenon.
Nonsense! Burma, Ceylon, Pakistan etc. became free at around the same time. The Brits had wanted to make their colonies self-administering and self-garrisoning as far as possible. They hoped India would become a Federation like South Africa or Canada. Instead, the country split on the basis of religion. First Buddhist Burma broke away and then, ten years later, Muslim majority provinces formed themselves into Pakistan. The Hindus of India chose to hang together rather than once again repeat the mistakes of the past.
It lay in the transformation of a civilisation into a nationality.
Like Rome merging into Italy or China becoming unified under Qin Shi Huang.
It is the fulfilment or nationality through the establishment of national sovereignty.
Like Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria etc. becoming free of Ottoman rule.
It is throughout the course of its advance a movement directed an much against the violence of the other as against the unreason of the self.
Fuck off! The country split up because of ethnic cleansing. Did Tara Chand not remember 'Direct Action Day'? Had he forgotten the vast blood letting of Partition?
In essence it is an ethical struggle both in relation to the foreigner as well as members of its own body.
What was so ethical about killing those of another religion? When Nehru became PM in Delhi, its Muslim population represented one third of the whole. One year later it had dropped to five percent.
The fact is, if India had lost the 1965 War there would have been massive ethnic cleansing of Muslims.
And where similar struggles have been accompanied with bloodshed, the movement in India, though intense and accompanied with much suffering, was non-violent.
People were non-violently stabbed to death.
The history of freedom is a dialectic process,
No. It is the history of killing those who try to take it away. England was free because it killed lots of Frenchies or Krauts in periodic wars.
Its first step was antithetical in so far as it amounted to the destruction of the old order.
Not in India. The new Emperor or Prime Minister took over the existing administration & revenue system.
This is the argument of the process which started in the middle of the eighteenth century
when the East India took over the Diwani (tax farming rights) of Bengal. It then took over the Nizamat (administration). Bengal remained peaceful enough under their rule. Sadly, when they departed, the place turned to shit.
and culminated in the revolt of 1857.
Only two of the Company's 5 armies revolted. The Sikhs were happy to ally with the Brits to crush the rebels in Delhi.
The second step is the emergence of a new order which gradually gathers momentum after 1857.
The Brits started to reform the administration after Direct Rule was established. By the 1880s there was some attempt to create 'representative institutions'. Sadly, the Indians liked talking bollocks rather than raising productivity by solving collective action problems. Thus the Brits dictated the scope and scale of devolution of power.
,The third step is one of conflict and synthesis of the spirit of the old order and the new, of the East and the West, and the coming into the world of a new individual -the Indian nation State.
Which was admitted to the League of Nations in 1919. BTW, the Republic of India is the successor state of the Dominion of India which was the successor state of the Indian Empire which was the successor of the Mughal Empire which was the successor of the Sultanate.
Remarkably, the whole of the first two volume of 'History of Freedom Struggle' has no information on any such thing. Finally, in the fourth volume, the central question is addressed- viz. was Congress a Hindu party or did it really represent the whole of India? If it was Hindu it should have pushed for partition & thus got what the Irish got in 1922. If it wasn't Hindu- what the fuck was it?
He mentions the Labour Party's initial support for Indian Independence
After assuming office the tune changed.
Why? Gandhi had unilaterally surrendered in 1922. Thus Olivier, not Col. Wedgwood, became Secretary for India.
The accepted maxim of British politics that the Indian question was not a party question but a matter of national policy guided the Labour Government, as Reading told the Assembly on January 31, 1924, “It is the policy of the British nation and not of any party.”
Reading was a Liberal.
All the old well-worn arguments were trotted out by the Labour spokesmen in Parliament. The claim of the Congress that its demand embodied the national will was denied. The Congress was declared a Hindu organisation.
Churchill would later add that it was a High Caste Hindu organization which aimed to oppress the Muslim and the 'depressed class' Hindus. Ambedkar & Mandal heartily agreed.
Coatman, the editor of India, the official annual publication of the Government of India, writes : The Congress Party “is in fact, almost entirely a Hindu party, and from its beginning in the middle eighties has never been anything but predominantly Hindu.
Gandhi admitted this in an article he published in 1939. Congress was indeed Hindu but since Hindus are non-violent, the Brits should hand over the Army to Congress because otherwise the Muslims & the Punjabis (regardless of creed) would grab everything for themselves.
Outside India the belief is widely current that Congress is a democratic party. This is literally the exact reverse of the truth.
It was under the thrall of the Maha-crackpot before becoming a wholly dynastic party owned by Nehru's descendants by primogeniture.
The Congress Party is pre-eminently the party of privilege and vested interest. The success of the Congress Party’s agitation would mean the replacement of British rule by the rule of a theocratic and plutocratic oligarchy. Further, the Congress Party adopted some,, and anticipated other features of the characteristic technique of Fascism.”
e.g the Congress Seva Dal.
When Labour returned to power in 1929, things looked more promising. The Viceroy returned from London to announce on October 31, 1929 that a Round Table Conference would be held as early as possible. Moreover it contained the following declaration : “I am authorized on behalf of His Majesty’s Government to state clearly that in their judgement it is implicit in the declaration of 1917 that the natural issue of India’s constitutional progress, as therein contemplated, is the attainment of Dominion Status.'
A conference of Indian leaders of various parties met at New Delhi immediately after the Viceroy’s announcement and after two days’ discussion issued a statement on November 2 1929. It accepted the Viceroy’s declaration subject to certain conditions, namely, that the discussion at the Round Table Conference should be on the basis of Dominion Status for India, that the representation of progressive political organizations should be effective and that among them the share of the Indian National Congress should be predominant, and that in order to create a calm atmosphere a policy of general conciliation should be adopted.
In other words, Congress was demanding that power- including control of the Army- be transferred to them. Also, their activists should be left alone to do what they liked- i.e. de facto, they would be in charge immediately.
To Jawaharlal Nehru, the President-elect of the Congress of 1929 it was a bitter pill to swallow. It caused him great distress to give up the demand for independence, but for the sake of avoiding a split he allowed himself to be coaxed to sign.
The alternative was to go back to sulking in a jail cell. Half a loaf is better than no bread.
But hardly had the ink on the manifesto dried when a debate was raised on the announcement of Irwin in the House of Lords. Reading, the ex-Viceroy,. called attention to the statement of the Viceroy and asked the Government to state why the announcement was made before the Commission had reported, and whether it indicated a change of policy regarding the period in which Dominion Status could be attained. He objected to the use of the term Dominion Status, which was likely to raise false hopes in India. Birkenhead in a strongly worded speech accused the Government of yielding to the threat of civil disobedience, charged it with mishandling the situation and affirmed : “No man who has or who ought to retain a character for sanity or responsibility can assign any proximate period to the date at which you can conceive of India becoming a Dominion Status.” Both the Liberal and Conservative Lords expressed their disapproval and annoyance. But Lords Parmoor and Passfield on behalf of the Labour Government assured the House that the arrangement did not mean any departure from settled policy, for all that the Viceroy had done was to remove doubts concerning the ultimate goal of British policy as defined in the proclamation of August 20, 1917. Lord Parmoor agreed to “the necessity of keeping political matters out of all India affairs and questions; there was not the slightest difference between Lord Reading and the Government”.
Irwin had been appointed by a previous administration. On taking over from Reading, the biggest problem he faced was communal riots. He was foolish enough to think Gandhi could help in this matter. His declaration was on the basis of his conversation with the new PM & the Secretary of State to India. It was a different matter than the administration decided to walk-back on what had previously been their policy.
In the House of Commons Baldwin, leader of the Conservatives, and Lloyd George of the Liberals were critical. Both deplored that the Viceroy’s announcement was made before the Commission had reported. Lloyd George categorically stated, “Both political parties (Conservative and Liberal) protested before the Declaration was issued. .. . That means that they were opposed to it. ... The first time action has been taken which has divided the nation in reference to India.”
Labour realised that its voters had no interest in India. They couldn't afford to expend Parliamentary time and political capital on the matter. Let there be a consensus or else let the thing drag out while they got on with addressing issues which directly affected the working class.
He asked the Government to explain what it thought about the Indian interpretation of the obscure phrases in the Declaration, for “it has created an impression in India that it is intended immediately, without delay, to confer full Dominion Status on India, and that the Joint Conference which has been summoned is for the purpose of framing a scheme. Baldwin said he had given his personal approval subject to the condition that the consent of the Simon Commission was previously obtained, which, he pointed out, was not done.
Congress should have welcomed Simon & Co to get them to sign off on the thing.
Lloyd George maintained that “the ultimate goal could only be attained by stages and the length and number of those stages must be determined gradually from time to time by the success that attended the experiment at each stage.” Wedgwood Benn, the Secretary of State for India, in his reply gave two reasons why the announcement was made. In the first place, it was necessary to allay the doubts which had arisen in India regarding British intentions; and secondly, “to make a good atmosphere for the Report'’. He was sure that the two objects had been achieved and a great change had taken place in the spirit of India, and that justified the action of Government. He refused to answer Lloyd George’s question whether he agreed with the interpretation put upon the declaration by the Indian leaders.
He wasn't a mind reader. Who knows what darkies on a distant sub-continent think about anything?
The debate in Parliament and specially the statements of the representatives of Government had a devastating effect on Indians. It was clear to them that they had been misled in their belief that the Conference would discuss the question of the constitution of India on the basis of Dominion Status.
This is perfect true. In 1927 my grandfather met a White dude who said 'Good morning'. He interpreted this to mean 'If you take off all your clothes and prance around with a radish up your bum, the British Parliament will make you Emperor of Yorkshire.'. He felt very bitter that he had been misled by this cunning Whitey.
Whatever might have been the intentions of Irwin, he was badly let down both by the leaders of the opposition and the Government.
No. When Labour came to power, he changed tack. When they fell, he was vindicated because, like Reading before him, he'd given Gandhi just enough rope to hang himself. The next Viceroy would not need to bother with talking to Congress. Either they took what they were offered or they could rot in jail.
I should explain, Gandhi's demand, at the Second Round Table Conference, that the Army be handed over to Congress alienated all the other parties.
The much disillusioned and irritated Indian leaders met on 18th November at Allahabad to review the developments since their Delhi meeting. They, however, resolved to stand by the Delhi manifesto and await till the Lahore Congress session for further action.
At Lahore symbolic Independence was declared.
Subsequently Patel and Sapru saw Irwin and then on December 23 Gandhiji, Motilal, Patel, Sapru and Jinnah interviewed the Viceroy, who explained that it was impossible in any way to prejudge the action of the Conference or to restrain the liberty of Parliament. Thus the demand that the Round Table Conference should meet for the purpose of drafting the Indian constitution on the basis of Dominion Status was finally turned down.
In other words, Labour has lost interest in India. British voters saw the mess made in Ireland. Why fix what isn't broken? If Congress liked sulking in jail, jail them by all means.
The Viceroy wrote after the interview to the Secretary of State, “They (the protagonists of Congress) really were very impossible and left me more than usually depressed about the lack of political sense that extremist politicians habitually betray.”
Congress had convinced itself that was itself the Indian Parliament. The British Parliament should treat it as an equal. But, it was the British Parliament which commanded the Army and Civil Service in India. Congress commanded nothing. All it could do was go sulk in jail from time to time.
His impression was that the Congress leaders were convinced that they would not be able to surmount the deep-seated difference among the Indian representatives and would consequently fail to present an agreed scheme of the constitution.
In other words, they knew that non-Congress people didn't think Congress was an actual Parliament.
Therefore they were trying to find excuses for not attending the Conference.
They didn't attend the First Conference but let Gandhi attend the Second because Jail is very boring- yaar. Consider Nehru's position- he was arrested on April 14, 1930 and released on October 11. Then he was arrested again in October 19, 1930 and held till January 26, 1931. The Gandhi-Irwin pact came in March but Gandhi's attendance of the Round Table Conference was a failure and so Nehru was back in jail from December 1931 to 1935. Congress then had a choice. Either accept what the Brits had unilaterally imposed and fight elections and form Ministries or get bypassed completely. They chose the former course but resigned when war was declared. Jail had become a habit.
Tara Chand was a scholar of Islam & had been an Ambassador to Iran. However, he could not envisage Islam as a political program- which is what it became in Iran after the fall of the Shah. This blindspot of his meant that he could not bring himself to admit that Pakistan was a separate country.
Against Jawaharlal’s contention that there were only two parties in India, Jinnah’s outburst asserting the existence of three was justified.
Which is why Pakistan exists.
But the argument by which it was supported was false, for by no stretch of imagination could the two propositions of Jinnah involved in his assertion be accepted, viz,, (1) that the Hindus and the Muslims had nothing in common, and were, therefore, two separate nations,
yet such is the case
and (2) that all Muslims of the Indian subcontinent constituted a separate nation, and therefore needed a separate state.
but that is what they wanted and that is what they got.
Apart from the fact that the differences between the Hindus and the Muslims in culture and modes of living were highly magnified,
one may say the same of the Catholic Irishman and the Protestant Ulsterman.
it is relevant to point out that even in the matter of religion the Indian Muslims were more Indian in outlook than foreign Muslims.
So what? They were closer to foreign Muslims in their hatred of Kaffirs. Hindu Indians were closer to Christian Greeks in their hatred of Muslim oppressors.
An eminent authority on Islam and a sympathetic observer of Pakistan affairs writes: “Islam in the Indo-Pakistan sub-continent is sui generis on account of centuries of proximity with Hinduism and of long Muslim minority rule over a Hindu majority.”
Pakistan was and is sui generis in its hatred of India. Turks or Iranians or Saudis have no particular desire to slaughter Hindus.
Another equally serious cause of misunderstanding was the conffict of views concerning the Muslim League’s demand for ensuring the security of Muslim interests. Jawaharlal asked what were these interests. For they were either cultural and religious, or political. So far as the first type was concerned, the Congress had solemnly declared, not once but many a time, that they would be safeguarded by the Constitution to the complete satisfaction of the Muslims.
Also, if the Constitution abolished death, nobody would die.
With regard to the second type, his view was that the political interests were by and large economic interests, interests concerned with the production and distribution of wealth.
Nehru didn't seem to understand that Muslim entrepreneurs wanted the Government to give contracts to Muslims. Hindu contractors wanted the opposite.
By their very nature they were bound to be common to all the Indian people, irrespective of religious, social and cultural differences.
The interest of Coca Cola are the same as Pepsi Cola- right? That is why Pepsi often publishes advertisements saying 'If you like Pepsi, why not try Coke?'
They could not, therefore, admit of differentiation on the basis of community.
Nehru himself has written that the British government gave contracts to British firms. He knew very well that the party which controlled the Municipality favoured those who contributed financially to it. Moreover, as Jinnah said, Muslims in Congress were 'show-boys'. Azad records his disappointment that Nehru didn't appoint non-Hindu CMs though qualified candidates existed in Bihar & Bombay.
The creation of Pakistan was good for Muslim bureaucrats, soldiers and business magnates. The creation of India was good for Hindus (and elite Parsis and Christians) in the same manner.
With Labour's victory in 1945, Freedom for the Sub-Continent became inevitable. Atlee wanted to get out as quickly as possible. The British working class did not want to waste a single drop of blood on India.
On September 16, Wavell returned to India and on 19th September made the important announcement on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, firstly, that it was intended to convene as soon as possible the constitution-making body, and immediately after the elections to ascertain from the representatives of the Legislative Assemblies in the pro¬ vinces, “whether the proposals contained in the 1942 declaration are acceptable or whether some alternative or modified scheme is pr ferable secondly, that it was intended to consult the representatives of the Indian States in what way they could take part in the const tution-making body; thirdly, that the government were considering the draft of a treaty which would be concluded between Great Britain and India; fourthly, that a new Executive Council would be brought into being with the support of the main Indian parties to deal with the economic and social problems and work out the future position of India in the new world order. Attlee made a broadcast on India from London on the same day, viz., 19th September, and drew attention to the King’s Speech which promised,, “My Government will do their utmost to promote, in conjunction with the leaders of Indian opinion, early realization of full selfgovernment in India.”
How was this different from Congress had previously demanded? The answer is that Congress would not inherit everything. Places which voted for them would be theirs. Places which didn't wouldn't. Some of the Princely States might be viable on their own. Others would have to make their own arrangements with the successor state.
He announced that the Government would act m accordance with the spirit and intention of the Cripps offer. Then he went on to repeat the announcement made by Wavell in India. The All-India Congress Committee met at Bombay from September 21 to September 23. Vallabhbhai Patel moved the resolution on the Wavell proposals, as follows : “that the proposals now made are, in the opinion of the AICC, vague, inadequate and unsatisfactory”, and “in order to demonstrate the will of the people, especially on the issue of the immediate transfer of power, the AICC resolves that the forthcoming elections be contested.”
In other words, Congress had to take what was on offer otherwise the Brits would pass power to some other party.
An amendment was moved to the resolution “urging that the elected representatives of the Constituent Assembly of areas in which the Muslims were in a majority should be free to mould their own destiny and to make their own decision whether they should join the Indian Union or not”, was opposed by Jawaharlal Nehru and Patel and lost.
Congress didn't want to be blamed for partition.
To give effect to the second part of the resolution of the All-India Congress Committee and to make preparations for the coming elections the Congress Working Committee met early in December at Calcutta. The Committee drew up the election manifesto which
was a pack of lies
declared : The goal of India was a free democratic republic with fundamental rights and liberties of all citizens guaranteed.
till the First Amendment took them away
The republic would be a federation with autonomy for the constituent units,
It was highly unitary. The centre could create or dissolve Provinces at will.
and legislatures elected under universal adult franchise.
Ceylon already had this.
The federation would be a willing union of parts, in which the federal union government would be given a minimum of common and essential subjects, with a list of additional subjects which might be entrusted by the provinces.
This was pure bluff. Nehru had always been against a Federation.
Besides the structure of the independent state of India, the manifesto explained the objectives and functions of the state, and India’s foreign policy. But the dominant note of the manifesto was freedom for India had been won through confidence and strength.
The confidence and strength of the Allies who had prevented it being conquered by the Japanese.
I think, the crucial question was always command of the Army. Once enough Muslim officers (as well as their bureaucratic counterparts) had come together, the League could proceed with their demand for Pakistan because they would have enough trained people to run a country. Some were pessimistic. How will you deal with the frontier tribes or an Afghan invasion? It must be said, once Jinnah got rid of 'the Frontier Gandhi' his people were able to do good enough deals not to get bogged down in a tribal war.
Gandhi & Nehru were incapable of seeing any issue save from their own crazy point of view. Tara Chand follows them. He had seen Pakistan fight two wars with India. It was not a 'mirage'. Though much smaller than India it was so much better armed that the '65 war had been a close call.
The fact is that for forty years the British rulers had been inciting the Muslims to counter the Congress in order to thwart the demand for self-government.
Moreover, the Brits had somehow convinced them that Islam is not against idol-worship or eating beef.
The culmination of this course of policy was the Muslim League demand for Pakistan which received the blessings of Churchill, Amery, Linlithgow, as well as the sympathy of the Labour Party leaders—Attlee, Greenwood etc.
It was also accepted by Gandhi, Nehru, Patel etc.
The Second World War brought home to the British leaders the futility of the attempt to maintain the integrity of the Empire.
No. It strengthened their resolve to turn it into a Commonwealth. This had already been done for South Africa. Sadly there were too few Whites in India for a similarly speedy transfer of power.
But now although they were convinced that the transfer of power could not be withheld, they differed concerning the future of India—unity or division.
They wanted Federation. But whoever controlled the Army could tear up the Federation. Once the Army polarised on religious grounds, partition was inevitable.
This difference was reflected in the opinions of the Cabinet Mission ministers, and was responsible for its failure. Once again the British bureaucracy in India and its chief the Viceroy sticking to their notorious anti-Congress stance,
British bureaucrats had worked well enough under Congress Ministries.
prevented the solution of the deadlock, destroyed the chances of the realisation of a united and free India and helped to establish the entirely crazy and inherently unworkable state of Pakistan.
Yet Pakistan existed and still exists. Meanwhile Indira turned Congress into a Dynastic party. House of Windsor was replaced by House of Nehru.
Unfortunately the mirage of Pakistan had so hypnotized the Muslims and their leaders that their faculties of critical examination were benumbed.
Sadly, it was the idea that Muslims would be fairly treated in Nehru's India which proved to be a mirage. Once the Custodian of Evacuee Property decided you were planning to emigrate, you had not choice but to do so and hope you could get some compensation in Pakistan.
Tara Chand holds firmly to the theory that Britain followed a 'divide and rule strategy' when the truth is they unified the country & permitted people of every religion to hold office. Look at the 'Chieftain's schools' they set up. Mayo or Aitchison admitted Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims. In the Army, there were troops of all faiths.
The British policy was to magnify the differences partly no doubt because it was necessary for the preservation of the Empire,
it was hazardous to it. Communal riots destroy the tax-base and tie up troops.
partly also because they came to believe in the impossibility of the Hindus and Muslims developing the consciousness of a common nationality.
Because Muslims said they had a different nationality.
This belief became a dogma that underlay all thinking about constitutional reforms of all parties—Conservative, Liberal and Labour.
This is itself a dogma which may have been plausible at a time when people expected Pakistan to collapse and beg to be admitted to the Indian Union.
Morley, Montagu and Lloyd George, the Liberals, were as much influenced by it as MacDonald, Olivier, Attlee, Cripps and PethickLawrence, the Labourites, and as Birkenhead, Templewood, Amery, Chamberlain and Churchill, the Conservatives.
Why? Because Hindu leaders made demands only intelligible to Hindus. Gandhi, in particular, was a crack-pot. A Hindu who followed Gandhi might say 'true, spinning khaddar is not beneficial in any way BUT by doing so I will be re-born on the paradisal planet of Vaikunta where there is no sex or dirty pictures or delicious kebabs to eat.' A Muslim who followed Gandhi was either stupid or an opportunist or both stupid and an opportunist.
Sadly Nehru's obsession with Socialism meant that India was not able to rise in the manner of Japan etc.- viz. by first gaining economies of scope & scale in textiles etc. Islam was founded by a 'tajir'- a Merchant'. Tijarat- free enterprise is the foundation of prosperity- 'Imarat'. West Pakistan soon began to rise above India in per capita GNP. There was some truth to the jibe 'nanga bhooka Hindustan'- hungry, naked India.
The difference between the parties did not relate to the communal question, but to the question of transfer of responsibility and self-government. Strange as it might appear, all the parties seemed to agree on the subject of Indian unity, yet all of them followed the course which led to division.
Why? If they couldn't keep Ireland united- though it was on their doorstep- fuck could they do about India ?
Morley and Montagu condemned separate electorates—the seed of partition—in theory,, but introduced them in the Acts of 1909 and 1919.
Because they didn't want Indian Muslims to run amok. This would harm Britain in the Islamic world.
Simon and Attlee criticised them and declared them injurious to nation-building yet recommended them for the Act of 1935.
Because Gandhi had alienated even the Sikhs and Non-Brahmin Madrasi Hindus at the Second Round Table Conference. Churchill wasn't stupid. His attack on Congress is exactly the same as the current Muslim/Ambedkarite attack on the BJP- viz. that everything it does is to further Brahmin domination. The problem is that Modi is 'backward caste'. It is Rahul who is the 'janeodhari' Brahmin.
At the Round Table Conference Wedgwood Benn expressed his strong disapproval, but Ramsay MacDonald in his Award not only upheld them for the Muslims but also prescribed them for the Depressed Classes and several other groups and interests.
Because they were under-represented in the bureaucracy. Jobs for the boys is what democratic politics is all about. Babbling about Ahimsa or Prophet Marx butters no parsnips.
The Act of 1935 entrenched them in the constitution. Zetland, Amery and Linlithgow put the seal upon the Muslim separatism by granting the veto on constitutional advance and administrative reform to the Muslim League.
Whom Nehru refused to conciliate. The truth is, it couldn't be done. Congress really was a Hindu party though it didn't want to admit it even to itself.
The War Cabinet under Churchill’s lead and with the acquiescence of Attlee and Cripps offered separation of provinces in the new constitution on communal basis. The Cabinet mission of three Labour Ministers seconded the proposal of the War Cabinet and provided the machinery to give it effect. The process was completed by Mountbatten, the agent of the Labour Government. In the face of this continuous, persistent British-backed design to accentuate communal separateness and the ceaseless propaganda through government’s policies and measures, and by British writer, historians, missionaries and officials, which hammered into the minds of the Hindus and the Muslims that their differences were deep and insoluble and their aspirations of national unity vain and intractable, is it surprising that people so dependent for their livelihood and for the satisfaction of their wants upon their rulers, should have succumbed to it ?
Very true. It is noteworthy that once the Brits fucked off, the Nehru-Liaquat plan caused the reunification of India & Pakistan. This proves Tara Chand's contention that Pakistan was a mirage.
It is easy to blame them for yielding to such evil suggestions.
Muslim League blames Hindus for yielding to the evil suggestion that they shouldn't convert to the true religion immediately. Also, Bengali Hindus & Punjabi Sikhs should have refused to let their Provinces be partitioned. Sadly, they were dupes of British propaganda.
But considering that throughout the nineteenth century when the Indian mind was opening to modern ideas and the Indians looked up to the British as not only divinely-appointed dispensers of peace and order in their country torn by dissensions, wars and anarchy, but also as their teachers in the arts of government and administration and in modern knowledge and science, it is not difficult to see why the propaganda succeeded so well.
Come to think of it, Hindus in Bengal did oppose the partition of their province for mainly religious reasons. But they changed their mind after bitter experience reminded them of what Muslims do to Kaffirs when they can act with impunity.
What made Partition inevitable? The answer is that Liaquat, as Finance Minister, found that most Muslim officers were loyal to the league as were Muslim soldiers. Pakistan had enough trained personnel too come into being. Thus when Liaquat checkmated Patel (as Home Minister) & threatened to tax the Hindu industrialist out of existence- the die was cast. Hindu bureaucrats were already avowing their loyalty to Congress. Few Muslims could be trusted in the same way. Once the Army got polarised, it was obvious that the only way to abort the Pakistan proposal was by fighting a prolonged war.
Even as late as 1946 when mutual suspicions and jealousies had been stoked into a raging fire, it was not absolutely certain that some form of political or constitutional unity would not be established. Till that year Jinnah was not sure he would achieve outright division.
Would there be enough Muslim officers? Would they be loyal? There is no point accepting the top job if nobody carries out your instructions either because they are incompetent or have divided loyalties.
He was even making discrete enquiries from B. N. Rau, the Constitutional Adviser of the Constituent Assembly, concerning the implications of Federation.
There was a chance that the Muslims would get both undivided Punjab & Bengal & maybe extra representation at the Centre.
His acceptance of the entry of the Muslim League in the Interim Government was significant. What clinched the matter was Mountbatten’s hasty resolve to give up the pursuit of unity which he was enjoined to ensure by Attlee, who had told him, “It is the definite objective of His Majesty’s Government to obtain a unitary Government for British India and the Indian States within the British Commonwealth.”
This was the Federal proposal with a weak centre. But this was already known to be unworkable.
According to Mosley, “By the end of his first three weeks in India, the Viceroy may not have decided that a unitary India was impossible, but he had certainly reached the conclusion that the attainment of it would be a long and ticklish job, fraught with danger and uncertainty. And Lord Mountbatten was in India not to risk failure but to achieve success and quickly.”
Like Wavell he saw that the place could very quickly turn into a shit storm. Should the White population be evacuated? Mountbatten's great insight was that Indians hated each other much more than they resented the European. He handed over power before the blood-letting began. White people remained safe while darkies slaughtered each other.
V. P. Menon confirms this. He writes, “In the course of his talks with the party leaders, particularly with Jinnah and his colleagues, he became more and more convinced that there was no prospect of an agreed solution on that basis. So he asked his ‘Dickie Birds’'- an all-British consultative committee—to produce a constitution on an alternative plan of partition. The broad principles of the plan were : (1) that the responsibility for partition, if it comes, is to rest fairly upon the Indians themselves;
His job was to shield Atlee from blame. After all, he was a sailor, not a lawyer or politician. By taking all the blame, Mountbatten was actually taking none of it. What was truly surprising was that Mountie became Nehru's best friend.
(2) the Provinces, generally speaking, shall have the right to determine their own future; (3) Bengal and the Panjab are to be notionally partitioned for voting purposes; (4) the predominantly Moslem Sylhet district in Assam is to be given the option of joining the Moslem part of Bengal; and (5) general elections to be held in North-West Frontier Province.”
Basically, the plan was to hand over power to whoever was willing to take it and then scarper. Since Britain owed India a lot of money, the successor governments would have to do a deal beneficial to London in order to utilize 'sterling balances'. If you owe the Bank a little money, it owns you. If you it a fuck-ton of money, you own the Bank. The Empire turned into a Commonwealth because 'it was too big to fail'. India kept a British admiral till 1958.
By May 2, the plan conceived in precipitate hurry and prepared in secrecy was despatched to England for the approval of His Majesty’s Government. Later it had to be scrapped because of Nehru’s strong dissent. The second draft was then produced by V.P. Menon, but in conditions of even greater haste, actually in four hours on 16th May. The Menon draft made partition the basis of constitution-making but did not leave the provinces the right to determine their future.
Mountie knew that Menon was reporting to Congress. He saw partition was the best option for Nehru & that Atlee wanted him to put his thumb on the scale in Congress's favour. That's why he remained best pals with Nehru.
It took just five minutes to secure the approval of His Majesty’s Government. In five minutes India’s destiny was stamped, sealed and delivered.
by VP Menon- who had to drop out of school after the Eighth standard. This didn't stop him rising to become the most important native official (Reforms Commissioner) under the Brits.
On the 3rd of June, Pakistan—thanks to Mountbatten’s persuasive powers
He was a sailor not a silver tongued orator.
which not only overcame the opposition of the Congress, the hesitations of the Muslim League, the fears of the Sikhs, and the misgivings of the Princes, but also the doubts of the Labour and Conservative parties—had become an accepted fact.
The fact is the Brits were bankrupt & wanted to return home to rebuild their bombed out cities. Within ten years, the British working man 'never had it so good'. This was also true of Indians in the Sixties or Seventies, who were able to settle in Britain.
XIV. Mountbatten’s Strategy Misfires The most controversial measure of the Viceroy was the decision to advance the date of transfer of power from June 1948 to August 15, 1947. Mountbatten’s admirers praised him for “sheer intellectual range and vigour” (Ian Stephens),
Stephens was homosexual. He thought Mountie was a dreamboat.
for accomplishing “a task before which anybody would have quailed, but it was one which seemed verily to tempt the gods” (V. P. Menon), for “the achievement by any reckom ing and however qualified, was very great” (Hodson) and for “the speed and decision with which he pursued its (plan’s) fulfilment. He made mistakes, pushed the wheel of history at times a little too forcefully, but few men could have done better and most would have done worse.” (Michael Edwardes).
Opinion would turn against Mountbatten soon enough. He came across as a vain and empty headed man who had done well because he was a semi-Royal and looked like a matinee idol. The truth is, whatever mistakes he might have made as a military man (which only naval experts can decide upon), he did the job Atlee assigned to him and continued to shield Atlee in the Nineteen Seventies.
On this issue Mountbatten recorded his reasons in his conclusions appended to the Report on the Last Viceroyalty submitted to His Majesty’s Government in September 1948. His defence for expediting the transference of power to the Indians was on these lines : The Government had as early as February 20, 1947, declared its intention to quit, definitely by June 1948. This date was advanced to August 15, 1947, as a result of the Mountbatten plan of May 16, which had been communicated to the Congress and the League leaders, and announced on June 2. The earlier date was adopted in order to cut short the interval between the announcement and its implementation, because of the fear of growing impatience of the leaders and the increasing tension among the communities as the ominous incidents in Bengal, the Panjab and the North-West Frontier Province indicated.
In other words, Mountie would be a 'lame duck'. Nehru kept him on, because he trusted him and because (as Azad records) he was able to get through his files very quickly. Moreover, he was very good at maintaining esprit de corps. These are the qualities that distinguish the Naval officer.
Delay might have jeopardised the precarious agreement between the parties achieved after years of wrangling. Then the earlier date was favoured both by the Congress and the League, and was therefore expected to ensure goodwill among the communities, to soothe ruffled tempers and minimise chances of conflict.
Gandhi had said to Wavell, much to the latter's disgust, 'if India wants a blood-bath, it must have it'. Without the avoidable bloodshed of Partition (i.e. had there been an orderly exchange of population supervised by the Army) the two States might have created some sort of Zollverein or other such quasi-union. Why didn't this happen? One theory is that neither Nehru nor Jinnah wanted Bengal & Punjab to dominate the new countries. Afterall, Jinnah & (to a lesser extent) Liaquat were mujahirs for whom Pakistan was the promised land. The cow-belt in India, too, wanted to dominate even though it was poor and backward.
Tara Chand concludes thus
So far as the British ruling class was concerned, its conduct was naturally determined by the principle of self-preservation.
No. That's why it didn't do a deal with Hitler. Like the British working class, the ruling was motivated by patriotism & a desire to preserve British liberties.
Placed in the midst of the millions of India the empire could be preserved only by dividing the vast numbers into competing groups and by balancing the groups against one another.
No. The East India Company had grown and grown in India by uniting people of different faiths on the basis of their getting paid regularly. Also, if you killed your Uncle, you didn't inherit his property even if sent a goodly sum to the Governor. Instead you were tried for murder. The British Raj wasn't perfect but if you worked for the Government you got paid exactly what you were owed. The District Collector didn't say 'send me your wife for a couple of nights. After that, I'll think about paying you your arrears'. Also, a pension granted to a General who surrendered a fortress to the Brits would be paid punctually decade after decade, century after century. The Permanent Settlement really was permanent. The new Governor didn't take a bribe from your cousin to award the property to him.
This policy needed justification which was provided by two convictions, (1) that the communities in India constituted irreconcilable social units which could never become a nation;
Yet the Brits ensured that India was admitted to the League of Nations. If they had believed in 'divide and rule' then they would have created a few hundred separate states in the directly ruled part of India.
and (2) in such an aggregation of societies and communities divided by race, language, religion, caste and custom it was impossible to discover a central representative core which could be identified as the self of the nation and to which the responsibility for the whole of the people could be transferred.
British officials like Hume & Wedderburn did set up the Indian National Congress. But it wasn't a Parliament. Pretending otherwise was foolish more particularly after Gandhi forced members to spin khaddar. Indeed, to become a member of Rahul's Congress you still need to declare yourself a 'habitual' spinner of not lies but cotton.
In the second place the British sense of self-esteem and rectitude was supported by what they believed as the successful achievement of the British Raj—peace and order over a sub-continent in which 350 million human beings dwelt, a system of modern administration—^law and justice, a network of communications—railways, roads, post and telegraph—the organisation of a powerful army of defence, arrangements for social welfare—education, sanitation, and above all the arousing of the spirit of modernism—nationalism, secularism and science.
They could also point to British barristers like Gandhi, Nehru, Jinnah etc.
All that was needed for a healthy cattle-farm—wholesome food and drink, clean sheds and drainage, well-laid paths, security from the enemies—poisonous insects and beasts of prey—all with a purpose— fat abundant milk, rich meat and plenty—all was there, or at least much of it, but what differentiates the cattle-farm from the human habitat—the consciousness of self-direction—was absent.
Because Indians were stupid & didn't want to devote themselves to solving collective action problems such that productivity rose.
But at last the dykes that imperialist engineering had built to keep the seas of freedom out were demolished by an immense tidal wave thrown up by many little-known tremendous forces rising out of the cavernous depths of the sea of humanity which engulfed the world and obliterated the familiar landmarks.
A lot of refugees were created. But a lot of 'familiar landmarks' remained. British built institutions survived- indeed, they thrive to this day in India. Sadly, Congress has become the property of a half Italian dynasty. But the BJP is purely indigenous. No doubt, if they remain in power, they will commission a series of books as stupid as Tara Chand's. Perhaps they already have. Nobody cares.
No comments:
Post a Comment