BJP Future - 7

[ramana]

Book Review in Pioneer

AGENDA | Sunday, October 17, 2010 | Email | Print | | Back





He foresaw tragedy, but could do nothing

October 19, 2010 1:23:20 AM





India Divided

Author: Rajendra PrasadPublisher: Penguin

Price: 499



Rajendra Prasad understood the complexities of Partition, but had simplistic solutions, writes Saradindu Mukherji



A gentle colossus and a front-ranking freedom fighter, Rajendra Prasad was our first President. Like Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, he often challenged Jawaharlal Nehru on matters of politics.



India Divided was written mostly in jail. Prasad admits that as some parts of this book were written in jail, those “naturally bear the inevitable marks of work done under some limitations”, and he had no time to revise them. That explains his reliance on books written by the likes of Tarachand, a favourite of the Nehruvian establishment, and Ishwari Prasad, and the exclusion of titans like Sir Jadunanth Sarkar and RC Majumdar. The viewpoints of the Hindu nationalists are missing.



Hence, the first chapter, ‘Two Nations: Basis of Pakistan’, begins with Mohammed Ali Jinnah. The origins of Muslim separatism and the core of the two-nation theory, however, lie in the ancient Islamic doctrines of momin, kafir, Dar-ul-harb, Dar-ul-Islam and jihad. Jinnah was merely pursuing that tradition. He succeeded, being a better negotiator than our leaders, and deftly cashed in on the reservoir of hatred against the polytheists. The British helped the Muslim separatists in every possible way by empowering them, and widening the chasm, but did not create the original split as our sarkari historians want us to believe.



The alleged transformation of a ‘nationalist’ Sir Syed Ahmed Khan into a communalist by Theodore Beck, as Prasad suggests, is unconvincing. Long before Sir Syed came under the influence of the English principal of the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College, which would later evolve into the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), he used to regard Patna as “Azimabad”. Syed vehemently denied that the 1857 uprising was a jihad against Christians, even while saying that “jihad was undoubtedly an “article of faith with Muslims”. Against whom, one could ask? Obviously, against the native infidels! The imputation of a double dose of “original sin” to Beck in the post-1947 historiography is mischievous.



Prasad understands the dynamics of Partition. “The Muslim public law recognises a distinction between Muslims and Zimmis (dhimmis),” he says, citing AMU’s AS Tritton, who rightly shows that dhimmis face humiliation, blatant discrimination, denial and destruction. Ironically, most of our politicians and intelligentsia, many of them refugees, are still ignorant of such basics!



Prasad repeatedly cites Muslim protagonists, saying there cannot be a nation sans religion. Conscious of the civilisational issues involved, Prasad avoids Maulana Abul Kalam Azad’s statements opposing Partition. Was it because this “nationalist” Muslim was more in the Deobandi mould, who did not care about the disaster awaiting Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, etc, in the “Holy land”? Prasad errs in saying that Azad’s writings in Al-Hilal propagated the ideals of nationalism.



While Nehru was a consistent negationist, Prasad’s candour comes out occasionally. He, however, withholds the details of the pogrom and the forced conversion of Hindus by the Moplahs during Mahatma Gandhi’s first mass movement — the Khilafat-Non-Cooperation — and the gory details of the Great Calcutta Killing (August 16, 1946), methodically engineered by Jinnah and his company. He also refrains from saying that the policy of Muslim appeasement pursued by the Congress emboldened the Muslim League in its campaign. Prasad, after all, was a Congressman.



Yet, Prasad warns of the fatwa-wielding mentality so common among the jihadis. “We should give up issuing ultimatums, we should cease laying down conditions precedent to any discussion — that is the only civilised mode,” he writes. How uncannily similar to the “stone-throwing mobs” in the Valley, or the ultimatum communicated after every act of jihadi terror!



Prasad uses data, maps and charts to reject the idea of Partition, but says it was inevitable. He concludes, “Any scheme of Partition, however, must fulfill two fundamental conditions. It must be fair and just to all communities.” Hence, he made a demand that Punjab and Bengal should be divided. Today, both Pakistan (with two per cent Hindu/ Sikh population, which came down from 23 per cent in 1947) and Bangladesh (with 10 per cent Hindus/ Buddhists from 30 per cent in 1947), are consolidated Muslim states, with the kafirs heading towards extinction. So, when we look at the fate of minorities in Pakistan and Bangladesh, the Congress has clearly betrayed them in their battle for survival.



Worse, Hindus have been thrown out of Kashmir Valley on the same principle that they have no right to life and honour in a Muslim-dominated State. Perhaps a similar fate awaits Hindus in Assam, West Bengal, Kerala and elsewhere.



Prasad foresees that Partition “is a solution of despair”, but it won’t solve the problem. “We should be prepared for the aftermath and not hug the delusion that thereafter all will be plain sailing,” he says. He, however, could do nothing to save Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists from the unmitigated disaster. All he did was to suggest that the problem could be sorted out by “truth as our light” and “non-violence as our support”. How simple and absurd!

-- The reviewer is professor of history, University of Delhi