Tag Archives: Khilafat

Communist treachery, ‘sophists with sponges’

1 Reply

August 2021 marks the completion of a hundred years of the brutal episode in human history – The Moplah Genocide of the Malabar Hindus.

In this context, it is worth recalling the book on Khilafat by N.S Rajaram, who wrote about the Khilafat advocacy undertaken by Mahatma Gandhi in the 1920s and its corollary, the Mopla Rebellion. Here is an extract from his book “Gandhi, Khilafat & The National Movement ” (First published in 1999 and then in 2009) on the treacherous role of Communists:

“Every villain,” said Lord Acton of the ‘power corrupts’ fame, “is followed by a sophist with a sponge”. This was surpassed by the Indian Communists. They bought not one sponge but a card-load of them, and put them to use in whitewashing atrocities from the Mopla Rebellion to the Partition to the R@pe of Tibet to the Chinese attack in 1962, and all the way to the nuclear tests of Pokharan II.

The period covered in this volume is not lacking in examples that bring to the fore the dark side of human nature. But for sheer venality, the behaviour of the Communists is in a class by itself. The gullibility and self-deception of Gandhi, the spinelessness of Nehru, the cunning of the Ali brothers and even the savagery of the Moplas – none of these can match the record of the Communists in this regard. A single example will suffice. The Moplas, who perpetrated some of the worst atrocities in history, especially on women, are heroes to Communists. Eminent scholars of Marxist leanings at respectable academic institutions extol these barbarians as heroic freedom fighters!

There is another difference. While these villains of yesteryears have departed from the world, the successors of these Communist ‘sophists with sponges’ are still around – sometimes in respectable professions like politics, academia and journalism. One is hard pressed to decide which is the greater evil – the Mopla marauders or their modern Marxist glorifiers.

To begin to understand the twists and turns of the Indian Communists, their passage from ‘anti-imperialists’ opposed to Britain and France, to British spies and collaborators, to being Soviet and Chinese fifth column, to their present state when they have combined with the most reactionary forces of Islam and become virtually a dependency of the tool of foreign interests, Sonia Gandhi, one has to go to the early years of the Second World War.

When the War broke out in September 1939, the Communists, found themselves in an awkward position – on the same side as Hitler – because of the Hitler-Stalin pact of August 1939. But they had to obey their masters in Moscow and support him. So, Hitler was no longer a Fascist menace but a messenger of peace fighting against the imperialist warmongers, Britan and France. But when Hitler attacked Russia on 22 June 1941, the Indian Communists executed a complete flip-flop and started supporting Britain in the war against Hitler. The Imperialist’s War became overnight the People’s War. They were now in a highly advantageous position vis-à-vis the British Government. They were used to serving their Soviet masters, so it entailed no great adjustment when opportunity called to serve the British. The Indian Communist leaders made the best of a good bargain.

For the rest of the War, the Indian Communists were, for all practical purposes, hired agents of the British. R.C. Majumdar tells us (Volume III, pp.569):
“During the great national upsurge of 1942, the Communists acted as stooges and spies of the British Government, and helped them against their own countrymen fighting for freedom. The part played by the Communists can be best understood from confidential correspondence during the years 1942, 1943 and 1944 between P.C.Joshi, the General Secretary of the Communist Part of India … it is quite clear from the correspondence that ‘an alliance existed between Politburo of the Communist Party and the Home Department of the Government of India, by which Mr. Joshi was placing at the disposal of the Government of India the services of his Party members, that the ‘various political drives undertaken by the Party in the name of anti-Fascist campaigns were a part of the arrangement which helped the Government of India to tide over certain crises… ”

But ofcourse, this did not come cheap, and Communist leaders like Joshi, Dange and others were generously paid by the British for their services. One well-known Communist intellectual was paid as mush as rupees 16,000 per month! This allowed many of them to maintain lavish lifestyles – much in the manner of many ‘Gandhians’ today. But spying on the nationalists was only the beginning of this sordid if profitable enterprise. Majumdar tells us (Volume III, p. 570):

… Joshi had, as General Secretary to the Part, written a letter in which he offered ‘unconditional help’ to the then Government of India and the Army GHQ to fight the 1942 underground workers and the Azad Hind Fuaz (Indian National Army) of Subhas Chandar Bose, even to the point of getting them arrested. … Joshi’s letter also revealed that the CPI was receiving financial aid from the Government, had a secret pact with the Muslim League, and was undermining Congress activity in various ways.

It is no secret that at the time of independence, the Communists openly supported the formation of Pakistan. “Not only did the Communists support the demand for Pakistan but went much further by saying that every linguistic group in India had a distinct nationality and was therefore entitled, as they claimed was the case in the USSR, to the right to secede.”

Independence did not put a stop to Communist treachery. On the heels of Independence, the new Indian Government was faced with the problem of the integration of the princely states numbering over five hundred. Here was fertile ground for the Communists, especially Hyderabad, then at the mercy of Kasim Rizvi and his fanatical band of terrorists known as the Razakars. In February 1948, the Second Congress of the Communist Party of India proclaimed that India’s independence was a sham and decided to support the Razakars. They struck a deal with the Nizam’s Government and joined hands with the Nizam’s forces – the Razakars – to fight Hyderabad’s accession to India with the help of Pakistan. As with most terrorists, the forte of the Razakars was committing atrocities on unarmed civilians, not fighting a professional army. When Sardar Patel sent troops into Hyderabad, the Razakars crumbled before the advance of the Indian Army. Kasim Razvi ran away to Pakistan, handing over the bulk of his guns and other armaments to the Communists. The Communists kept up an armed insurrection in the Telangana region for a few years until ordered to stop by the Soviet Dictator Stalin.

But now, Marxist historians claim that the Communists joined the Congress in their fight against the Razakars who represented feudal interests! So, the action in Hyderabad was a ‘class struggle’ against the oppressors, except that the Communists sided with the Razakars! So, Rizvi and the Razakars were not Muslim fundamentalists but feudal exploiters of the people! To explain away the fact that the Communists joined hands with these ‘feudal exploiters’, their historians simply reverse the truth; they now claim that they fought against them. This way, they hope they can have it both ways.
This trail of treachery continued unabated. When China attacked India in 1962, the Communists were on the Chinese side. In 1964, when China exploded its first nuclear bomb, the Indian Communists greeted it with glee. But recently when India conducted nuclear tests the Indian Communists and their allies in the Congress – including the new found object of the adoration, Sonia Gandhi – vociferously condemned Indian tests. The more things change, the more they remain the same.

Further Reading:

Attempt to whitewash Moplah atrocities is latest case of Communist schizofascism (Article by Ram Madhav).

COMMUNISTS AND ‘AZAADI’

Why Communists opposed the Constitution? A must know quote of Dr.Ambedkar from his speech on 25th November 1949 (Reference from archives of Parliament debates).

Communists colluded with Nizam’s Razakars (KM Munshi Memoirs)

The Moplah Genocide of the Malabar Hindus

Leave a reply

August 2021 marks the completion of a hundred years of the brutal episode in human history – The Moplah Genocide of the Malabar Hindus.

A recent news report that a three-member committee of the Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR), which was formed to review the names of “freedom fighters” from 1857 to 1947, is said to have considered removing the names of ‘Moplah martyrs‘ of 1921 from the Dictionary of Martyrs of India’s Freedom Struggle. Along with Variamkunnath Kunhamed Haji and Ali Musaliar, the Moplah Rebellion leaders responsible for the Moplah Massacre of Hindus, 387 others who died during the Moplah Massacre will also be removed. The dictionary is jointly published by the Ministry of Culture and the Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR).

A three-member panel, set up the ICHR which reviewed the entries in the fifth volume of the dictionary, has reportedly stated that the 1921 rebellion was never part of the independence struggle but a fundamentalist movement focused on religious conversion. None of the slogans raised by the rioters were in favour of nationalism and anti-British in content, it noted. According to the report, the panel has noted that the rebellion was an attempt to establish a Caliphate. “Had it succeeded, a Caliphate would have been established in the region too and India would have ended up losing that part from its territory”, The Hindu quoted sources as saying.

Further, the panel concluded that Haji was a rioter who established a Sharia court and beheaded a large number of Hindus. Those who died at the hands of the rioters were non-believers. The committee also stated that a large number of alleged ‘Moplah martyrs’, who were under-trial prisoners, died due to diseases such as cholera and natural causes hence cannot be treated as martyrs. Only a handful of them were executed by the government after court trial, the panel noted.

In this context, it is worth recalling eyewitness accounts of the Mopla Rebellion by Annie Besant and Madhavan Nair.

Eyewitness accounts of the Mopla Rebellion by Annie Besant and Madhavan Nair.

The following account signed by Annie Besant, under the title ‘Malabar’s Agony’, appeared in New India dated 29 November 1921. It is one of the literally hundreds of similar reports that appeared in the press at the time. The account given here is the slightly abridged, with some non- relevant history about the Zamorins removed. It has also been organised into smaller paragraphs to smooth the somewhat hurried writing. Of particular interest is Besant’s charge that by making Non-Cooperation part of the Khilafat movement, his Gandhism was also part of the violence that gave rise to, and he could not escape responsibility. It is interesting to note the contemporary accounts see the Non-Coorperation Movement as part of the Khilafat, and not as something on its own as modern history books tend to do. Here is Besant’s report. – N.S.R]

Annie Beasant: New India, 29 November 1921 :

It would be well if Mr. Gandhi could be taken into Malabar to see with his own eyes the ghastly horrors which have been created by the preaching of himself and his “loved brothers,” Muhommad and Shaukat Ali. The Khilafat Raj is established there; on August 1, 1921, sharp to the date first announced by Mr. Gandhi for the beginning of Swaraj and the vanishing of British Rule, a Police Inspector was surrounded by Moplas, revolting against that Rule. From that date onwards thousands of the forbidden war-knives ware secretly made and hidden away, and on August 20, the rebellion broke out, Khilafat flags were hoisted on Police Stations and Government offices…
Our correspondent has sent accounts of the public functions connected with my hurried visit to Calicut and Palghat, and that which I wish to put on record here is the ghastly misery which prevails, the heart-breaking wretchedness which has been caused by the Mopla outbreak, directly due to the violent and unscrupulous attacks on the Government made by the Non-Co-operators and the Khilafatists and the statements scattered broadcast, predicting the speedy disappearance of British Rule, and the establishment of Swaraj, as proclaimed by the N.C.O. and Khilafat Raj as understood by the Moplas from the declarations of the Khilafatists. On that, there is no doubt whatever, so far as Malabar is concerned. The message of the Khilafats, of England as the enemy of Islam, of her coming downfall, and the triumph of the Muslims, had spread, to every Mopla home. The harangues in the Mosques spread it everywhere, and Muslim hearts were glad. They saw the N.C.O. preachers appealing for help to their religious leaders, naturally identified the two. The Government was Satanic, and Eblis, to the good Muslim, is to be fought to the death.
Mr. Gandhi may talk as he pleases about N.C.O.s accepting no responsibility. It is not what they accept; it is what facts demonstrate. He accepted responsibility for the trifling bloodshed of Bombay. The slaughter in Malabar cries out his responsibility. N.C.O. is dead in Malabar. But bitter hatred has arisen there, as fighting men from the dragon’s teeth of Theseus. That is the ghastly result of the preaching of Gandhism, of N.C.O. of Khilafatism. Every one speaks of the Khilafat Raj, and the one hope of the masses is in its crushing by the strong arm of the Government. Mr. Gandhi asks the Moderates to compel the Government to suspend hostilities, i.e., to let loose the wolves to destroy what lives are left. The sympathy of the Moderates is not, I make bold to “with the murderers, the looters, the ravishers, who have put into practice the teachings of paralysing the Government of the N.C.O.’s, who have made “war on the Government” in their own way.
How does Mr. Gandhi like the Mopla spirit, as shown by one of the prisoners in the Hospital, who was dying from the results of asphyxiation? He asked the surgeon, if he was going to die, and surgeon answered that he feared he would not recover. “Well, I’m glad I killed fourteen infidels,” said the Brave, God-fearing Mopla, whom Mr. Gandhi so much admires, who “are fighting for what they consider as religion, and in a manner, they consider as religious.” Men who consider it “religious” to murder, rape, loot, to kill women and little children, cutting down whole families, have to be put under restraint in any civilised society.
“Mr. Gandhi was shocked when some Parsi ladies had their saries torn off, and very properly, yet the God-fearing hooligans had been taught that it was sinful to wear foreign cloth, and doubtless felt they were doing a religious act; can he not feel a little sympathy for thousands of “women left with only rags, driven from home, for little children born of the flying mothers on roads in refugee camps? The misery is beyond description. Girl wives, pretty and sweet, with eyes half blind with weeping, distraught with terror; women who have seen their husbands hacked to pieces before their eye, in the way “Moplas consider as religious”; old women tottering, whose faces become written with anguish and who cry at a gentle touch and a kind look waking out of a stupor of misery only to weep, men who have lost all, hopeless, crushed, desperate.
I have walked among thousands of them in the refugee camps, and sometimes heavy eyes would lift as a cloth was laid gently on the bare shoulder, and a faint watery smile of surprise would make the face even more piteous than the stupor. Eyes full of appeal, of agonised despair, of hopeless entreaty of helpless anguish, thousands of them camp after camp. “Shameful inhumanity proceeding in Malabar,” says Mr. Gandhi. Shameful inhumanity indeed, wrought by the Moplas, and these are the victims, saved from extermination by British and Indian swords; For be it remembered the Moplas began the whole horrible business; the Government intervened to save their victims and these thousands have been saved. Mr. Gandhi would have hostilities suspended—so that the Moplas may sweep down on the refugee camps, and finish their work?”
I visited in Calicut three huge Committee camps, two Christian, and the Congress building and compound where doles of rice are given daily from 7 A.M. to noon. In all, the arrangements were good. Big thatched sheds, and some buildings shelter the women and children, the men sleep outside. They are all managed by Indians, the Zamorini’s Committee distributing cloths and money to all, except the Congress committee, which work independently and gives food from its own resource. At Palghat, similar arrangements are made by the Zamorini’s Committee, and the order and care in feeding are good to see.
Let me finish with a beautiful story told to me. Two Pulayas, the lowest of the submerged classes, were captured with others, and given the choice between Islam and Death. These, the outcaste of Hinduism, the untouchables, so loved the Hinduism which had been so unkind a step- mother to them, that they chose to die Hindus rather than to live Muslim. May the God of both, Muslim and Hindus send His messengers to these heroic souls, and give them rebirth into the Faith for which they died.

Report by Madhavan Nair, Secretary, Calicut District Congress Committee :

Maulana Mohani justified the looting of Hindus by the Moplas as lawful by way of commandeering in a war between the latter and the Government of as a matter of necessity when the Moplas were forced to live in jungles. The Maulana perhaps does not know that the majority of the cases, the almost wholesale looting of Hindu houses in portions of Ernad, Valluvand and Ponani Taluques [counties] was perpetrated on the 21st, 22nd, and the 23rd of August [1921] before the military had arrived in the affected area to arrest or to fight the rebels even before Martial Law had been declared (in Malabar). The Moplas had not be taken themselves to the jungles as the Maulana supposes nor had the Hindus as a class done anything to them to deserve their hostility. The outbreak commenced on the 20th of August [1921], the police and the District Magistrate withdrew from Tirunangadi to Calicut on the 21st and the policemen throughout the affected area has taken to their heels. There was no adversary to the Moplas as the time whom the Hindus could possibly have helped or invited, and the attack on them was most wanton and unprovoked.
Comment added: Maulana Mohani, like a hundred other Khilafat leaders, well knew the truth but arrogantly justified the Mopla atrocities as a ‘military necessity’ drive by self-defence. But these reports clearly show that the Mopla Rebellion was a planned uprising that began immediately after the expiry of Gandhi’s promise of ‘swaraj within the year’ and not a sporadic outbreak.

According to Annie Besant, it began on the day of expiry, and soon spread to the whole region – becoming a full-blown rebellion on or about August 20. The district authorities, including the police, were caught unaware and also not equipped to handle a large-scale rebellion. Chaos reigned in Malabar for several months, forcing the Government to declare Martial Law. The Army had to be called in and it was months before the rebellion was out down after the loss of several thousand lives and unspeakable atrocities. The Congress historians like to pretend that all this never happened, while the Marxists glorify the Moplas as ‘freedom fighters’ !

Madhavan Nair sent several other reports, a few of which are included in the Appendix to Sankaran Nair’s Gandhi and Anarchy. Murders, rapes and forcible conversions were the order of the day. I find most of them too gruesome to be included here, but the following excerpt should give an idea:
“Can you conceive of a more ghastly and inhuman crime than the murder of babies and pregnant women? … A pregnant woman carrying 7 months was cut through the abdomen by a rebel and she was seen lying dead on the way with the dead child projecting out … Another baby of six months was snatched away from the breast of the mother and cut into two pieces … Are these rebels human beings or monsters? These are by no means the most gruesome of the accounts described. But enough to give an idea of the atrocities committed by the ‘God-fearing’ plus acting ‘in a manner they consider as religious’ as Gandhi praised them. To those familiar with the history, the barbarism of their modern counter parts in Afghanistan – the Taliban also following the dictates of their ‘religion’ – will come as no surprise.

In this context, it is worth recalling the book on Khilafat by N.S Rajaram, who wrote about the Khilafat advocacy undertaken by Mahatma Gandhi in the 1920s and its corollary, the Mopla Rebellion. It is a sad tale of how the chimerical and short-sighted actions of a handful of leaders resulted in human misery on a horrendous scale. Navratna Srinivasa Rajaram (Dr N S Rajaram) was a renowned researcher, prolific writer and mathematician turned Hindutva-scholar. Refer Swarajya to know more about him and his works.

Here is an extract from his book “Gandhi, Khilafat & The National Movement ” (First published in 1999 and then in 2009) : “When we compare the situation in India today with what it was in 1920, we find both similarities and differences. The Muslim masses today are no more enlightened and no less under the grip of reactionary forces than they were at the time of the Khilafat eighty years ago. But they are much weaker relative to the Hindu majority. Also, there are no Muslims leaders on the horizon that command the kind of influence and authority that the Ali brothers did. Neither is there a Hindu leader of the stature of Mahatma Gandhi willing to stake all for the sake of ‘unity’ and carry the people with him. At the same time, there is no shortage of secondary leaders willing to take the side of any Muslim demand regardless of its merit. The Congress Party – as well as the Communist – is practically in their hands. Only future will tell if Indians have learnt any lessons from their history – from the Khilafat to the Partition to Kashmir to the Bangladesh War. Of one thing one can be certain: if there is any upheaval in the name of Islam in the neighboring Pakistan, Indian Muslims will not remain unaffected by it. The real question is whether Indian leaders will act with the national interest foremost, or display the same kind of sophistry and equivocation as in the past. The postures of the Congress Party – and the machinations of the Communists inspire little confidence in this regard.

The world also has an important lesson to learn: religion can act as a cover for committing the most unspeakable atrocities, as the Appendixes to this document record. But for reasons that this writer finds incomprehensible, the world does not want to learn this basic truth. To those familiar with the history reported here, the atrocities in the name of religion by the Taliban in Afghanistan come as no surprise. But if we fail to learn from this history, the pattern will only repeat itself somewhere else. The more things change, the more they remain same”. – N.S. RAJARAM

Further Reading:

Communist treachery, ‘sophists with sponges’ (Excerpts from N.S Rajaram’s book : Gandhi, Khilafat & The National Movement.

Beyond Rampage by Harishankar BS: Get it here

The Moplah Rebellion 1921 by Gopalan Nair C – Get it here

Attempt to whitewash Moplah atrocities is latest case of Communist schizofascism (Article by Ram Madhav).

Partitioned Freedom – 5

5 Replies

(Read “Partitioned Freedom – 1” from this link – 1)
(Read “Partitioned Freedom – 2” from this link – 2)
(Read “Partitioned Freedom – 3” from this link – 3)
(Read “Partitioned Freedom – 4” from this link – 4)
(Read “Partitioned Freedom – 5” from this link – 5)

(Conclusion: Read “Partitioned Freedom – 6″  from this link)

Part 5

The Khilafat misadventure was not without consequences. It had set a trend, both in the Congress as well as the League. For the League, it was more demands, and for the Congress, more capitulation.

Moplah Rebellion:

The Khilafat movement had led to massive violence in the Malabar Coast of Kerala when a local leader, Variankunnathu Kunjahammad Haji declared himself as the Khalifa and also designated two tehsils as ‘Khilafat Kingdoms’. He instigated his followers against the British. The rebellion, famously known as the Moplah Rebellion or the Malabar Rebellion, was launched on August 20, 1921, and continued for four months.

Taken aback initially by the unexpected aggression of the local Muslims called the Moplahs, the British returned with greater force and brutally suppressed the rebellion. All its leaders, including Haji were arrested. As the British were suppressing the rebellion, the Moplahs turned their ire against the local Hindus, blaming them for not fully supporting the Khilafat cause. Houses and temples were destroyed, women were dishonored, and people were forcefully converted or burnt alive. The atrocities committed by the Moplahs shook the conscience of many leaders, including Dr Ambedkar and Annie Besant. While Annie Besant vividly described the brutality against the Hindus, especially the women, Dr. Ambedkar minced no words in condemning the massacres by describing them as ‘blood-curdling’ and ‘indescribable’. Gandhi’s close confidant C. Rajagopalachari was so distraught by the cruelty of the Moplahs that he shot off a letter to Gandhi stating that “the atrocities of the Moplahs have made men, women, and children lose faith in the concept of Hindu-Muslim unity completely”.

However, strange was the Congress reaction. When the AICC met at Ahmedabad in December 1921, the entire effort seemed directed towards downplaying the atrocities by the Moplahs. While the Servants of India Society led by Annie Besant reported that over twenty thousand Hindus were forcefully converted to Islam, the Congress claimed that as per their information, only three people were converted. The Ahmedabad session of Congress witnessed intense tussle between the Congress and League members over the Moplah incidents. All that could be said in the resolution was that the Congress “…is of the opinion that the…disturbance in Malabar could have been prevented by the Government of Madras accepting the proffered assistance of Maulana Yakub Hassan”.

Describing the events at the session, Swami Shraddhanand, a senior leader, wrote: “The original resolution condemned the Moplas wholesale for the killing of Hindus and burning of Hindu homes and the forcible conversion to Islam. The Hindu members themselves proposed amendments until it was reduced to condemning only certain individuals who had been guilty of the above crimes. But some of the Muslim leaders could not bear this even. Maulana Fakir and other Maulanas, of course, opposed the resolution, and there was no wonder. Nevertheless, it was most surprising that an out-and-out Nationalist like Maulana Hasrat Mohani opposed the resolution on the ground that — the Mopla country no longer remained Dar-ul-Aman but became Dar-ul-Harab and they suspected the Hindus of collusion with the British enemies of the Moplas. Therefore, the Moplas were right in presenting the Quran or sword to the Hindus. Moreover, if the Hindus became Mussalmans to save themselves from death, it was a voluntary change of faith and not forcible conversion—Well, even the harmless resolution condemning some of the Moplas was not unanimously passed but had to be accepted by a majority of votes only”.

All this for the sake of keeping the League as a bed-fellow. When Gandhi too downplayed the incident by commenting that the Moplahs were ‘brave and God-fearing, and were fighting for what they considered as religion, in a manner which they consider as religious,’ even Dr Ambedkar could not help but express his despair. He decried saying ‘Mr. Gandhi was so much obsessed by the necessity of establishing Hindu-Muslim unity that he was prepared to make light of the doings of the Moplas and the Khilafats.’

Vande Mataram (‘Partitioned’):

After the Khilafat and the Moplah rebellion, the Muslim League’s price went up further. It started insisting on rejecting the essential symbols of national unity as a price for its support to the Congress. The first to come in the League’s crosshairs was the song Vande Mataram. It became a regular practice since 1905 to sing it at all the important Congress events. But the League members in the Congress started raising objections to it.

The AICC sessions were held in Kakinada in Andhra Pradesh in 1923. Maulana Mohammad Ali was presiding over the Congress. Senior leaders, including Motilal Nehru, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Sarojini Naidu, Sardar Patel, and Kasturba Gandhi, were present along with over twelve thousand delegates. Gandhi was in prison and hence could not attend.

Like in the past, Pt. Vishnu Digambar Puluskar, a Hindustani musician from Maharashtra, was there to sing the song at the inaugural. When Pt. Puluskar climbed the dais to sing Vande Mataram, Mohammad Ali raised objection saying that singing the song would hurt the sentiments of religious Muslims. Seeing the silence of the leaders present on the dais, Puluskar took it upon himself to challenge Mohammad Ali and went ahead with its rendition. Mohammad Ali, in protest, walked away while the song was being sung. It may be worthwhile to mention here that on many earlier occasions, the Ali Brothers and other League leaders used to rise together with other Hindu and Muslim members of the Congress when the song was sung. The objection at the Kakinada session was thus more a part of the enhanced bargaining than a genuinely religious issue. To placate the League members, Congress introduced Mohammad Iqbal’s famous song ‘Saare jahan se Acchha – Hindustan Hamara’ in its sessions. Yet, the opposition to Vande Mataram continued.

In 1937, when the elections were held for the Provincial Councils, the Congress formed governments in several of them. The controversy over Vande Mataram was raised once again when the proposal to sing the song at the commencement of the sessions was opposed. A ‘committee’ had to be constituted to review Vande Mataram. Rabindranath Tagore, Subhash Chandra Bose, and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru were made its members. The committee recommended that the song be truncated and only the first two stanzas be sung.

The national song was partitioned in 1937 to appease the Muslim League. Ten years later, the nation was partitioned.

(To continue)

(Courtesy: The article was originally published in Chintan, India Foundation on August 17, 2020).

Partitioned Freedom – 4

5 Replies

(Read “Partitioned Freedom – 1” from this link – 1)
(Read “Partitioned Freedom – 2” from this link – 2)
(Read “Partitioned Freedom – 3” from this link – 3)

Part 4

Khilafat Movement: Congress’ turn towards communal politics

What began as a tactical move to wean away the League from the British soon became a conviction within the Congress, that – without Muslim League coming along, there would be no freedom. For the British, the League not joining hands with Congress meant no united resistance. Hence, both started patronizing the League. The last three decades of the independence movement were a saga of this competitive bargaining with the Muslim League.

There were many Muslim leaders in Congress at that time. Even Jinnah was a Congress leader and was seen as the ambassador of Hindu – Muslim unity. Sadly, in its competitive bargaining for the League’s support, the Congress leadership gave up on those saner and secular Muslim leaders and leaned more towards the communal and fundamentalist elements of the community.

Khilafat Movement:

The first milestone in the race of appeasement of the Muslim League was the Khilafat movement of 1919-1924. Khilafat was a religio-political movement launched by a section of the Muslim League for the preservation of the Ottoman Empire under Sultan Mehmed V as he was regarded as the Khalifa (leader) of the entire Muslim Ummah (religious community). It should be clear from the description that, one, it was a religious movement; and two, it had nothing to do with India’s independence. More importantly, the myth of the Ottoman Emperor as the Khalifa of world Muslims had been shattered by the dismantling of the empire by the British and the French after World War I, and subsequently when Mustafa Kemal Pasha, the newly elected leader of Turkey, abolished the title of Khalifa in 1924.

That was what even Jinnah told the Muslim League convention held in Delhi in 1918. Jinnah called Khilafat a ‘false religious frenzy of which no good will come out for India.’ When some members objected to his views and the League decided to form a Khilafat Committee to launch an agitation for the cause, Jinnah, along with some others, walked out of the session.

However, where Jinnah had walked out, Gandhi walked in a year later. Gandhi had returned to India in 1915 and was a relatively new figure in the Congress. But certain historical events paved the way for his easy rise in the Congress hierarchy. His mentor and a senior Congress leader Gopal Krishna Gokhale passed away in February 1915. Feroz Shah Mehta, too died in the same year. Lokmanya Tilak left for London to sue the British journalist, Valentine Chirol for defamation in 1919, and he too passed away a year later.

Gandhi walked into the space vacated by several illustrious seniors. Yet he needed an anchor which he found in the issue of Hindu-Muslim unity. In South Africa, during his struggle against the British, Gandhi was regarded as the leader of both the Hindu and Muslim migrants. Gandhi looked at the native situation too from the South African prism. By then, winning over the Muslim League became a zealous conviction for many in the Congress. Gandhi decided to use the Khilafat for Hindu-Muslim unity as well as for establishing his own credentials as the leader with the power to achieve that.

Several Congress leaders participated in the Khilafat Day protests organized by the Muslim League on October 17, 1919. Swami Shraddhananda, a renowned Arya Samaj leader and a senior Congress leader, was one among them, standing on the steps of the Jama Masjid in Delhi and exhorting the Muslims to fight for the Khilafat. Gandhi, along with Motilal Nehru, Madan Mohan Malviya, and others, was present at the Muslim League convention in December 1919. He described Khilafat as the “holy cow” of the Muslim community. Gandhi viewed Khilafat as the best opportunity for Hindu – Muslim unity and exhorted the Hindus to join the struggle for preserving Islam’s honour if they really want Muslims’ friendship. “Arise! Awake! Or be fallen forever”, was Gandhi’s call to the Muslims.

However, a section of the Congressmen started raising concerns over this gamble. Sardar Patel was unconvinced about a slave country fighting for the maintainence of a foreign Muslim Empire. Many were aghast when they heard that Khilafat leaders like Shaukat Ali and Hasrat Mohani were inviting the King of Afghanistan to invade India to achieve the Khilafat. Gandhi’s good friend Barrister Henry Pollack had warned that on the Khilafat question, Gandhi was behaving in an “ill-informed and dangerous manner”. On the other hand, the Khilafat leaders like Maula Abdul Bari started threatening Gandhi that if he failed to deliver on the promise of the Congress’ support, they would end their relations with it.

Non-Cooperation Movement

An emergency session of the Congress was called in August 1920 at Kolkata, in which Gandhi proposed to launch a nationwide Non-Cooperation Movement in support of the Khilafat.         “I would, in order to achieve success in the Khilafat issue, even postpone the issue of Swaraj,” Gandhi declared. Leaders like Chittaranjan Das, Bipin Chandra Pal, and Annie Besant were against this bargain. Finally, issues like Swaraj and Jallianwala Bagh massacre were also included to make it look like an agitation for the Indian cause.

Jinnah, who was until then midwifing the Congress-League friendship, got disillusioned. He was particularly upset with his own sidelining and promotion of rank fundamentalists like Mohammad Ali and Shaukat Ali – the ‘Ali Brothers’ – by Gandhi. At the Nagpur session of the Congress later that year, Jinnah resigned, highlighting his opposition to the Khilafat. “I will have nothing to do with this pseudo-religious approach to politics. I do not believe in working up mob hysteria, politics is a gentleman’s game”, Jinnah told while quitting.

Khilafat failed

Khilafat failed. The Non-Cooperation Movement was abruptly called off by Gandhi when a violent incident took place at Chauri Chaura in the Gorakhpur district of the United Provinces in which 22 policemen were killed by the agitators. However, the damage to the fabric of national unity was already done. After the Khilafat, the voices of the nationalist Muslims became further subdued. Condoned by the Congress leadership, Muslim communalism became the order of the day. For example, when Shaukat Ali and others were arrested by the British on sedition charges for inviting the King of Afghanistan to invade India, Gandhi reacted by arguing that he couldn’t understand why the Ali brothers should be in jail when he was outside.

This was the only religious cause that Gandhi ever espoused during the independence movement. He probably had his reasons for doing so.

“The passions he had helped rouse, which were now turned against him and the Congress, meant that the Congress haemorrhaged Muslims ever afterwards. Gandhi returned to the secular straight-and-narrow with the Salt Satyagraha ten years later and strove manfully to secure the moderate aim of a pluralist nationalism in the age of mass politics, but opportunism of the Khilafat movement haunted the Congress and helped alienate the one constituency it prized above all others: India’s Muslims”, wrote historian Mukul Kesavan.

The Khilafat misadventure of the Congress had demonstrated that the seeds of communal separatism sown by the British a decade earlier were sprouting up actively, nurtured by the misplaced convictions of the Congress leadership. Later events led the process further along resulting in the blossoming of Muslim communal politics as the Congress continued its appeasement policies.

(Read Next: “Partitioned Freedom – 5” from this link – 5)

(Courtesy: The article was originally published in Chintan, India Foundation on August 16, 2020)

Tragic Story of Partition of India

19 Replies

Namaste

This is a short summary basically of the events that lead to the Tragic story of partition. The summary of events are based on the book “Tragic Story of partition” by Sri H.V.Seshadri.

The Tragic Story of Partition – HV Seshadri

– A Summary

1703-1762 – Shah Wahiullah Dehlavi inspired the Wahabi movement & bore upon Muslims to keep away from national mainstream. He asked them to feel a part of the entire Muslim world. His son, Shah Abdul Aziz 1746-1822- declared Bharat as Dar ul Harb. They created an army of 80,000 wahabis and attacked the Sikhs. After being routed by the Sikhs, they attacked the British. The British therefore took upon the process of neutralization.

Sir Syed Ahmed khan, a loyal servant of the British formed the Aligarh Muslim University in 1875. However, in 1884, he declared that Muslims, Xtians and Hindus are part of the same Hindu nation. Needless to say, this was only for the consumption of the Hindus. By 1888, he declared that Hindus and Muslims cannot live together and one has to conquer the other to survive.

In 1904, the seeds of the partition of Bengal were sown by the British & in 1905 the partition happened. Sir Henry Cotton said, “ The objective of the measure was to shatter the unity of India.” Nawab Salimullah Khan was won over by the British by a bribe of 1 Lac. But his own brother, Khwaja Atikulla declared that the Muslims are against partition.

The opposition to the partition of Bengal was widespread across the country. On Oct 16, 1905 over 50,000 people participated in Raksha bandhan program on the banks of Ganga, resolving to undo the partition. Rabindranath Tagore and other leaders were in the forefront of this movement. This movement was also called the Vandemataram movement. Vandemataram become the mantra that aroused the entire country.

By 1906, Minto Morley observed that caste and religion were weakening and prepared the separate electorate plan.

Founding of Muslim League: On 30th Dec 1906, the Muslim league was formed at Dacca under the leadership of Nawab Salimullah Khan with Aga Khan as its permanent President. Aga Khan is 48th in the lineage of Shia Imams. The following were the stated objectives:
a. Loyalty to the British
b. To protect the political rights of the Muslims
c. As far as possible under the paras a and b to promote friendly feelings between Muslims and other communities.

Not withstanding the above, a pamphlet was published by name Lal Ishtehar and distributed to the delegates – “ Ye Muslims Arise , Awake ! Do not read in the same schools with Hindus. Do not buy anything from a Hindu shop. Do not touch any article manufactured by Hindu hands. Do not give any employment to a Hindu. Do not accept any degrading office under a Hindu. You are ignorant, but if you acquire knowledge you can at once send all Hindus to Jehannum( Hell). You form the majority of the population in this province. The Hindu has no wealth of his own and has made himself rich only by despoiling you of your wealth. If you become sufficiently enlightened, then the Hindus will starve and soon become Mohammadans.”

On 4th March, riots broke out in Comilla, now in Bangladesh. Rape, arson, loot were common in that period.

At the same time due to the Vandemataram movement lead by Lal, Bal and Pal, the British government was forced to annul the partition of Bengal. The Muslim league leaders were shocked. As recorded by Aga Khan, In 1906, a barrister by name Md.Ali Jinnah was vehemently opposed to the principle of separate electorates. He said this principle is dividing the nation itself.

The freedom movement now started spreading worldwide. Shyamji Krishna Varma, Lala Hardayal, Rash Behari Bose, Savarkar, Madam Cama, Dhingra and many more took the message of India’s freedom worldwide. At the same time in 1910, Khudiram Bose, a boy of 18 years threw a bomb a British official, Kingsford. The nation was astounded by the bravery of the boy.

Right Approach to Dissolving Muslim separatism :
Bismil-Ashfaq friendship and their sacrifice for the nation. Both were poets, friends and revolutionaries. Both were hanged on the same day, time but in different jails.
Kazi Saifuddin supported Tilak’s Ganesh Utsav Mandals, Shivaji Jayanti etc. However, at the same time Times of India declared Sivaji as anti-Muslim.

Some more thoughtful Muslims came forward against separatist attitude of the Mullah-maulvis.

Appeasement of Muslims by Congress :
In 1888 itself under Badruddin Tyabji had declared that Congress would not pursue any policy that is opposed nearly unanimously by both Hindus and Muslims.
Swami Shradhananda observed that even from 1899 Muslim delegates were given free tickets by the Congress.

1916, Lucknow pact which accepted and gave weightage to separate electorates was approved by stalwarts of the likes of Tilak too. Among the top leaders, only Madan Mohan Malviya opposed it.

1919, Khilafat movement began to restore the Khalifa of Turkey, Kemal Pasha. Kemal himself was inspired by Jamaluddin Afghani who advocated liberal reform in all Muslim countries by giving up clinging to their past.

Oblivious of this, the Muslim league insisted that the Congress join the khilafat movement. Gandhi launched the non co-operation movement was launched to support the Khilafat movement. Even Tilak supported it. Swami Shradhananda spoke from the Jama Masjid. Aga Khan and Amir Ali met Kemal Pasha but they were rebuked. He said” Islam is a religion of defeated people. He dethroned Islam from pedestal of official state religion and declared Turkey secular.

Moulivis and Mullahs did support Gandhiji in large numbers initially  It is interesting that only Jinnah who is said to have felt threatened by the influx of Mullahs and Moulvis into politics and who was at one time in the Congress, opposed this move of Gandhiji

Khilafat aftermath : The Muslims went on a rampage on the Hindus. Servants of India society recorded that in Moplah, Kerala, over 1 lac people were displaced, 20K converted and 1500 people killed. Even pregnant women and cows were not spared. They killed the men and married the women and they declared Gandhi a kafir.

During this period, Swami Shradhananda notes, “ even nationalist Muslims support Moplahs. Gandhi said “ They are god fearing people & have acted based on what they have understood of Islam. Annie Beasant rebuked Gandhi. The Congress distanced itself then from the movement. Marxist historians now bud the Moplah uprising as nationalist and in 1971, the Government of Kerala officially recognized the participants as “freedom fighters”.

1925, Suhrawardy, a one time member of Swaraj Party wrote on Haj very approvingly that Islam claims thousands of Hindus every year. These people are put in the discipline of the annual pilgrimage of Mecca and they retrun to India purged and purified, and adopting the manners and customs of Arabia, become as distinct from the Hindus as the Hindus are from the Chinese and Jews. Dr. Saifuddin Kitchlew, a so called nationalist Muslim warned Hindus against putting any obstacles in our path for the Tanzim movement.

Ghar Vapasi  : By this time Swami Shradhananda realized that unless Islamic conversions are arrested, we would not be able to survive. In 1923, he reconverted 18,000 Muslims back to the Hindu fold. He observed that while Muslims involved in Tabligh were encouraged by the Congress, Hindus involved in Shudhi were tabooed. In 1926, Swamiji was murdered by Abdul Rashid. Gandhi supported Rashid saying that guilty are those who excited feelings of hatred against one another. He called Rashid a brother. The case for Rashid was fought by Asaf Ali. We must remember that Gandhi refused to put a signature in favour of saving the lives of Bhagat Singh, called Sivaji, Rana Pratap and Guru Gobind Singh as misguided patriots did call Rashid his brother and asked a senior Congress leader to fight to save him.

1924, every Hindu festival was attacked. Gandhi declared in Young India “ My own experience but confirms that the Mussalman as a rule is a bully and the Hindu as a rule is a coward. Need the Hindus blame the Mussalman for his cowardice? Where there are cowards there will always be bullies..

Hindus Massacred in Kohat : Kohat was a small town with less than 5% of Hindu population in NWFP As many as 150 Hindus were killed. The entire Hindu population had to seek shelter in Rawalpindi, 320 km away. Gandhi fasted for 21 days since he could do nothing to bring the two communities together. When Mahadev Desai asked for what error he was undergoing the fast, , he replied, “What error ? I may be charged wit breach of faith with Hindus. Hindu women are in mortal terror of Muslim goondas. How can I ask the Hindus to put up with everything patiently ? and then said “ Who listens to me and yet even today I ask Hindus to die and not to kill”.

On 18th April 1924, Rabindranath Tagore wrote in the TOI, “ Muslims cannot confine their patriotism to one country”.

muslims-cannot-confine-patriotism-tagore

In 1924, Lala Lajpat Rai wrote to CR Das, “ I am not afraid of the 7 crores of Muslims of Hindustan, but I think the seven crores of Hindustan plus armed hosts of Afghanistan, Central Asia, Arabia, Mesopotamia and Turkey will be irresistible. I do honestly believe in the necessity and desirability of Hindu Muslim unity. I am fully prepared to the trust the Muslim leaders, but what about the injunctions of the Koran and Hadis? The leaders cannot override them. I hope your learned mind and wise head will find some way out of this difficulty.

Rising Demands: From 4 to 14 points. Partition Plan
a. Sind separation from Mumbai.
b. NWFP & baluchistan as full fledged governor provinces.
c. Punjab and Bengal to have proportionate representation
d. 1/3 Muslims in Central legislature.
e. Plus 14 other points

1930, Nehru adopted completed independence resolution. In the same year, Iqbal as President of Muslim league pressed for partition.

Communal award by PM of Britain, Ramsay Macdonald – 1932 : Separate electorates for Sikhs, Muslims, Eurpoeans, Xtians, Anglos & depressed classes. But same minority rights not to Hindus in Muslim majority areas. While Ambedkar supported this, Gandhi opposed this thus saving Hindu society. However, the Congress took the official stand of neither supporting nor rejecting the award. This angered Malviaya and Bhai Parmanand who quit the Congress.

1937, Congress swept the Provincial elections, League slumped. This also saw the metamorphisis of Jinnah who had returned to India in 1934. The League took a complete separatist stand.

Savarkar, who formed the Hindu Mahasabha declared in 1937 that India cannot be assumed to be a homogenous nation, but on the contrary there are two nations in the main, The Hindu and the Muslim. This came as a rude shock to the other Indian nationalists. However, Savarkar was dead set against formation of a Hindu India an Muslim India. Let the Indian state be purely Indian with no cognizance whether he is a Hindu, Muslim, Christian or a Jew. (Editor comments: Clarification issued by Savarkar is in this link ).

Symbols compromised:

In 1923, Kakinada Session, Vandemataram was opposed in its full form by the Congress President, Maulana Md. Ali. Sri Vishnu Digambar Pulaskar however continued to sing it. In 1922, Congress had already accepted Sare Jahan Se Accha as an alternate anthem. By 1937, Vandemataram was truncated.

 

1931, Flag Committee, Patel, Maualana Azad, Tara Singh, Nehru, Kalelkar, Dr.hardikar and Dr.Patabhi Sitaramayya. They all accepted the saffron flag with Chakra in blue. Yet the tricolour was chosen.

Shiv Bhavani of Bhushan was banned in 1934. Bhajans were tampered – Raghupati Raghava Rajaram to say Ishwar Allah tere naam. Link

Cow slaughter was given free hand. In a letter to Jinnah in 1938, Nehru assured that Congress would not restrict the established rights of the muslims.

Congress resigns League enters :
22nd Dec 1939 –In protest against the British unequivocal stand of involving India in the WW II without as much consulting the leaders of the country, the Congress leaders resigned from the government. The Muslim league was quick to act and occupied all positions. In Assam, the got a golden opportunity to change the demography by settling Muslims and making it into a Muslim dominated area.

The Muslim league submitted a memorandum for the partition of India as Pakistan. It is notable that in the Pakistan resolution, the demand was made for independent states for Muslims in N.E and Eastern Zones of India. It was later that the word States was changed as State. Jinnah termed it as a printing error.

Savarkar calls for militarizing Hindus. He said” Mind, Swaraj will never come to you, although you cover the whole earth with paper resolutions. But if you pass resolutions with rifles on your shoulders, you will attain it.

In 1942, Cripps mission – he assured that Hyderabad state would be part of the Muslim dominion. Congress launched the “ Quit India movement”. It failed due to absence of efficient organisatiion of national revolutionary forces. ( JP)

British-League- Communist Hook Up:
The communists had supported Congress in anti-British stand since Hitler had tied up with Stalin. However when Germany invaded Russia in 1941, Russia aligned with Britain and therefore the communists and league cosied up.

Gandhi- Jinnah talks for 19 days:

Shyama Prasad Mukherjee urged Gandhi not to engage in talks with Jinnah.
Gandhi argued against two nation theory, “ I find no parallel in history for a body of coverts and their descendants claiming to be one nation apart from their parent stock.” While Gandhi called Jinnah has Quaid E Azam, Jinnah always referred to him as Mr.Gandhi. By talking to Jinnah, Gandhi boosted Jinnah’s image.

1945-46 Elections ;
The league however was able to win only in 2 provinces ( Bengal and Sind) out of the 5 it had sought for Pakistan ( Baluchistan, Punjab, NWFP, Bengal and Sind).

In a counter attack aimed at recapturing the momentum, on Aug 16th 1946, the League called for a Direct Action Day.

Aug 16th 1946, Direct action Day:
Jinnah declared jehad against Hindus. Terror was unleashed on the Hindus. In Bengal and Sind, holiday was declared on 16th August. The police which was overwhelmingly Muslim, joined hands. In Bengal and sind, Muslims formed 70% of the police. At the meeting convened under the Presidentship of Premier Suhrawardy, speaker after speaker called for Jehad against the Hindus. The Hindus retaliated and seeing that the Muslims were now at the receiving end, the governor called in the army. Over 10,000 men and women were killed, 15000 injured and over 1 lac rendered homeless in Calcutta alone.

The league shifted operations to Noakhali. From a relief centre in E.Bengal Miss Mueral Lester wrote on 6th Nov 1946, “ The women had to watch their husbands being murdered and then forcibly converted and married to the very people who were responsible for their husband’s murder. Mullahs and Maulvis accompanied the rioters to complete the conversion process.”

When Sucheta and Acharya Kriplani met the governor and reported the mass killings and conversions, the governor replied that it is quite natural since Hindu women are more beautiful than their Muslim counterparts. Jinnah on his visit to England found that the Queen and the King were favorable to Pakistan, while Churchill coreponded secretly wiht Jinnah under a pseudonym.

Syama Prasadji was the first to reach those riot ravaged areas to organize self defence among the Hindus. The riots spread to Bihar where the Hindus had an upper hand. Acharya Kriplani brings the contrast that while in Bengal the government was party to the riots, it was not so in Bihar.

Churchill- Jinnah axis : They used to write to each other under pseudo names. Exposed in letters released in 1982. When Jinnah visited England, he found that the Queen and the King were favorable to Pakistan while Churchill corresponded secretly with Jinnah under a pseudonym.

The leagues direct action continued to NWFP, Kashmir. In a village called Khalsa after a prolonged fight when all Hindu and Sikh men were killed, 74 women lead by Smt. Lajwanti jumped into a well to save their honour.

Mountbatten arrived in Bharat on 22nd March 1947 :
Gandhi in his first interview to Mountbatten opposed partition . Gandhi gave an offer saying that disband cabinet and invite Jinnah to form his own cabinet which can be completely Muslim.

Nehru remarked that Gandhi had lost touch with happenings at the centre. Gandhi wrote to the Viceroy that since that since his plan was not finding any acceptance, he is handing over the charge of all negotiation to CWC.

Patel accepted to have a clean separation. Nehru and Rajendra Prasad also accepted partition. But Maulana opposed saying that Gandhi’s proposal had the best interest of Muslims in mind

Syama Prasad roused the Hindus to insist to retain West Bengal and East Punjab. Rajendra Prasad reminded Jinnah that this was in line with League’s own Lahore resolution. By the same time, Jinnah came up with a new demand – 800 mile corridor connecting West and East Pakistan.

V.P.Menon came forward with a draft plan for partition. Gandhi a few days earlier had told Mountbatten that the Congress may not be with me but India is with me. A few days later in a public program declared that the Viceroy is opposed to partition but since Hindus & Muslims are unable to live together, he is accepting it. When somebody reminded him of his statement, “ Vivisect me before the country. “ , he replied “when the public opinion is against me, am I to coerce it ?”

The president of Congress, Maulana Azad passed the resolution for partition hoping that the partition would be a shortlived one. Purushottam Das Tandon opposed it till the end saying “ Let us suffer the British rule a little longer than sacrifice our cherished goal of united India. Let us gird up our loins to fight, if need be both the British and the League and safeguard the integrity of the country.” There was a loud applause for his words. But Gandhi came down in favour of the acceptance. The issue was clinched. At the close of his speech, Gandhi said, “ Wouldn’t I oppose it, if only I had the time ? But I cannot challenge the present congress leadership and demolish people’s faith in it unless I am in a position to tell them “ Here is an alternate leadership”.I have not the strength today Or else, I would have declared rebellion single handed. But it must be remembered that Nehru told Mosley that if Gandhi had told us, we would have gone on fighting and waiting.

Motive Behind urgency : fear of resitance :
Mountbatten advanced the date of partition from June 1948 to August 1947 by ten months.Almost all Indian officers were opposed to partition. Added to this the general atmosphere was charged in the wake of INA trials and naval revolt.
Mosley writes, partition of India was announced in May 1947 with no plans of division of army till June.
Commission to decide on boundaries of 2 states not yet formed until end of june.
People deliberately kept in ignorance as to which side they would be on until 2 days after Independence.

Radcliff boundary commission award postponed till 17th August complicated the matter.

Cyril Radcliff, chairman of both Punjab and Bengal boundary commission. The congress erred in accepting a one man commission instead of a 3 man commission and that too for both the boundaries. Even the members of the commissions were kept in the dark.. Muslims started to show inflated numbers to influence the decision. M.C.Mahajan and Tej Singh two members of the Punjab commission were so convinced about Lahore remaining as part of Bharat that even they did not begin arrangements to move. Muslims were only 25% of Lahore. Most of the great canal systems, the rich wheat lands, the sikh shrines & Lahore were gifted to Lahore only on the pretext that “ How can two big cities Lahore and Calcutta be given to India” ? Over 40% of them became homeless. The loss to Hindus was over 4000 crores, the loss for Muslims was a fraction of that. The same story was repeated in the Chittagong Hill tracts. Overwhelmingly Hindu, it was acceded to East Pakistan. Pakistan with 19% population got 23% territory.

The Holocaust
Mountbatten said “ I give you complete assurance I shall see to it that there is no bloodshed and riot. I am a soldier not a civilian.

What followed was a never before seen cataclysm. The transfer of population that the Congress leaders wanted to avoid, took place. They were killed, robbed, looted in transit. As the biggest migration of population in recorded history was in progress, a most dangerous situation arose in the capital. Every 4th person in Delhi was a Hindu or Sikh refugee from Pakistan. They were furious against the Muslims and also against the Congress.

RSS to the rescue:
Most of the police force was Muslim.
Bharat Ratna, Dr.Bhagwandas said, I have been reliably informed that the RSS youths were able to warn Patel and Nehru about an impending coup on Sept 10, 1947 and about a plan to kill all Hindu officials and plant the flag of Pakistan on the Red Fort. Tens of millions of Hindus would have been slaughtered and all the rest converted to Islam.Gandhi undertook a fast to grant 55 crores additionally to Pakistan.

A.N.Bali recounts the valour and the service rendered by the RSS swayamsevaks. He say, “ The refugees from West Pakistan- all of them without exception wherever they are living in India to a man, are grateful to RSS for coming to their help at a time when they felt deserted by all.

Assimilation – 600 princely states integrated into one union. Maharaja Hari Singh was convinced by Guruji Golwalkar on 17th Oct 1947 to join in Bharat inspite of Mountbatten asking him to join with Pakistan. On 23rd October, Pakistani tribesman led by general Akbar Khan invaded Kashmir. British commanders rebelled against Kashmir King and handed over Gilgit to Pakistan. The RSS swayamsevaks cleared the Srinagar aerodrome of snow just in time for Indian planes to land. On 21st November, Nehru took the Kashmir issue into the UN.

Hyderabad : Kasim Rizvi the chief of Razakars carried a virulent campaign against Bharat and Hindus. 2 lac Razakars with arms and 40,000 regular and irregulars of the State’s force. The Razakars had aligned themselves with the communists. Indian forces marched into Hyderabad in Sept 1948 from 5 directions. This was known as “Operation polo  and it lasted for just 108 hours.

Bhopal Nawab & Junagarh Nawabs tamed.

Maharaja of Udaipur shows his character :
The dream of Nawab of Bhopal to accede to Pakistan would succeed only if Udaipur which had Jodhpur on West and Indore and Bhopal on East accede to Pak. He said, My choice was made by my ancestors. If they had flattered, they would have left a kingdom as large as Hyderabad. They did not, neither shall I. I am with India.

Was partition unavoidable?
There was a very strong pro-nation sentiment running in the army, INA Trial, naval rebellion were all causing the the CIC of Army, Claude Auchinleck to be in a dilemma.

Stafford Cripps said in a discussion in the house of commons “ The alternate to quitting would have entailed considerable reinforcement of British troops and civil personnel. It would be politically impracticable from both a national and international POV.

There was a strong nationalist sentiment in the Army. The INA trials, the RIN mutiny had put the British rules on tenterhooks. All these caused the British to precipitate Partition and leave India at all costs to India.

In 1949 in New York, Nehru declared that if he had known the terrible consequences of partition, he would have resisted the partition of India. On the other hand, Congress was led by tired leaders, whose best years of struggle were behind them. Congress had no policy to take advantage of the divisions with in Muslims, or to man oeuvre.  Gandhian methods which had some success against the British failed against the brutal and bloody approach of the Muslim separatists.

Mountbatten while narrating how he was persuaded to accept the assignment as Viceroy said Churchill had accepted that their time in India was up and they were reaching a stalemate there. The situation is murky and it is only you who can resolve it.

The League itself was weak: The Delhi Muslims used to go to Patel and press him to have no truck with the League and have a firm policy against them. It would sap its power and Muslims would gravitate towards the Congress. Muslim society itself was deeply divided with the leadership invariably from the Ashrafi classes. They considered the local Muslims as low

In 1949 in New york, Nehru declared that if they had known the terrible consequences of partition, they would have resisted the.partion of India.

Why we lost ?
1. Lack of idealogical faith in Congress. Their concept of nationhood was emotionless, devoid of life spirit and being limited to territorial, political factors.
2. Lack of National Conviction : Why swaraj ? had been shelved to the background. The sublime national ideals and aspirations forming the life breath of Independence had evaporated.
3. Treating it as a division of brothers. But do you cut your mother too ?
4. Path of national assimilation ignored and a policy of appeasement followed. The slogan became No swaraj without Hindu Muslim unity instead of If you come with me, with you, if you do not, without you ; if you oppose, inspite of you;
5. Toynbee writes ‘ What is Pakistan ? it was the first successful step in this 20th century to realize their ( Muslims) 1200 year old dream of complete subjugation of this country.
6. Hindu backbone broken.. Sarath Chandra Chaterjee writes. When Americans fought for their freedom, more than ½ the people were with the British. In the irish freedom, how many actually engaged in it ? Right or wrong is not decided by counting heads, it is decided by the intensity of tapasya to the cause. No swaraj without Hindu Muslim unity is an insult to the Hindus.
7. Leadership exhausted and tempted: Dr.Ram Manohar Lohia says,” No shadow of doubt need obscure the simple proposition that a decaying leadership operating in a riotious situation produced partition. A more youthful people may have avoided the division of Hindustan. Not one leader was in jail when the country was getting partitioned. I regret that I did nothing to get into jail at India’s partition.
8. In 1960, speaking to Leonard Mosley, Nehru says” the truth is that we were tired men and we were getting on in years too. Few of us could stand the prospect of going to prison again and if we would have stood out for a united India, as we wished it, prison obviously awaited us. ( In Leonard Mosley’s The British Raj)

The book can be purchased here .