As the 60th anniversary of Indian Independence approaches, apparition of Partition haunts many. Well, the survivors might have been longly buried and the successors were brought up in their own land with no or little malice [err. Memories] India’s independence still holds an interesting study to historians.
With the changing political paradigm after WWII worldwide, Indian freedom movement faced the grappling issue of ‘two nation’ theory that eventually resulted in one of the world’s greatest tragedies‘ Partition of India’. In short, negotiations broke down between Gandhi and Jinnah on September 1944 resulting to a mutual agreement consenting Muslim League to cooperate with Congress in the formation of a provincial government and post-war the Northwest and East of India with Muslim majority would have been separated as an independent body. (C. Rajagopalachari, 1944)
It is to be noted that until 1920, Jinnah's loyalty was with the Congress party and India, the great undivided India of the time. For much of his life he chaperoned the idea of Hindu-Muslim unity; later demanded, obtained, and administered a separate Muslim homeland. Interestingly, his father Jinnabhoy Pooonja—a Gujarati from Kathiawar and a ‘convert’ was a modestly wealthy merchant of Hindu stock. Jinnah, himself was never driven to faith unlike Muhammad Iqbal. Interestingly, the rift and transformation of Jinnah’s mind was best captured in an anecdote by Diwan Chamman Lall. As Jinnah—a perfect Victorian or true British by mannerism often addressed Gandhi as ‘Mr. Gandhi’ drawing severe criticism yet not obliged. In one of those evening [when one Muhammad Ali] ridiculed him for his ‘the right way’; Jinnah boarded the train to Bombay ending his everlasting relationship to Congress. Jinnah opposed and to what other reclined, “Congress has become Gandhi’s”.
It was only in 1925, when we first encounter Jinnah upholding the causes of Muslim faith and regarded them as the ‘minority’ received strong backlashes from Congress for pressing his move for a separate Muslim electorate under Delhi Proposals of 1927. As confessed to Jamshed Nusserwanjee on his departure he said, “Jamshed, this is the parting of the ways”. Though, it is a seldom moment yet important but insignificant to laid the foundation where we could align Jinnah to Muslims also. As he commented after the failure of Round-Table Conference of 1930, “…Hindus are short-sighted and I think incorrigible. The Muslim camp is full of spineless people who will consult the Deputy Commissioner about what they should do.”
Yet, it was Muslim League that nourished the feeling of its ‘quam’ with most of its leaders have been buried to grave, losing credibility with the masses, and struggling with the issue of financial crunch was an opportune moment for Jinnah to return from his self-professed exile at Hampstead. Thus, added a new leaf to the Indian political history of pre-independence phase that ultimately ended in its ‘Partition’.
In fact, the overpowering Congress would be made responsible for cementing the claim for Pakistan had it share equal power to League in 1937. But, Congressmen under its President J.L. Nehru foresee the move of League as a pro-Pakistan. It is also to be noted that Nehru and Jinnah had been never an ally to each other. The Mahatma of Indian Independence too failed in this one incident to voice for his Hindu-Muslim unity leaving League as the sore, the ‘spoilt brat’ grown up to demand for his share.
Calculative and meticulous in his decision, Jinnah chose Lucknow as the suitable venue for 1937 session and Liaqat Ali – the first Prime Minister of free Pakistan as an ally, to show his affinity to the quam and secondly, the venue to woo people belonging to faith where they’re in majority. The new Jinnah, frail and suffering yet glowing in his political stature publicly attacked Gandhi and demanded for separate nationhood to Muslims. Thus, skillfully ever then, Jinnah played his cards more aptly and aligned to Raj power indicating Muslims of India are supportive to colonial empire provided they’ve their interest awarded after the war discontinues.
The political gamut as reveled to me during my research work, the period from 1936-1947 I find more interesting in terms, [it] prepare the land, the ministers, the acts, and policies suitable for a free divided nation. Most of the notable freedom commanders – ‘the Seer’, ‘The Rose’, and ‘the fanatic’ lay aside their agendas and common enemy only to be entangled in their personal stride of ambition.
What happened to the common men? Ah! The guinea pigs. Speeches ad political commentaries are fake, concocted and do not reveal the right mindset of political authorities. They’re fashioned and modeled evocatively published or broadcasted to feed the guinea pigs. Thus, sixty–years later, when my generation looks at Independence, it’s a ‘mere holiday’ – an ‘extra day in a week to rejoice and celebrate’.
No comments:
Post a Comment