What can one say at this point. i think its time indians accept the partition and not let it be some political blame game.
The thing is that in india and pakistan the story is that those who take responsibility for partition are instantly demonized ( in case of india) and made hero ( in case of Pakistan). You see if you look at his statement then its as if he is absolving jinnah of a great sin and placing the sin on nehru which highlights how the populace see the partition in India and a new ( often politically backed) thought process is that its all nehru's and congress's fault.
The reality ofcourse is a bit different. Both jinnah and nehru played a role in this however we must understand how this role came to be in the first place.
Long before jinnah and nehru became the central orbit of all subcontinental politics, a concept came to be which echoed and resonated slowly amongst the populace. This was the concept that muslims are different and distinct from the rest of the subcontinent. It mentioned no caste nor ethnicity but a simple notion that muslims are different and this different group must forge a separate path in the subcontinental politics. This was sir syed ahmed khan and with the wheels came into motion that created the political tussle of unprecedented proportion in British india. Congress ofcourse came with a different concept. That india is one nation. all things be it caste, religion and ethnicity are subservient and secondary to this fact that indians are one. Nothing is divisible amongst them and these indians reside in all of the british india and with it the congress party and its leaders brought forward a concept to the populace that this one nation is under the colonization of british and they must fight for their independence together. The muslim league ( at that time without jinnah) worked with the concept that muslims a distinct and separate minority needed their rights secured and the securing of these rights required certain steps by the crown to make sure muslim rights are secured. This was ofcourse vehemently opposed by congress. Do you know why? not bcz congress was born evil but bcz the political ideology of congress was the exact opposite of this. You see granting muslims special concessions was basically accepting that muslims were indeed a distinct nation from the rest of indians and due to this distinction they needed their rights secured. Thats the two nation theory something which was against the congress belief and political concept and ideology and men fight for what they believe in and would lay down their lives for their believes. It is simply human nature to protect your ideology an belief and the congress simply did that. They found the notion of separate identity absolutely ridiculous but as we know this stubbornness only makes things worse.
The thing is you must understand that when somebody asks for their rights or safeguarding of their rights and are not satisfied or ignored then those cries of rights within a union as one become rights as separate entities. This is the natural evolution of such things and this is what happened in Pakistan.
Our history course books highlight that Jinnah believed in rights within union and he did. What is argued is when did that rights within union became rights as separate entities and this is where all the theories come to pass.
The muslim league and congress tussled over this as the muslim league shouted for muslim rights and congress shouted louder for greater autonomy under the crown for indians which are one. This ofcourse came in the form of 1935 act and the 1937 elections where congress won. You see the party which advocated loudly that indians were one nation had just won the elections and formed their own government. obviously from nehru's and congress's point of view it became apparent that the people of the subcontinent had rejected the two nation theory and the sole party that propagated it and the notion of two separate identity was so unpopular and the notion of one nation identity so popular that the people voted for us. In their eyes the matter lay settled and this is simply ten years before partition. Ten years is the same generation that voted in 1937. Now you see how the psych of congress was being made and how they saw their ideology strengthened and it would be this that would lead to the events of 1947.
Now let me make it clear. The muslim league was fighting for muslim rights. It was not fighting for modern day pakistan with these boundaries. Their concept was entirely to safeguard muslim interests and rights and this was entirely the battle. Infact although Rehmat ali did coin the name Pakistan but if you look at his map then you would see exactly the thought process prevalent amongst the muslims fighting for their rights. The map basically has enclaves where muslims are a majority or the ruling class and it has three areas marked which were pakistan, bangistan ( east Pakistan) and osmanistan ( hyderabad) so you see it was not just the battle for punjab, sindh, NWFP and baluchistan but for every muslim and the safeguarding of their rights and rehmat ali basically presented to the the subcontinent a picture of what would happen if muslim rights were not safeguarded.
So you have two political parties that have the ideology that differs from each other like day and night however one of them has won an open election where the other lost. The party that has won is assured that it is the sole representative of Indians and indians believe that there are no two identities and they have the 1937 elections to back their claim. They have muslims in their parties and a very famous muslim leader in NWFP who calls himself indian ( a fact ignored by afghans of afghanistan but thats a story for another time).
The events of 1937-1947 are what the turn the tide in the subcontinental play. The decade may be the most crucial decade in subcontinental history.
in 1940 a resolution was passed to a sea of people which threw the gauntlet. It called as it stated
That geographically contiguous units are demarcated into regions which should be constituted, with such territorial readjustments as may be necessary that the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in a majority as in the North Western and Eastern Zones of (British) India should be grouped to constitute ‘independent states’ in which the constituent units should be autonomous and sovereign.
That no constitutional plan would be workable or acceptable to the Muslims unless geographical contiguous units are demarcated into regions which should be so constituted with such territorial readjustments as may be necessary
That adequate, effective and mandatory safeguards shall be specifically provided in the constitution for minorities in the units and in the regions for the protection of their religious, cultural, economic, political, administrative and other rights of the minorities.
The question that is argued is whether this was a threat or not. A threat is defined " a statement of an intention" so yes it was a threat but was it an empty threat. Thats where the discussion comes in. An empty threat is defined as "no intention for fulfillment" so was it an empty threat? No it was not. It was a man who was using his insight to openly declare that if rights are not safeguarded, if provisions are not made which will satisfy the muslims then the muslims be separated from the rest of british india. Although statements had been said before like in the 1930 presidential address of allama iqbal which spoke of independent separation for muslims or autonomous rights safeguarded within the british union. It was the first time it was spoken so loudly as a mission. It was indeed the throwing of the gauntlet.
The mission was and always remained safeguarding of muslim rights be it as separate entity or as united entity.
Now we will look at things from Congress perspective especially nehru's. A party that won in 1937 and willfully resigned in 1939 was hearing this demand from a party that basically had shown nothing. They obviously vehemently denied it.
Now ofcourse comes the question. Why didnt the stubborn congress just accept their demand? The question is simply wrong. It meant the end of congress and the political ideology which was to hold india together. India was being moved under the concept of one nation above all else. Accepting that muslims needed special treatment was akin to accepting that muslims were distinct and different from the rest of indians. That meant killing the ideology of indian above all else bcz if you accept that muslims are different then you have to accept other differences as well for if muslims are so different then why not parsis, why not christians, why not bengalis, why not other ethnicities.
Congress could not accept that. The two parties had two very different ideologies. Accepting the other's demand meant accepting their ideology which would ruin everything those parties had worked their entire existence for. Nobody was going to do that.
This was perhaps most true in the cabinet mission plan of 1946 but before we must highlight another important event. in 1945 elections were held in india. The general elections on 102 seats were held of which Muslim league won 30 and congress 59. The more important ones were the provincial elections which highlighted and perhaps shocked congress.
The elections of 1945-46 highlighted the thought process of people. You had one party that propagated one india for one nation called indians and a party which continuously spoke about muslim separate identity and separatism due to non safeguarding of rights. The muslim league campaigned endlessly and it was here in the provincial elections of 1945-46 that we witnessed the choice of the muslims.
The muslim league won 425 seats and the congress won 923 seats. The muslim league won amongst the muslim reserved seats and the congress amongst the remaining hindu majority. The thing is that the muslims of the subcontinent. You see separate electorates were that a muslim candidate would be standing against another muslim candidate rather than a non muslim one and the muslim community would decide and this is what basically shook the foundations of the subcontinent. The muslims had voted for a party that advocated the concept of separate identity against the muslim candidate of a party that advocated one identity.
To say that muslims did not see themselves as separate would be wrong bcz the election itself is evidence that they saw themselves as separate and ofcourse the mass migration showcases that they left everything behind believing in this concept.
You see with these elections the british were left in a conundrum. The muslims were agitating and there was now ample evidence that the muslim league was the representative of muslims and the muslims support the concepts of the muslim league.
This is where the cabinet mission plan of 1946 came and its here discussions reach their heights.
The plan basically divided india into three entities which would remain largely in very very loose federation and any entity if dissatisfied could leave the union after 10 years. The entities would be largely autonomous with defense foreign under central which would be delhi.
Now here is the question. Why was this plan rejected by the congress and accepted by the muslim league? In our books even those in bachelor or higher you would read that it was some clever move ( which was highly unexplained and circular and quite frankly made no sense) by muslim league to fool the british and the congress. Amongst the recent anti-congress indians the concept ofcourse would be that nehru was so power hungry and foolish and if netaji or patel was there it wouldnt have happened.
Reality ofcourse is a bit different and it is here that their political ideologies came to be. Their entire political concept and their believes laid bare.
the 1946 cabinet plan basically divided india. three entities which could leave the union which was extremely decentralized. This decentralized structure was basically looked to congress as the division of what they saw as one india for one nation called indians. Nehru could not be expected to accept this bcz it was against their ideology. This is not being stubborn but guarding the only thing that could hold india together. In the end history will ofcourse judge him harshly but quite frankly modern day india has much to thank him for. His rigid stand that one india for one nation of indians was perhaps what has to this day continuously held india together something in history never happening if you discount forcible annexations of great conquerors whose empires and these annexation barely lasted their lifetime.
At the other end you had muslim league. The muslim league got what they wanted. Muslim rights were safeguarded in a very very loose union. The center had zero powers basically and ten years ( we formed our constitution in 1956, 9 years from 1947. The government of india act was run till then) from now the entities could leave the union. So both rights and the option for separatism if the center meddles then they could simply invoke their right to separate. So ofcourse they would accept and nowhere does it point that had both parties accepted the cabinet plan that there wouldnt have been partition. quite frankly all three entities would have separated and india would have been alot smaller and there would have been communal hell in the entity which comprised of bengal and assam. so its basically a "what if" day dream scenario which even for day dream standards is pretty unrealistic.
The plan was basically the british saying you sort your mess out with the tools we are giving you and there was one party saying there is no mess to sort out and the other saying oh there is a big one.
Leaders are differentiated from the populace bcz they have the ability to see what others dont see. They have this vision that others dont get and right now there were two great leaders who were seeing what others could not see. who were seeing what others to this day do not see. This is what was so remarkable. They both saw a future that they did not want and they both had a vision which they saw as the only path for salvation. History books are marred as black and white. Right or wrong. There is not right or wrong here.
the british came to the conclusion that they would have to end this themselves and so they did. The concept of creating two entities from british india. The muslim league agreed since this is where all rights movement which are ignored or not properly attended to lead and the congress agreed bcz in their eyes it was a better option than to loose their ideology of one india for one nation called indians....... the rest is history.
The fact is that the people of pakistan see themselves to this day as different from the indians of india and it is here amongst the 221 million that the two nation theory resides and as long as we stand with this concept that we are separate from the indians of india and that we wish to forge our own destiny wherever it may lead us as separate and independent nations, the theory on solid grounds unblemished.
I dont go into what could have beens or what ifs. they are a waste of time. We must look into the now and work our way from here.
Imran Khan vs Pakistan: Protest of Treachery - Casualty Report
