10-20-2004, 11:55 PM
From Pioneer, 20 Oct., 2004
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Ifs and buts of history
K K Joshi
Recently, a television channel conducted a debate on the question, "was Partition avoi-dable?" in which viewers also participated. When put to vote, the viewers voted with an overwhelming "Yes". <b>But historically speaking, the question is pointless. </b>No one in his senses would today ask: Was the French Revolution or the American war of Independence avoidable? These are now closed chapters.
Similarly, 50 years from now, Partition debate will become equally irrelevant. However, as of now, since the question has been raised, and also because the horrors of Partition have still not got erased from our minds, I too feel, it could have been avoided had the Congress leaders played their cards wisely and with foresight.
In the 1937 elections to the provincial assemblies, the Congress did remarkably well by winning 716 out of 1585 seats in all the 11 provinces and formed governments in six states-Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Central Provinces, Bombay, Madras and Orissa. On the other hand, the Muslim League was badly battered. It won only109 out of 482 reserved Muslim seats and was able to form its government only in Bengal headed by Fazlul Haq when his Krishak Proja Samiti merged with the Muslim League.
In Uttar Pradesh, however, prior to the polls, <b>there was an understanding between Khaliqu-zzaman of the Muslim League and Rafi Ahmed Kidwai of the Congress that the former would get two berths in the Congress ministry. </b>But when the time came, Nehru put his foot down. <b>That was the first blunder committed by the Congress.</b> Had the Cong-ress been little magnanimous in its victory and accommodated the League in its ministry in the State, it would have been the beginning of the end of Jinnah's preposterous two-nation theory.
Unfortunately, that was not all during that fateful decade (1937-1947). <b>The Congress made several such mistakes. </b>First, when the war in Europe was declared on September 3, 1939, the Congress ministries resigned and Jinnah hailed the move as the "Day of Deliverance" and set about building the Muslim League by unleashing vicious communal propaganda. Second, when the Second World War entered its most decisive phase, Churchill deputed Stafford Cripps to talk to Indian leaders with the brief that the Dominion Status could be granted to India after the hostilities were over.
The Congress rejected the Cripps offer outright with Gandhi describing it as a "post-dated cheque on a failing bank". This infuriated the British who felt, perhaps rightly, that Gandhi was banking on the victory of the Axis powers. According to historian Ayesha Jalal, had the Congress accepted Cripps offer, "Jinnah would have been dumped unceremoniously into wilderness from which this time there would have been no return."
Finally, the Quit India Movement was a monumental blunder. The Congress leadership, particularly Gandhi, had no idea which way history was moving and had no foresight that the process of de-colonisation, once started, was sure to pick up after the war. Else he and the Congress would not have committed such bloopers. Again, the real gainer was Jinnah.
He utilised the four crucial years in revamping the Muslim League when the Congress leadership was incarcerated. From a party of a few thousand rajas and nawabs, Jinnah single-handedly transformed the League into half a million strong mass party with committed cadres. When on August 9, 1942, Quit India Resolution was passed, India's destiny as a unified political entity was sealed.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its wonder that India got the freedom despite all this.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Ifs and buts of history
K K Joshi
Recently, a television channel conducted a debate on the question, "was Partition avoi-dable?" in which viewers also participated. When put to vote, the viewers voted with an overwhelming "Yes". <b>But historically speaking, the question is pointless. </b>No one in his senses would today ask: Was the French Revolution or the American war of Independence avoidable? These are now closed chapters.
Similarly, 50 years from now, Partition debate will become equally irrelevant. However, as of now, since the question has been raised, and also because the horrors of Partition have still not got erased from our minds, I too feel, it could have been avoided had the Congress leaders played their cards wisely and with foresight.
In the 1937 elections to the provincial assemblies, the Congress did remarkably well by winning 716 out of 1585 seats in all the 11 provinces and formed governments in six states-Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Central Provinces, Bombay, Madras and Orissa. On the other hand, the Muslim League was badly battered. It won only109 out of 482 reserved Muslim seats and was able to form its government only in Bengal headed by Fazlul Haq when his Krishak Proja Samiti merged with the Muslim League.
In Uttar Pradesh, however, prior to the polls, <b>there was an understanding between Khaliqu-zzaman of the Muslim League and Rafi Ahmed Kidwai of the Congress that the former would get two berths in the Congress ministry. </b>But when the time came, Nehru put his foot down. <b>That was the first blunder committed by the Congress.</b> Had the Cong-ress been little magnanimous in its victory and accommodated the League in its ministry in the State, it would have been the beginning of the end of Jinnah's preposterous two-nation theory.
Unfortunately, that was not all during that fateful decade (1937-1947). <b>The Congress made several such mistakes. </b>First, when the war in Europe was declared on September 3, 1939, the Congress ministries resigned and Jinnah hailed the move as the "Day of Deliverance" and set about building the Muslim League by unleashing vicious communal propaganda. Second, when the Second World War entered its most decisive phase, Churchill deputed Stafford Cripps to talk to Indian leaders with the brief that the Dominion Status could be granted to India after the hostilities were over.
The Congress rejected the Cripps offer outright with Gandhi describing it as a "post-dated cheque on a failing bank". This infuriated the British who felt, perhaps rightly, that Gandhi was banking on the victory of the Axis powers. According to historian Ayesha Jalal, had the Congress accepted Cripps offer, "Jinnah would have been dumped unceremoniously into wilderness from which this time there would have been no return."
Finally, the Quit India Movement was a monumental blunder. The Congress leadership, particularly Gandhi, had no idea which way history was moving and had no foresight that the process of de-colonisation, once started, was sure to pick up after the war. Else he and the Congress would not have committed such bloopers. Again, the real gainer was Jinnah.
He utilised the four crucial years in revamping the Muslim League when the Congress leadership was incarcerated. From a party of a few thousand rajas and nawabs, Jinnah single-handedly transformed the League into half a million strong mass party with committed cadres. When on August 9, 1942, Quit India Resolution was passed, India's destiny as a unified political entity was sealed.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its wonder that India got the freedom despite all this.