Tag Archives: Muslim League

Partitioned freedom : The Conclusion

(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)
(Read “Partitioned Freedom – 6” from this link – 6)

The final years and the lessons:

A decade of appeasement had only helped the Muslim League gain greater legitimacy. When the Second Round Table Conference came in September 1931, the League leadership played an even more divisive role.

Jinnah and the Aga Khan were present in London for the Conference on behalf of the League. Gandhi was the lone Congress representative. Dr. B R Ambedkar was there representing the Depressed Classes. There were envoys from several communities including the Sikhs, the Parsis, the Anglo-Indians, and the Concord of Princes. Behind Gandhi’s back, the Aga Khan held secret meetings with the leaders of various groups and put forward a proposal before the British for enhanced separate representation for all of them in the Indian legislature. Gandhi firmly rejected this fragmentation of the Indian society in the name of creating separate electorates. Already, the Muslims and a few other minorities enjoyed separate electorates under the Government of India Act 1919.

Communal Award 1932:

British Prime Minister Ramsay McDonald went ahead with a modified version of the League’s recommendations and announced the famous Communal Award 1932. It came as a rude shock to the Congress leadership. They were especially aghast at the British decision to provide exclusive electorates for the Depressed Classes by separating them from other Hindus.

Gandhi viewed the Communal Award as the negation of his years of toil. He rightly believed that the separate electorates would eventually perpetuate social evils like untouchability as they excluded the depressed classes from the rest of Hindu society. Disheartened and back in India, Gandhi announced an indefinite fast against the Award on September 20, 1932.

Poona Pact:

The Congress command persuaded the leader of the depressed classes, Dr. Ambedkar to engage in negotiations with Gandhi at the Yerawada prison. The negotiations led to the Poona Pact, which was signed by Dr. Ambedkar from the depressed classes and Madan Mohan Malaviya from the Congress. Under the pact, Dr. Ambedkar agreed to give up the demand for exclusive electorates for the depressed classes and secured instead a larger number of seats for the community from 71 to 147 under the Hindu quota. The Communal Award was accordingly amended in 1933. Gandhi thus prevented the Hindu society from further fragmentation.

However, regarding the rest of the Award, Congress continued its politics of ambiguity and appeasement. Though it opposed the Communal Award in principle, the consent of the minorities was needed to take a final position, the Congress leaders argued. The Muslim leaders in Congress like Dr. Ansari started supporting the Award. Finally, Congress took a bizarre stand of “neither accepting nor rejecting” the Communal Award. This new concession irked leaders like Madan Mohan Malaviya and Loknayak Aney, who resigned and started the Congress Nationalist Party.

The Communal Award came as a significant setback to Gandhi’s efforts for Hindu-Muslim unity and it gave greater teeth to Jinnah and the Muslim League. The stridency of the League’s separatist rhetoric increased. Jinnah now insisted that the Congress should represent Hindus only.

Provincial Elections:

The provincial elections of 1937 provided an excellent opportunity to the Congress. Despite its separatist rhetoric, the Muslim League was decisively rejected in all the Muslim majority provinces in the country. Out of the 482 exclusive Muslim constituencies, the League could hardly win 109 seats. While the Congress was able to form governments in eight provinces, the League could not form even in one. The Muslim voters preferred other Muslim parties like the Unionists in Punjab, the Krishak Praja Party in Bengal, and the Assam Valley Muslim Party in Assam. Several of those regional Muslim outfits were keen to join hands with the Congress.

The Muslim League was in utter disarray, and Jinnah demoralised. But two steps taken by the Congress leadership helped Jinnah revive his fortunes once again:

First was the Congress’s decision to reach out to Jinnah instead of talking to the leaders of the regional Muslim parties. Gandhi, Nehru, and Bose approached Jinnah once again with a proposal to work together. This gave Jinnah a fresh lease of life. While the League refused the Congress’s offer, Jinnah succeeded in attracting smaller Muslim parties into his fold.

The second self-defeating move was the decision of the Congress on October 22, 1939, to ask all provincial governments to resign in response to Viceroy Linlithgow’s decision to involve India in the Second World War without committing to grant Self-rule after the War. The League seized this opportunity and declared its support to the British in return for enhanced protection to the League in the provinces. Jinnah appealed to the Muslims to celebrate December 22, 1939, as the ‘Day of Deliverance’ from the ‘unjust Congress regime.

Jinnah’s Demand for ‘Pakistan’:

At Lahore in 1940, when the League demanded Pakistan, Gandhi realised that it was time for a more decisive action. On August 8, 1942, at its Mumbai session, the Congress launched the Quit India movement. The Muslim League responded by asking the British to ‘Divide and Quit’. March 23, 1943, was observed by the League as Pakistan Day.

C Rajagopalachari approached Gandhi at Yerawada prison with a formula for a thaw between the Congress and the League. Known as the C R Formula, it proposed that if the League endorsed the demand for national independence, the Congress would agree to the demarcation of contiguous Muslim majority districts in the North-West and the North-East of India after the War. A plebiscite would be conducted on the basis of the adult franchise over the demand for Pakistan. Jinnah immediately dismissed the proposal as a “shadow and a husk, a maimed and moth-eaten Pakistan.” But he also expressed vicarious satisfaction that at last, Gandhi had accepted “the principle of Pakistan”.

Gandhi persisted. “Let us meet whenever you wish. Do not disappoint me,” he wrote to Jinnah. The two finally met at Mumbai. For full nineteen days, from 9th to 27th September 1944, Gandhi climbed up the steps of Jinnah’s place, ‘almost daily, and sometimes even twice in a day’. Gandhi would address Jinnah as ‘Quaid-e-Azam’ – Great leader, while Jinnah would reciprocate with ‘Mr. Gandhi’. On September 27, 1944, Jinnah announced the termination of the talks without any result.

In the provincial elections in 1946, the League secured convincing victories in Muslim seats but it fell short of a majority everywhere. In fact, the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP), which became Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in 2010, gave a huge majority to the Congress. Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, the senior Congress leader of the NWFP, famous as the Frontier Gandhi, shed tears when his province became a part of Pakistan. In Punjab, the Congress and the Akalis together had an equal number of seats to that of the League. Eventually, those who did not vote for the League ended up in Pakistan, and those who voted for it remained in India.

The Direct Action ensued in 1946 and Partition followed a year later.

Partition saga has several lessons:

Why is this history relevant today? India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh are three sovereign nations. We respect the sovereignty of each of our neighbours and strive for cordial relations with them. But the partition saga has several lessons. Firstly, countries should never pander to separatist sentiments even with good intentions. Compulsions of time should not become convictions. Secondly, Jinnah’s notion of religion-based nationhood couldn’t stand the test of time. In less than 25 years, Pakistan was split into two.

But most importantly, as the Spanish writer-philosopher George Santayana said: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

(Courtesy: The article was originally published in Chintan, India Foundation on August 19, 2020).

Continue reading

Partitioned Freedom – 5

(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 – 3

(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 3

The emergence of the Muslim League on the political horizon and the open patronage that the British extended to it came as a challenge to the Congress. Hitherto the Congress had projected itself as the collective voice of all the Indians. The earlier efforts to create a rift between Hindus and Muslims and distance Muslims from the freedom struggle did not succeed much. After the formation of the Indian National Congress in 1885 a big section of the elite Muslims too joined it and started working with Hindu leaders.

In fact, the first war of Independence in 1857 was fought against the British by Hindus and Muslims together. After the war, the British had come down heavily on the leadership of both the communities. The failure of the 1857 war and the subsequent brutality of the British had a different impact on some of the eminent Muslims, including the renowned Urdu poet Ghalib and the distinguished Muslim educationist Sir Syed Ahmed Khan. Both had firmly believed that it was a mistake on the part of the Muslims to join hands with the Hindus against the British.

Syed Ahmed, who had once proclaimed that everyone living in India, irrespective of his religion, was a Hindu, became a staunch critic of the 1857 war. He was in Bijnour at the time of the insurrection. While the Nawab of Bijnour participated in the war against the British, Syed Ahmed was busy arranging for the security of the British in Bijnour. He told the Nawab that “nobody can challenge British sovereignty over India”. After the war, Syed Ahmed took it upon himself to mobilise Muslim support for the British. He started an organization by the name ‘Loyal Muhammadans of India’ and published stories of those Muslims who had helped protect the British officers and their families during the war. Syed Ahmed was one of the earliest Muslim leaders to propagate the thesis that Muslims were a separate community and they should be careful in protecting their separate identity from the Hindus. He also branded the Congress as a Hindu Bengali Party. Syed Ahmed had founded Aligarh Muslim University and focused on educating the Muslims. Hector Bolitho, the author of a book ‘Jinnah – Creator of Pakistan’ described Syed Ahmed as the first bold Indian Muslim to talk about partition.

Badruddin Tyabji, a renowned Muslim lawyer from Bombay (Mumbai) and his elder brother Camruddin Tyabji became active members of the Congress in the initial years. Badruddin even became the president of the Congress in 1887-88. Responding to the skepticism induced both by the British and leaders like Syed Ahmed among the Muslims about participation in Congress activity, Tyabji would categorically declare, “I, at least, not merely in my individual capacity but as representing the Anjuman-i-Islam of Bombay, do not consider that there is anything whatever in the position or the relations of the different communities of India — be they Hindus, Musalmans, Parsis, or Christians — which should induce the leaders of any one community to stand aloof from the others in their efforts to obtain those great general reforms, those great general rights, which are for the common benefit of us all.

The Congress continued to attract people from all communities. But the rise of the Muslim League as a political entity in 1906 had altered that situation. With the blessings of the British, the League had begun an aggressive campaign with serious communal overtones. A pamphlet called ‘Lal Ishtar’ – Red Pamphlet – was distributed at its Dhaka session in 1906. It called for a complete boycott of the Hindus. Communal tensions began to rise. Bengal witnessed widespread rioting and violence in 1907. The emergence of the Muslim League led to the deterioration of relations between Hindus and Muslims.

Minto-Morley Reforms (separate electorates for Muslims):

The British saw in it an opportunity to exacerbate communal divisions and perpetuate their rule. With a view to placate the rising nationalist fervour in India, the British Government had agreed to introduce electoral reforms to the legislatures. The Muslim League immediately swung in and demanded separate electorates for the Muslims. Muslims used to be nominated by the Congress to several seats. But the League insisted that the Muslims would no longer be at the mercy of the Hindu electorate. Despite the Secretary of State for India John Morley’s reservations, the British Viceroy Lord Minto and Home Secretary H H Risley agreed to grant separate electorates for Muslims under the amended Indian Councils Act 1909. Known in history as Minto-Morley Reforms, these provisions went beyond the electoral arena into administrative and governance issues also. Their discriminatory character had put off a moderate like Gopal Krishna Gokhale who called the reforms as ‘discouraging to all communities except the Muslims’.

The Minto-Morley Reforms came as a shock to the Congress leadership. They realised that the British were luring away the Muslims through concessions like separate electorates and something should be done to keep the Muslims with Congress. The moderate Congress leaders like Gokhale started making the moves. As a first step, the communal electorates which the Congress had opposed initially, were almost accepted in 1912 at the AICC session at Bankipore in Bengal.

Efforts began to cultivate the Muslim League leadership:

Gokhale used Mohammad Ali Jinnah as the midwife in his overtures to the League. The Aga Khan was approached in London with a shockingly strange request to become the President of the Congress in 1911. He did not agree. But Jinnah’s midwifing did not stop and efforts continued to somehow pull the League closer to the Congress. The Congress session was to take place at Mumbai in 1915. The Muslim League too had announced that it would hold its sessions there. The Congress had constituted a committee to persuade the League for a joint session. The League leadership did not agree. Surendranath Banerjee, the Congress President that year, had sent a message of ‘affectionate greetings’ to the League leadership on the day of their session. No reciprocal message came back.

Jinnah’s midwifing finally succeeded next year. The Muslim League agreed to join the Congress session at Lucknow in December 1916 on the condition that the Congress would not oppose separate Muslim electorates to the provincial legislatures. The famous Lucknow Pact of 1916, that had paved the way for the Congress and the League to come together, was thus a bargain struck between the two sides.

In their eagerness to win over the League from the British, the Congress leadership had missed the point that they were converting the independence movement into a bargaining chip with the League. They also missed the point that the correct way to deal with the League was by attracting more Muslims into the Congress rather than pandering to the whims of a handful of elite Leaguers. The Congress leadership was in such a trance that a leader of the stature of Lokmanya Tilak was overcome by exuberance and declared the League’s joining the Congress at Lucknow as “Luck Now at Lucknow”.

Thus began the story of appeasement, bargain and outright surrender before the communal forces by the country’s greatest hope for independence, the Congress, that wouldn’t stop for the next thirty years until we reach that point of no return, the Partition of India.

(Read Next: “Partitioned Freedom – 4” from this link – 4)

(Courtesy: The article was originally published in Chintan, India Foundation on August 15, 2020)


  • By Dr.Rahul Shastri

Whether it was E.M.S Namboodiripad or Harkishen Singh Surjeet then or Sitaram Yechury now, it comes as no surprise to listen to Communists praising Pakistan or China.


During 1962 India-China war, EMS said, “…the Chinese had entered territory that they thought was theirs and hence there was no question of aggression. At the same time, the Indians were defending territory that they considered theirs and so they were not committing aggression either…” .

In  1998, the general secretary of CPI(M), Harkishen Singh Surjeet reiterated the position of  E.M.S on the issues of border conflicts. Now, Sitaram Yechury, General Secretary of Communist Party of India (Marxist) says, what is wrong in saying ‘Pakistan Zindabad’.

There is a confluence of Hate Hinduism brigade today. Some openly talk of breaking India, and their right to do so is defended by others on grounds of “freedom of expression (FOE)”. Make no mistake, this is only a ‘good cop, bad cop’ routine. The agenda that unites them is Hate Hinduism. Communists supply the ideological and moral leadership, the media and westernised intelligentsia multiply the firepower, and the Congressis and others provide cannon fodder.

What is happening today is not idle chatter. It resonates with the tragic history of India. An aspect of its history that is deliberately hidden by communist historians, who control the history writing – How the communists have helped to break India.

What the communists did to break India and create Pakistan should never be forgotten. Those who forget history run the risk of it being repeated – the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. Here are the documented details of communist love for Pakistan which led them to break India:


The demand for Pakistan had only to be raised for the communists to declare that Muslim League had become anti-imperialist and was no longer communal. Further that Jinnah was comparable to Gandhiji. Unbelievable? Read for yourself what Sri PC Joshi wrote in those days:

We were the first to see and admit a change in its character when the League accepted complete independence as its aim and began to rally the Muslim masses behind its banner. We held a series of discussions within our party and came to the conclusion in 1941-1942 that it had become an anti-imperialist organization expressing the freedom urge of the Muslim people that its demand for Pakistan was a demand for self determination…“

A belief continues to be held that League is a communal organization and that Mr. Jinnah is Pro-British.  But what is the reality? Mr. Jinnah is to the freedom loving League masses what Gandhiji is to the Congress masses. They regard the League as their patriotic organization as we regard the Congress.”[1]


Sri Hamdani, a Pakistani lawyer, presumably a leftist, writes the “CPI was the only organized secular party which supported the demand for Pakistan, and gave it an ideological justification on the basis of the principle of the right of self-determination to sub-national groups.” [2]

What was this justification?

The communist justification was “…The Muslim masses feared that they would be oppressed and exploited by Hindu India. … To refuse this demand [for Pakistan] meant to sanction national inequality and oppression.[2]

Oppression! Exploitation! In their name, destroy the country!
Does anyone find echoes of ‘ham kya mange azadi’ here?

The CPI declared approval of the AIML’s political aspirations… They also questioned the right of Congress to speak for the whole of India.[2]. Sajjad Zaheer, a noted Communist leader and intellectual, later the Secretary General of the Communist Party of Pakistan in 1948, supported the demand for Pakistan. The Party itself supported the demand for Muslim separatists “to the point of secession of the Muslim nationalities...” [4]


The problem with Pakistan demand was that Muslim League was not a mass organisation, since aristocrats and vested interests had important positions in it. The communists decided to change things at the ground level, by building the Muslim League wherever needed.

On Sajjad Zaheer’s suggestion, the Party decided to encourage its ranks to join the AIML with the intention of turning the AIML into a mass organisation.” [2]. The Communist Party not only supported the Muslim League, but also gave its own people like Sajjad Zaheer, Abdullah Malik and Daniyal Latifi to the League.” [3]. “… a number of well-known Communists like Daniyal Latifi and progressives like Mian Iftikharuddin resigned from the Communist Party and the INC to join the AIML.[2]

Daniyal Latifi was a well-known Indian communist who gave up his lucrative practice at Lahore to join the Communist Party as a fulltime worker. He later joined the Punjab AIML and became its active member.[2]

He was “trained in law by Jinnah himself, authored the Punjab Muslim League’s manifesto for the 1945-1946 elections, … the League’s entire election campaign in the 1945-1946 elections was stage managed in Punjab by the Communist Party of India….[3]

Mian Iftikharuddin was the president of the Punjab Provincial INC Committee, but was a very close sympathiser of the Communist Party. He was also a member of the Punjab Assembly from 1937 to 1947. He joined the AIML only in the last months of 1945. [2]. The Party also issued instructions to the district workers to cooperate with the AIML and enroll new members for the AIML organisations.[2]


The “AIML welcomed the Communist decision, as the popular base of the Communist Party could now be utilised by it to rally support for itself.” [2]. The communists set to work, issuing certificates: “After joining the AIML, the Communists tried to refurbish the AIMLs image as a progressive and forward looking organisation[3]

The biggest advantage was that with Communist certificates, Pakistan supporters were able to escape the charge of communalism and acquire a ‘freedom fighter’ halo. As Hamdani says: “the Communist Party of India that most secular and non-communal institution … wholeheartedly supported the Muslim League and the Pakistan Movement during the 1940s… They would not have done so if they had thought the League was operating on a narrow communal agenda.[3] 

Does anybody find echoes in what is happening with the Kashmiri separatists today?


Communist perversion reached its logical limit when they characterised Pakistan demand as nationalist and anti imperialist, while Akhanda Bharat slogan was called separatist!

Partition 1

While supporting the Pakistan demand in official documents, Sri Adhikari writes “We saw in the growth of the Muslim League not the growth of communalism but the rise of anti-imperialist consciousness among the Muslim masses…”.

On the other hand the same document refers to the supporters of Akhada Bharata as “… Hindu minded communal reactionary who under the garb of Akhanda Bharat …” “….slogan of “Akhand Hindustan” leads in fact not to unity but to disunity and disruption.” [4]

In this way was the banner of Pakistan unfurled by the communists in India. They attacked, delegitimised, and isolated the nationalists of India and helped to break India.



According to Ram Manohar Lohia the Communist support to the partition demand “acted like an incubator,[6] meaning that the seeds of Pakistan were nursed to ripeness in Communism. Those who tend to dismiss nationalist concerns at what is happening today as ‘alarmist’ would do well to study how Pakistani muslims today assess the contribution of communists in those days.

1. “Muslim League itself in the mid-1940 s benefited from communist work among the peasantry and strengthened its own secular appeal among a large section of the Muslim masses.” [5]

2. “By equating a religious community with a nationality, the Communists helped aiding the communal ambitions of the vested interests among the Muslims even further, giving respectability to these elements and, in the process, drove a wedge in the unity of the national forces.[2]

3. “the Communists were willing to be taken for a ride by the AIML leadership, and this probably the Leaguers enjoyed immensely.” [3]


When the communists led by Sajjad Zaheer went to Pakistan to collect their wages of sin, they met with bitter disappointment.

Even earlier, communists and their supporters were denied tickets and formal positions in the party by the Muslim League, and the League manipulated things to its own advantage [pp 570-1, 6].

After the formation of Pakistan, the “state started to use Islam as a political weapon to counteract various democratic forces. Islamic doctrine was employed in the media to persuade people against the anti-religious (meaning anti-Islam) … communists. Public gatherings by communists were occasionally attacked and disrupted by mobs claiming Islamic tendencies or love for Pakistan.” [6]. “Public Safety Acts and other draconian measures from the colonial period were reinvigorated and used to arrest and harass party workers and sympathetic trade unionists. Important members of the Communist Party of Pakistan’s central committee were periodically jailed and communist publications were routinely banned or confiscated. Even literary journals linked to the Progressive Writers Association, Sawera, Adab e Latif or Nuqush, were constantly asked to stop publication for disseminating anti-state literature.” [6]

Soon there was a crackdown and incarceration of the “…members of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Pakistan, Sajjad Zaheer and Mohammad Ata. The poet and progressive intellectual, Faiz Ahmed Faiz (Faiz was never a card-carrying member of the Communist Party) was also accused of being a co-conspirator and was jailed along with the others. … Zaheer spent the next several years in jail and soon after his release in 1955 he went back to India.” [6]

…“there were widespread arrests and blanket clampdown on communist party activities. The entire process crippled the movement and demoralized cadres.” [6]

Many were tortured, and Hassan Nasser of Hyderabad, was tortured to death. Communist organisations like the “Kisan Committee, Sind Hari Committee, Democratic Women’s Association, Peace Committee, Democratic Student Federation,and other groups … were very soon contained through severe persecution and state violence.” [6]

The wages of sin were paid in blood by the Pakistanis. 

The same has happened to communists in Iran, East Pakistan, and all other Islamic states. When will they understand that no amount of idealism can justify long lasting lunacy and betrayal of nationalism?

Why this lunacy? Most communists are not born idiots. One can only infer that they are blinded by hate. Hatred for Hinduism. Hatred is destructive. Love for the motherland should supplant hatred in the human soul. That alone is the way forward.

Vande Mataram!


[1] PC Joshi Congress and the Communists, People’s Publishing House Bombay, p 5.

[2] Communist Support for the Creation of Pakistan, Y.L. Hamdani, http://www.naseeb.com/journals/the-communists-support-for-the-creation-of-pakistan-135971 ,

[3] “Heretic, communist and Muslim Leaguer” —Yasser Latif Hamdani, June 14, 2010, http://archives.dailytimes.com.pk/

[4] G. Adhikari, Report to CC, on Pakistan and National Unity, Communist Party of India.

[5] “Communists in a Muslim Land: Cultural Debates in Pakistan’s Early Years” Kamran Asdar Ali,  Modern Asian Studies, 45, pp 501-¬534, 2011.

[6] “The Guilty Men of India’s Partition”, Ram Manohar Lohia.


Watch what Sitaram Yechuri’s said in an interview with Karan Thapar

His full interview with Karan Thapar is here.

The Story of a GREAT BETRAYAL, blog post.

The 7-Great-Indian-Communist-Treachery.

Communists as Razakar Collaborators:
K M Munshi the Indian representative to Nizam, wrote about Commie Betrayal.

CD01  CD02

Indian Communists as Chinese Stooge:
Declassified CIA reports on Indian Commies during 1962 War is damning.

C1 C2

C3  C4

Indian Communists as British stooge:

C5  C0

Indian Communists as KGB Stooge:


Dr.Ambedkar on Communists: “In another context, presiding over a District conference of the Depressed Classes at Masur in September 1937, Ambedkar declared that he was a confirmed enemy of the Communists who exploited the labourers for their political ends, and there was no possibility of joining them. Reference: Book Perfidies of Power: India in the New Millennium, by P Radhakrishnan, page 54.

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)



तथाकथित दलितों को गुमराह करने में ओवैसी

Also Published in : Panchjanya – Hindi Weekly

पिछले कुछ वर्षों में एआइएमआइएम के नेताओं, ओवैसी भाइयों ने मुसलमानों पर हिन्दू अनुसूचित जातियों के समकक्ष ही कमजोर वर्ग का ठप्पा लगवाने की जी-तोड़ कोशिश की है और कहा है कि मुसलमानों और दलितों की समस्याएं एक सी हैं और ये भाई-भाई हैं। इस कोशिश से समाज में विभाजक ताकतों को बल मिल मिला हैल्ल
–  आयुष नादिमपल्ली

हैदराबाद केन्द्रीय विश्वविद्यालय परिसर में शोधार्थी रोहित वेमुला की आत्महत्या की पृष्ठभूमि में कई नए तथ्य सामने आए हैं। हालांकि विश्वविद्यालय के एक साथी छात्र पर हमले और पांच छात्रों के निलम्बन का मामला अभी अदालत में है, पर रोहित में उत्तरोत्तर आए बदलाव को उसकी फेसबुक वॉल के आइने में देखना समीचीन होगा। ऐसा लगता है, पिछले कुछ वर्षों के दौरान वह ऐसे लोगों की सरपरस्ती में रहा था, जो पहले उसे एसएफआइ से आम्बेडकर स्टूडेंट्स एसोसिएशन की तरफ ले गए, फिर ओवैसी भाइयों के नेतृत्व वाली ऑल इंडिया मजलिस-ए-इत्तेहादुल मुसलमीन (एआइएमआइएम) की तरफ आकर्षित करने में कामयाब हो गए।

मुस्लिम-दलित एकता का शिगूफा

पिछले कुछ वर्षों में एआइएमआइएम के नेताओं, ओवैसी भाइयों ने मुसलमानों पर हिन्दू अनुसूचित जातियों के समकक्ष ही कमजोर वर्ग का ठप्पा लगवाने की जी-तोड़ कोशिश की है और कहा है कि मुसलमानों और दलितों की समस्याएं एक सी हैं, इसलिए ये भाई-भाई हैं। (खोलें, वीडियो लिंक-

यह अनुसूचित जाति के हिन्दुओं के बीच भ्रम फैलाने की एक रणनीति से ज्यादा कुछ नहीं है, भ्रम यह कि वे सदियों से मुसलमानों के बहुत नजदीक रहे हैं। कुछ साल से ओवैसी भाई और उनकी पार्टी इस भ्रम को पूरी सक्रियता से फैला रही है, अब उनका पूरा जोर अकादमिक संस्थानों पर है।

भाग्यनगर के नाम पर दुष्प्रचार

उस्मानिया विश्वविद्यालय के एक वरिष्ठ प्रोफेसर कहते घूम रहे हैं कि भागमती एक अनुसूचित जनजाति की महिला थीं और उनकी शादी कुली कुतुब शाह से हुई, वहीं से भाग्यनगर या आगे चलकर हैदराबाद नाम आया। वे इससे आगे बढ़कर यह रट लगाने लगते हैं कि अनुसूचित जनजातीय समाज और मुसलमानों के बीच शादियां आम बात हैं और ये जारी रहनी चाहिए। यह कोरे झूठ के सिवाय कुछ नहीं है। यह एक बड़े दुष्प्रचार का हिस्सा है, बस। दुर्भाग्य से कुछ लोग जानकारी के अभाव में इस दुष्प्रचार के झांसे में आ रहे हैं।

दोहराई जा रही है आजादी से पहले की रणनीति

एआइएमआइएम अपनी जड़ें कासिम रिज़वी की एमआइएम में बताती है। लोगों को पता होना चाहिए कि इन्हीं कासिम रिज़वी ने हैदराबाद में हिन्दुओं और भारतीय संघ के खिलाफ रज़ाकार आंदोलन छेड़ा था। यहां 1947 से पहले के उस दौर का स्मरण करना उपयुक्त रहेगा जब मुस्लिम लीग ने इसी तरह की कोशिशें की थीं।
मुस्लिम लीग के इस दुष्प्रचार के झांसे में आने वाले नेताओं को बाद में गलती का एहसास हुआ था। पाकिस्तान बनाने के मकसद में कामयाब होने के बाद लीगियों के लिए अनुसूचित जाति के हिन्दुओं का कोई मोल नहीं रह गया था। दारुल-इस्लाम अभियान के तहत सभी वर्गों के हिन्दुओं की मार-काट मचाई गई थी।
अनुसूचित जाति वर्ग के बंधुओं को याद रखना चाहिए कि खुद डॉ. आम्बेडकर ने इस गठजोड़ के खतरे के प्रति आगाह किया था। उन्होंने चेताया था, ”इस्लाम का बंधुत्व इंसानियत का सार्वभौमिक बंधुत्व नहीं है। यह मुसलमानों के लिए मुसलमानों का बंधुत्व है। यह एक बिरादरी तो है पर इसके लाभ उस बिरादरी के भीतर वालों के लिए ही हैं। जो उस बिरादरी के बाहर हैं, उनके लिए बेइज्जती, गुलामी और दुश्मनी के सिवाय और कुछ नहीं है।”

आम्बेडकर जैसे द्रष्टा इस रणनीति की असलियत समझ चुके थे उन्होंने आसानी से समझ लिया होता कि मुस्लिम लीग और एमआइएम तथा आज की उस एआइएमआइएम की विचारधारा में खास फर्क नहीं है जो नए खोल में बंद पुरानी एमआइएम ही है।

बीते दौर में हिन्दू समाज ने कई प्रहार झेले हैं। किसी भी समाज की तरह, इस समाज में भी कुछ कमजोरियां हैं। समय-समय पर समाज ने इनके निदान के कदम उठाए हैं। उस दिशा में सकारात्मक प्रयास जारी रखने होंगे। इसके साथ ही, देश को उन ताकतों से भी सावधान रहना होगा जो समाज में खाई पैदा करने के लिए एक-दूसरे में नफरत फैलाकर उसको गुटों में बांटने में लगी रहती हैं और साथ ही खुद को उनका मसीहा बताती हैं। देश को एकजुट शक्ति के रूप में इस रणनीति को परास्त करना ही होगा।

(लेखक हैदराबाद में सोशल मीडिया एक्टिविस्ट हैं)

दलित और मुस्लिम गठजोड़ का ऐतिहासिक ‘सच’

जोगेन्द्रनाथ मंडल उन प्रमुख नेताओं में से एक थे जिन्होंने अनुसूचित जाति के उद्धार के लिए काम किया था। वे पाकिस्तान सरकार में कानून व श्रम मंत्री थे, बाद में उन्होंने उस पद से इस्तीफा दे दिया था। हर हिन्दू, खासकर उन हिन्दुओं, जो ‘दलित-मुस्लिम का साझा मकसद है’ के बहकावे के शिकार हुए थे, को जोगेन्द्रनाथ मंडल द्वारा पाकिस्तान के तत्कालीन प्रधानमंत्री लियाकत अली खान को लिखा पूरा पत्र पढ़ना चाहिए। 8 अक्तूबर 1950 को लिखे उस पत्र में मंडल शुरुआत में ही बताते हैं कि उन्होंने मुस्लिम लीग सरकार में जुड़ना स्वीकार क्यों किया? वे लिखते हैं-”जिन प्रमुख उद्देश्यों ने मुझे मुस्लिम लीग के साथ काम करने का उत्साह दिया उसमें यह था कि बंगाल में मुसलमानों के आर्थिक हित आमतौर पर वे ही थे जो अनुसूचित जातियों के थे।”

साफ है कि उस वक्त भी कोई इसी तरह का दुष्प्रचार रहा होगा कि मुसलमानों और अनुसूचित जातियों के उद्देश्य एक से ही हैं। यह उस जमाने की ताकतों की हिन्दुओं के बीच खाई पैदा करने के एक चाल थी। वह दौर था जब देश जिन्ना के आह्वान पर ‘डायरेक्ट एक्शन’ में उतरकर दंगों की आग में झुलस रहा था। लेकिन तब भी मंडल शांति की उम्मीद में लीग के साथ खड़े रहे थे। मंडल लिखते हैं, ”…कलकत्ता हिंसा के बाद अक्तूबर 1946 में नोआखली दंगे हुए। उसमें अनुसूचित जातियों सहित तमाम हिन्दुओं का कत्लेआम हुआ और सैकड़ों को इस्लाम में कन्वर्ट किया गया। हिन्दू महिलाओं से बलात्कार किए गए, उनका अपहरण किया गया। मेरे समुदाय के लोगों को भी जान-माल का नुकसान भुगतना पड़ा। इन सब घटनाओं के फौरन बाद, मैं तिप्पेरा और फेनी गया था और वहां कुछ दंगा-प्रभावित इलाकों को देखा। हिन्दुओं की दर्दनाक पीड़ा देखकर मेरे दुख का पारावार न रहा, मगर तब भी मैं मुस्लिम लीग के साथ सहयोग की राह पर ही चलता रहा।…” जिन्ना ने वादा किया था कि हिंदुओं और मुसलमानों के साथ पाकिस्तान में बराबरी का सलूक किया जाएगा।  मंडल शायद लीग की विचारधारा को ठीक से नहीं जानते थे।

वे लिखते हैं- ”…इस बारे में यहां यह उल्लेख भी किया जा सकता है कि मैं बंगाल-विभाजन के खिलाफ था। इस बारे में आंदोलन छेड़े जाने के वक्त भी मुझे न केवल सभी तरफ से जबरदस्त विरोध झेलना पड़ा, बल्कि बेइज्जती और बदनामी की ऐसी-ऐसी बातें सुननी पड़ीं कि बता नहीं सकता। वह वक्त बहुत सालता है जब इस भारत-पाकिस्तान उपमहाद्वीप के 33 करोड़ हिन्दुओं ने मेरी तरफ पीठ कर ली थी और मुझे हिन्दुओं और हिन्दुत्व का दुश्मन बताया था, लेकिन मैं भी पाकिस्तान के लिए अपनी निष्ठा से इंच भर भी नहीं डिगा था। यह बड़े फख्र की बात है कि मेरी अपील पर पाकिस्तान में अनुसूचित जाति के 70 लाख लोग जोश के साथ हुंकार भर उठे। उन्होंने मुझे पूरा समर्थन, सहयोग दिया, मेरा जोश बढ़ाया था।…”

क्यों दिया मंडल ने इस्तीफा?

पाकिस्तान बनाने के अपने मकसद में कामयाब होने के बाद मुस्लिम लीग हिन्दुओं को निकाल बाहर करने के अपने मिशन पर आगे बढ़ी। तथाकथित नारा-‘मुस्लिम-अनुसूचित जाति भाई भाई’हवा में छू-मंतर हो गया। आखिर, अनुसूचित जातियों के लोग हिन्दू ही थे, सो काफिर ही तो थे।  मंडल उन भयावह हालात का खाका खींचते हैं जो हिन्दुओं, खासकर अनुसूचित जातियों को सहने पड़े थे। ”…सिलहट जिले के हबीबगढ़ में निर्दोष हिन्दुओं, खासकर अनुसूचित जातियों पर पुलिस और सेना ने जो जुल्म किए, उनकी बाबत बता दूं। मासूम पुरुषों और महिलाओं को यातनाएं दी गईं, कुछ महिलाओं का बलात्कार किया गया, पुलिस और स्थानीय मुसलमानों ने घर-जायदाद लूटी। इलाके में सेना की चौकी लगाई गई। सेना ने न केवल इन लोगों को यातनाएं दीं, हिन्दू घरों से जबरन सामान लूटा, बल्कि अपने शिविरों में सैनिकों की वासना तृप्त करने को हिन्दुओं को रात में अपने घर की महिलाओं को भेजने का दबाव डाला।…”

लुटेरों को प्रशासन की शह

”…शहर के सभी हिस्सों में हिन्दुओं के घरों, दुकानों में आगजनी, लूटमार तथा जहां मिलें हिन्दुओं की हत्याएं शुरू हो गईं। मेरे पास मुसलमानों के भेजे सबूत हैं कि पुलिस के आला अधिकारियों की मौजूदगी में भी आगजनी और लूटमार की गई। पुलिस अधिकारियों के सामने हिन्दू सुनारों की दुकानें लूटी गईं। उन्होंने लूटमार को रोकने की कोशिश तो की नहीं, बल्कि लुटेरों को हिदायतें देकर उनकी इसमें मदद ही की…मैंने जो खुद देखा और अनुभव किया उससे जो जाना वह हिला कर रख देने वाला है। पूर्वी बंगाल में आज क्या हालात हैं? देश बंटने के बाद से करीब 50 लाख हिन्दू पलायन कर चुके हैं।”
”पूर्वी पाकिस्तान को एक तरफ करके, अब मैं पश्चिम पाकिस्तान, खासकर सिंध का जिक्र करना चाहूंगा। बंटवारे के बाद पश्चिमी पाकिस्तान में अनुसूचित जाति के करीब एक लाख लोग थे। ध्यान रहे, उनमें से बड़ी तादाद में लोगों को इस्लाम में कन्वर्ट कर लिया गया था। शरियत के इस जमावड़े में मुस्लिम ही शासक हैं जबकि हिन्दू और दूसरे अल्पसंख्यक तो वे बेचारे हैं जिनको कीमत चुकाने पर संरक्षण मिलता है, और यह बात आप से बढ़कर और कोई नहीं जानता….।”

English Article in Organiser – The Unviable Alliance