Nehru divided India, not Jinnah: Jaswant Singh

[Khalids]

‘Nehru was draftsman of partition’

Kanchan Gupta | New Delhi

There are now no more points left to score; all have already been scored, no great issues of partition left to resolve, except one: An ability to understand what, after all, did this partition achieve?” Jaswant Singh asks in the closing chapter of his new book, Jinnah - India, Partition, Independence, scheduled to be released on August 17. He then answers the question, “Other than constant pain and the suffering of crores of humans, all around, which has now finally moulded itself into a kind of a sealed and an abrasive continuity. This has become ours, India’s proverbial cross…”

The 654-page book is a ‘political biography’ of the founder of Pakistan, what Jaswant Singh describes as the “epic journey of Mohammed Ali Jinnah from being the ‘ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity’ to the Quaid-e-Azam of Pakistan”. It is also the senior BJP leader’s personal journey of discovery — he has accessed, used and presented a wealth of documents, including those in the custody of Pakistan. While doing so, he has been cautious not to tread the path to controversy.

In its opening pages, the book provides a grand sweep of India’s encounter with Islam, cuts to the uprising of 1857, and then to the freedom struggle. Here onwards, it is the story of Jinnah the constitutionalist seeking a place for himself on the stage of national politics, dominated by Jawaharlal Nehru and crowded by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi’s favoured men and women in the Congress. And how, having failed to secure that place, Jinnah increasingly turned towards crafting a constituency of his own — the Muslims — and, with the help of the Muslim League, appropriated the role of the ‘sole spokesman’ of the community.

All this, of course, is known. What Jaswant Singh has done is to locate events and situate them in the context of his thesis: Had the Congress, especially Nehru, been far-sighted and more accommodative towards Jinnah, India would not have been partitioned. After all, to quote from the book, Jinnah’s “opposition was not against the Hindus or Hinduism, it was the Congress that he considered as the true political rival of the Muslim League, and the League he considered as being just an extension of himself”.

Jaswant Singh further elaborates this point, “The Muslim community for Jinnah became an electoral body; his call for a Muslim nation his political platform; the battles he fought were entirely political — between the Muslim League and the Congress; Pakistan was his political demand over which he and the Muslim League could rule.” But Jinnah’s idea of Pakistan never quite worked out the way he thought it would. He died soon after getting his ‘moth-eaten’ Pakistan and before he could mould his ‘idea’ into an ‘identity’. That task was undertaken years later by Gen Zia-ul-Haq through his Islamisation programme.

“Jinnah was, to my mind, fundamentally in error proposing ‘Muslims as a separate nation’,” writes Jaswant Singh, “which is why he was so profoundly wrong when he simultaneously spoke of ‘lasting peace, amity and accord with India after the emergence of Pakistan’; that simply could not be.” But Jinnah alone was not to blame. The West played a devious role to create a perch for itself in the sub-continent. And, Nehru did not oppose the ‘two-nation theory’ vigorously enough.

“It is in the ‘false minority syndrome’ that the dry rot of partition first set in, and then unstoppably it afflicted the entire structure, the magnificent edifice of a united India. The answer (cure?), Jinnah asserted, lay only in parting, and Nehru and Patel and others of the Congress also finally agreed,” writes Jaswant Singh.

Seeking to strike a fine balance, Jaswant Singh has let history as it unfolded since 1930 speak for itself, but that hasn’t prevented Nehru from emerging bruised. For him, Nehru, was “one of the principal architects, in reality the draftsman of India’s partition” who “began questioning himself, his actions, his thoughts soon enough”. Jinnah died too soon “to re-examine what he had done… but he too had begun to recognise the enormity of this partition… His pre-1947 statements and the often quoted 11 August 1947 speech are in reality but indicators of his thoughts, not any definition”.

Those with a discerning eye will interpret this statement in an entirely different context.

The Pioneer > Online Edition : >> ?Nehru was draftsman of partition?

 

[Khalids]

Jaswant's new book to be released on Aug 17

Thursday, August 6, 2009 20:08 IST

New Delhi: Former external affairs minister Jaswant Singh, whose party has come under attack over the erstwhile NDA government's decision to release terrorists during the Kandahar hijack, has authored a book which would deal with the controversial happenings in December 1999.

Though the forthcoming book primarily analyses partition and has a political biography of Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Singh would, for the first time, come out with his version of the hijack episode.

Titled 'Jinnah -India: Partition, Independence', the 674 page book's cover says it would also deal with the author's experiences as "a minister responsible for the conduct of India's foreign policy." The book will be released on August 17.

Controversy had erupted after Singh's senior party colleague LK Advani, the then deputy prime minister and home minister in the NDA government, said he was not aware of the decision to send the minister to Kandahar along with the terrorists to free 160 hostages.

Singh had then said that Advani may have either forgotten or may have been absent at the meeting of the Cabinet Committee on security where the decision was taken.

The book cover says that among the issues dealt with in the chapters on Singh's experiences as the foreign minister would be the "Lahore peace process; betrayed in Kargil; Kandahar; the attack on Jammu and Kashmir assembly and the Indian Parliament; and the peace overtures reinitiated in April 2003".

Jaswant's new book to be released on Aug 17 - DNAIndia.com

 

[Gin ka Pakistan]

Nehru divided India not Jinnah Jaswant Singh

Jaswant Singh is in for trouble due to his soon to be released book about India’s independence struggle. In his new political biography of the man who is not considered less than a demon in India, Jaswant glorifies Jinnah as an ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity.
Jaswant Singh also goes on to term Nehru as one of the principal architects of India’s partition. He also writes that Jinnah did not win Pakistan, rather Nehru and Patel conceded Pakistan to Jinnah with help of the British.
The BJP leader supported his opinion saying that till 1945 Jinnah was seeking a solution to the problems between Hindus and Muslims. And consider it not as a communal problem but as the problem of a nation.
Earlier, Advani, senior leader of BJP also faced a lot of public and political scorn when he called Jinnah a great nationalist.
This book can evoke serious contempt from the leaders of RSS which has zero tolerance against the Pakistani leader and is likely to cause turmoil in Indian politics.
Nehru divided India not Jinnah Jaswant Singh

 

[lein303]

Good thing the Indians are finally getting over their "superiority" complex. I must disagree with the fact that partition was purely political though. To some degree it was but it also had alot to do with culture, religion, etc.. The vast majority of muslims on the subcontinent were culturally and lingusticly more close to persians and afghan's. They were generally much different from hindus on the subcontinent

 

[xebex]

just another game to sell his book by making it controversial.

 

[DesiGuy]

Nehru divided India not Jinnah Jaswant Singh

Jaswant Singh is in for trouble due to his soon to be released book about India’s independence struggle. In his new political biography of the man who is not considered less than a demon in India, Jaswant glorifies Jinnah as an ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity.
Jaswant Singh also goes on to term Nehru as one of the principal architects of India’s partition. He also writes that Jinnah did not win Pakistan, rather Nehru and Patel conceded Pakistan to Jinnah with help of the British.
The BJP leader supported his opinion saying that till 1945 Jinnah was seeking a solution to the problems between Hindus and Muslims. And consider it not as a communal problem but as the problem of a nation.
Earlier, Advani, senior leader of BJP also faced a lot of public and political scorn when he called Jinnah a great nationalist.
This book can evoke serious contempt from the leaders of RSS which has zero tolerance against the Pakistani leader and is likely to cause turmoil in Indian politics.
Nehru divided India not Jinnah Jaswant Singh

another lie, no wonder.

 

[Gin ka Pakistan]

another lie, no wonder.

You know who is Jaswant Singh he was the External Affairs Minister of India.

 

[DesiGuy]

You know who is Jaswant Singh he was the External Affairs Minister of India.

this is all politics , dude.


many people got different ideas.


So, i just clearly said, another lie, not by India, but by a human.

 

[Omar1984]

I was reading the comments posted in the same page as the article and came across an intersting comment:

Nehru
by Dharam Pal on 2009-08-13 00:00:00
We should thank Nehru for doing this, otherwise can you imagine living with over 400 million Muslims in India now. Gosh!

Reply | Forward
Nehru the Villain?
by K.Vasishtt on 2009-08-13 00:00:00
Great Comment,Dharam

Reply | Forward
Nehru divided India not Jinnah Jaswant Singh

Shows how Hindus of India feel about Muslims.

 

[Awesome]

Actually its true, Pakistan was supposed to be an autonomous state under a united India until 1945. With a Muslim North West and East and a Hindu center. With federal controls lying in the center.

Even a map was drawn and then at the last minute Nehru rejected the idea. That just totally inflamed the notion that the ruling Hindu Indians cant be trusted to be fellow countrymen. The rest is history.

 

[EjazR]

Nehru, Jinah and partition | TwoCircles.net

By Asghar Ali Engineer,

Mr. Jaswant Singh, a senior BJP leader from Rajasthan has written a book on Jinnah which is expected to be published shortly. He has, according to a news item on NDTV, called Jinnah a secular person and thrown responsibility for partition on Nehru. Earlier Mr. L. K. Advani had also described Jinnah as secular while visiting Jinnah’s mausoleum in Karachi and paid heavy price for it as RSS asked him to resign as president of BJP. And now Jaswant Singh, a fairly independent minded leader has called Jinnah a secular person.

No doubt Jinnah is a highly controversial figure. He is greatly admired and is father of the nation in Pakistan. He is often referred to as Baba-e-Qaum by Pakistanis. But he is hated by many in India and is considered mainly responsible for creation of Pakistan and hence a villain of the peace. Such extremes can never adequately define a person, let alone being understood adequately.

The motives for describing Jinnah as secular by two top BJP leaders may be different but there is an element of truth in what they say. Shri Advani was speaking as a politician during his visit and may be he tried to please his hosts in Pakistan. Mr. Jaswant Singh is under no such obligation and is speaking as a scholar as he is known to be of fairly independent mind and may not be much concerned about what RSS and BJP leaders might think.



It is not only in India that Jinnah is subject to different interpretations, some hating him as breaker of India and some absolving him of total responsibility for partition. Jinnah is subject to different interpretations in Pakistan itself, some moderate and liberal Muslims describing him as secular and often quoting his speech in the Constituent Assembly as a proof of his secularism. The conservatives and orthodox Muslims, on the other hand, projecting him as believer in two nation theory and true Muslim who created Pakistan for Islam and Muslims.

We have the same problem with Mahatma Gandhi in our own country. Some Dalit and RSS leaders hate him again for different reasons. Dalits hate him as an upper caste Hindu leader who upheld the concept of caste, if not of untouchability. And RSS leaders hate him, though publicly they may not take such position for obvious reasons. They hate him as they consider Gandhi as betrayer of Hindu cause and supporter of Muslims. They even indulge in propaganda that Gandhiji is responsible for partition of the country.

Many people hold Nehru as responsible for partition and among those who hold Nehru as responsible there are all types of people – secular as well as communal. The question arises who is really responsible? We Indians and Pakistanis while holding our own leaders as responsible we have completely exonerated the British rulers of their responsibility for partition.

Though secular elements at times do refer to the role of the British, communal forces in both the countries have completely absolved British. In RSS propaganda main culprits are Muslims led by Jinnah whereas in Pakistani propaganda it is Hindus led by Gandhi who are mainly responsible for partition. If one studies the complex developments carefully in mid-fifties it is difficult to fix total responsibility on any one person or one party. Different actors played different role adding up to partition of the country.

First let us see the role of Jinnah since he is at the centre-stage of partition. Before this we also have to look at him whether he was secular or communal. It must be noted that we cannot go by western definition of secular and communal. We have accepted these terms in our own sense and in our own context. Gandhiji was secular despite being highly religious in his attitude. Nehru, of course, was secular more in western than in Indian sense.

Similarly Jinnah was also secular more in western sense. Both Nehru and Jinnah never were religious as Gandhi and Maulana Azad were. Nehru was closer to Jinnah than to Gandhiji and Maulana Azad was closer to Gandhiji than to Jinnah. Maulana Azad also was deeply a religious person like Gandhiji though he was more liberal in religious matters than Gandhiji.

Jinnah was thoroughly westernized person right from his younger days. He never had any religious training. He did not observe any Islamic taboos like liquor and pork. He never observed religious rituals. He even disagreed with Gandhiji about involving Ulama in politics and he opposed Gandhiji taking up Khilafat question. He believed in separation of politics from religion. He was described as Muslim Gokhale by friends. Gokhale was liberal and so was Jinnah.

Jinnah was certainly secular in this sense. He until 1935 described himself as Indian first and then Muslim. And, until 1937 he had never thought of partition even in his dreams. He even entered into an informal understanding with the congress in 1937 elections in U.P. His differences with Indian National Congress had begun from 1928 onwards when his demands were rejected by the Nehru committee set up by the Congress to solve communal problem. He had even ridiculed the concept of Pakistan initially propounded by Rahmat Ali, a Cambridge University student.

The two nation theory was deeply flawed and Jinnah had formulated it as a sort of political revenge on the Congress leaders like Nehru who refused to take two Muslim League nominees in the U.P. cabinet after Muslim league lost 1937 elections and Nehru was responsible for this. Maulana Azad tried to persuade Nehru to take the two nominees but unfortunately Nehru did not budge. Some scholars suggest that Rafi Ahmed Kidwai, an influential Congress leader from U.P. prompted Nehru. Whatever the reason politically it was unwise not to take two Muslim league nominees. Maulana Azad has pointed this out and has criticized Nehru on this count in his political biography India Wins Freedom.

For Jinnah it was outright betrayal and he decisively turned against Congress and gradually it led Jinnah to propounding two nation theory. Thus two nation theory was a politically contingent proposition rather than any religiously grounded proposition. Had Nehru shown little political sagacity this theory would not have come into existence at all. And in no sense of the word Jinnah ever wanted to establish an Islamic state in Pakistan. Jinnah would not have even approved of Pakistan having Islam as an official religion. That was not his bent of mind. If one goes by Jinnah’s speech in the Pakistan Constituent Assembly it is doubtful if he wanted even a Muslim state, let alone an Islamic state. He was all for a secular state in Pakistan.

Then if we call Jinnah communal in what sense can he be described as one? Or can he be? In those days when we were fighting for freedom of our country communalism was not opposite of secularism, but of nationalism. Anyone who was anti-national was described as communal. Thus if at all Jinnah could be described communal it is in this sense. And as pointed out above, Jinnah opted for partition not as a part of his conviction but as a result of political contingency.

Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru was responsible in a way as he was not very happy with the Cabinet Mission Plan as it would have resulted in weak centre as except defence, foreign policy and communication all residuary powers would have rested with the federating states. Both Nehru and Sardar Patel were not happy with this scheme. And as Azad has pointed out in his book Nehru, on being elected as president of the congress in 1946, gave a statement that Cabinet Mission Plan could be, if necessary, changed. This infuriated Jinnah as Muslim League had also accepted the Plan and a composite Government was formed after 1946 fall elections.

This finally drove Jinnah to accept nothing less than partition. The greatest culprit was British rulers as they also wanted India divided so that they could easily establish intelligence and military base in Pakistan to stem the tide of revolution which by then had become a certainty in China. Nehru Government would have never allowed such bases in United India. Lord Mount Batten got Nehru, through his wife Advina to endorse the partition plan.

Thus it would be seen that apart from Jinnah, the British and Nehru were also responsible for partition of the country. In my opinion the greatest responsibility of partition lay on the British shoulder. They cleverly maneuvered the complex situation in a way to make partition a reality. Partition, as Maulana Azad also pointed out, was neither in the interest of India nor in the interest of Muslims themselves.

The ultimate result of partition is that Muslims of Indian sub-continent stand divided into three units and Kashmir problem is also result of this tragedy. And both the countries are spending billions of rupees on their armies and now such powerful interests have developed in keeping conflict between the two countries alive that all efforts for talks fail. Now the only solution is in confederation of nations of South Asia, with no visa and common currency.

If European countries could form a viable union despite the fact that they were at each others throats until late forties why can’t we in South Asia?

 

[EjazR]

These new BJP book inaugurations are just weird, earlier Advani released a book in Urdu where he actually mentioned that this was also aimed at Pakistani audience
Advani eulogizes Urdu at release of his book ?Mera Watan Meri Zindagi? | TwoCircles.net

If this is some tactic to gain minroity votes, it will just backfire. BJP leadership is really a confused lot at the moment.

 

[Omar1984]

Nehru, Jinah and partition | TwoCircles.net

.

Similarly Jinnah was also secular more in western sense. Both Nehru and Jinnah never were religious as Gandhi and Maulana Azad were. Nehru was closer to Jinnah than to Gandhiji and Maulana Azad was closer to Gandhiji than to Jinnah. Maulana Azad also was deeply a religious person like Gandhiji though he was more liberal in religious matters than Gandhiji.

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad(1888-1958)
President - Delhi, 1923 (Special Session); Ramgarh, 1940

Born in 1888, Firoz Bakht (of exalted destiny), commonly called Muhiyuddin Ahmad, was two when his parents settled at Calcutta; his father, Maulana Khairuddin, became famous here as a spiritual guide.

Still in his teens, Muhiyuddin using the pseudonym Abul Kalam Azad acquired a high reputation for his writings on religion and literature in the standard Urdu journals of the time. The education Azad received, mostly from his father, was traditional. He did not go to any Madrasah, nor did he attend any modern institution of western education. Learning at home he completed the traditional course of higher Islamic education at sixteen instead of the normal twenty or twenty-five. About the same time he was exposed to the writings of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan. Keeping it a secret from his father, he started leaning English and by his own effort acquired enough knowledge of the language to study advanced books on history and philosophy.

This led him, although unnoticed by others, to the stage of what he called -'atheism' and 'sinfulness.' Azad remained in this stage of spiritual dilemma till the age of twenty-two. About the same time Azad's political ideas were also in turmoil. He wanted to see his country free from the British rule. But he did not approve of the Congress movement on account of its 'slowness': also he could not join the Muslim League whose political goal he found unpredictable. Thus he associated himself with the Hindu revolutionaries of Bengal in spite of their 'exclusive' and indifferent attitude to the Muslims. He managed, however, to convince them that the systematic exclusion of the Muslims from the group would ultimately make political struggle much more difficult.

For politicalising his community Azad started from July 13, 1912 an Urdu weekly, the Al-Hilal (The Crescent), from Calcutta. Its influence was prodigious. Azad was politically and religiously radical. The paper... shocked the conservatives and created a furore; but there were many Muslims ready to follow him. In the pages of the AI-Hilal Azad began to criticize the 'loyal' attitude of the Muslims to the British, and the 'hostile' attitude of the British to the Muslim world in general. The Government of Bengal unhappy with editorial policy, put pressure on the paper. Meanwhile World War I broke out and publication was banned in 1914 by the Bengal Government. From November 12, 1915, Abul Kalam started a new weekly, the AI-Balagh from Calcutta, which continued till March 31, 1916. The publication of the Al-Balagh was also banned by the Government of Bengal and Maulana Azad was exiled from Calcutta under the Defence of India Regulations.. The Governments of Punjab, Delhi, U.P. and Bombay had already prohibited his entry into their provinces under the same Regulations. The only province he could conveniently stay in was Bihar, and he went therefore to Ranchi, where he was interned till January 1, 1920.

From 1920 till 1945 Abul Kalam Azad was in and out of prison a number of times. After he was released from Ranchi he was elected President of the All-India Khilafat Committee (Calcutta session in 1920), and President of the Unity Conference (Delhi) in 1924. In 1928 he presided over the Nationalist Muslim Conference. He was appointed in 1937 a member of the Congress Parliamentary Sub-Committee to guide the Provincial Congress Ministries. He was twice elected President of the Indian National Congress, the first time in 1923 when he was only thirty-five years old, and the second time in 1940. He continued as the President of the Congress till 1946, for no election was held during this period as almost every Congress leader was in prison on account of the Quit India Movement (1942). After the leaders were released Maulana Azad, as the President of the Congress, led the negotiations with the British Cabinet Mission in 1946, and when India became independent he was appointed Education Minister, a position in which he continued till his death on February 22, 1958.

Azad's religious ideas were not widely influential. He expressed himself in Urdu, and thus limited himself to a particular group. The majority of the Indians did not really know what Azad was saying. Another reason was political. He was in the Congress, and was considered a party-man. Thus whatever he said about the unity of religion was taken by many Muslims, who used to read, him, as the reflection of his political ideas, and, therefore, had to be discarded. Also, on the question of Muslims' traditional religious education, Azad was unorthodox. He was among those few who were not shaken in their faith in composite nationalism even by partition. He was a great, orator and a matchless writer.

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad

 

[humblehobbes]

From the back of my head, let me give you this bit of Info. Apologize for lack of dates n other needless formalities. Asim was correct in pointing out, that there was no divided India till 1945, not even in theory. The idea was autonomous provinces in East and West
Nehru, as soon as he became the top dog in Congress gave an interview where he kinda hinted that the Centre will intervene in the autonomous states, if there is a need. This kinda irked Jinnah, who took this as an affront(i believe that is the word). The rest, as they is, history.
Proclamation of Direct aCtion Day and its horrible consequences did not help in reconcilation either.
Net result is what we see today and the eventual formation of Defence.pk, instead of Defence.in

 

[ck_mizz]

By any means, it is a product of INDIA. And, it will too have some propaganda or a mind trap which can be overwhelmed into minds of our scholars. As we all know that our country badly suffers in Education specially at our school level education. Books, Articles, Journals, etc. like these are published since a long time to provoke Anti-Nationalist Approach to our newer generations.

MOD EDIT


Regards,
A Proud and Concerned P@K1 !!!!