WAS M. K. GANDHI RESPONSIBLE FOR DIVIDING INDIA? Part – 1
“India has fought several big wars successfully. It has maintained and secured its culture, heritage and dignity. It is one of the oldest cultures in the world. It has sense to understand what is good and what is bad for its fate. It has been survived of its own. It has defeated many strong invaders those invaders who had attacked India after achieving victory on great nations having great culture and civilization. But India has strength to face it and protect it. India has capacity to resolve the challenges. suppose if it has problems with Muslims, it has a capacity to settle it.”
If it is not possible to solve the issue with mutual talks, India will solve it at the point of sword in a battle field. If in doing so, Hindus would get defeated and its existence would end up and its glory would get distorted or it would get vanished totally from the pages of history, it would be a desire of God to finish Hindus. But be sure that Hindus have survived with its glory in continuity. Hence do not underestimate its capacity. Hindus are capable to fight out its war within itself and they are also capable to fight out of their own, the war with others. Hence don’t interfere in our internal matter of India.
Who has said this?
Has it been spelled out by a Hindu fundamentalist?
Is it spelled out by a Militant Hindu Leader?
Has been spelled out by a RSS chief?
No it is said by MK Gandhi to the British.
This British wanted to show their universal wisdom to secure safety of India.
Some people are very much active on abusing, derogating and passing blame on M. K. Gandhi for partition of India, appeasement of Muslims and promoting or imposing J. L . Nehru as Prime Minister of India instead.
It is OK if somebody talks with material and logical arguments and that too for academic purpose in a neutral and non-prejudicial way.
In a democracy political parties are supposed to be democratic. But democracy is not an absolute term. Democracy is a relative term. In a fair democracy, the reflection of people’s voice depends upon the process adopted in party to select the leaders who controls the decisions taken.
WHAT IS A POLITICAL PARTY?
A group of persons which tries to educate the people on a system of good governance and then its leaders get elected under a so-called system, by the persons who had faith in that system of governance.
We will concentrate only on Indian Nation Congress.
It was founded by Hume under the instructions of British Crown to provide an interface between people of India and the British Government.
Initially it was a party of “white collar” people.
Likeminded people having faith in the policy and practice of Congress would become a member of the party.
Members will elect delegates before an annual meeting or an extra ordinary meeting is held. Delegate elects the other office bearers including the working committee members and the Chair person, all with some specified delegated powers for governance and making decisions based on the party’s policy. This includes the changes in the constitution of the party.
In short the party is composed of a Party President, High Command, Working Committee, delegates and party members.
All put to gather a party will have constitution, members, workers/leaders of level -4, level-3, level -2, and the level – 1, High-Command and the President. The strength of the leader has nothing to do with the backing of general people once he/she becomes capable to occupy a level post.
This point can be made clear in this way.
Nehru was popular among members. He was an icon of youths. He was capable to introduce fashion, he was in habit to act dramatically, he used to argue with philosophical language.
JL Nehru was popular among youths and level – 3 leaders. This was mainly due to his father’s wealth, his status and he was able to oblige leaders due to money power he had. Money power means, his house had become a guest house for leaders (up to the level -3 leaders) for lodging and boarding.
MK Gandhi had opened the doors of Congress for common men.
MK Gandhi had experienced that any struggle can be made effective and sustainable if the common mass is involved. Once M. K. Gandhi opened the doors of Congress for common mass, the common mass also got entry in the Congress.
JL Nehru had not strong hold at the leaders of Level – 1. This was mainly because, though Nehru had good ideas, he was weak in wisdom and governance. His philosophy of socialism was not acceptable to many leaders at the top due to its vagueness. He had inherited the status in the party due to his father.
The mass was not aware of the political policies related with any specific governance like socialism. Mass had only a desire for independence. The mass was of the opinion that the independence would solve every problem. “There would be rivers of Ghee and Milk in independent India”.
MOHAMMED ALI JINNA A FAKE MUSLIM
There was some struggle among top leaders in Congress. This struggle was for becoming effective in governance at the top level of the party. Initially leaders from Hindus and Muslims both were in Congress without any communal mindset. At the first stage, Jinna was far more popular than JL Nehru even at all Levels.
But progressively British started to identify people by Muslims and Non-Muslims. Despite of this, most Muslims remained with Congress.
Jinna had no faith in non-violence, disobedience to law, non-cooperation etc… promoted by MK Gandhi. This was also a cause, for becoming less acceptable to most leaders of Congress and the Hindu mass. Despite of this, Jinna was highly honored at top level, due to his skills in pleading the cases against the British Government. Jinna’s good image had prevailed till he joined Muslim League.
It was a long story of political battle between JL Nehru and Jinna. At one stage Nehru insulted Jinna by saying when Jinna was practicing in London, that “Jinna is not capable in political skills. It is good if he could prove his skill of legal practice in London”. This insult, instigated Jinna to come back to India to re-join the politics in a big way.
It is essential to look into the political situation prevailing at that time and also the mind set of Muslims, Hindus and various political leaders of all the communities before we arrive to any conclusion.
Muslims leaders were divided if we take an overview of local elections even after Jinna joined Muslim League. However nobody can deny that Jinna was the most prominent leader among Muslims, by virtue of his own expertize in law and practice besides the backing of British.
Jinna could attract Muslim at a very large scale under communal way in politics. Jinna, basically was secular, but he, for political benefit, used the communal cards.
If we compare the then statements of Jinna made against Gandhi and Congress, were quite similar that of the Nehruvian Cong leaders and its cultural allies making against BJP as a communal party. Jinna used to twist the every action with a conclusion that Congress was a party of Hindus and M. K. Gandhi is the leader of Hindus. The interest of Muslims is not safe.
Jinna’s aim was to take support of Muslims wherever they are. He had strong hold in most part of present Pakistan and some parts of East Bengal. But it was also a truth that in many Muslim dominated areas, Muslims were divided in Congress and some other local leaders.
British knew this, thereby to weaken Congress, British used to tell that they would have to take care of Muslims and other minorities like Sikhs and Dalits and Dravidians. As for the South India, most leaders were with MK Gandhi. Hence ice could not be broken. But as for Sikhs and Dalit the British tried their level best to instigate their leaders.
As for the partition, many people till date are under the impression that the proposal was only to divide India in two parts. But British had tried their best to divide India into multiple pieces. The aim of British was to make India and Congress weak.
Congress leaders initially were very firm on united India. At that time on the proposal of dividing India, MK Gandhi stated that India would be divided on his dead body. That is till he is alive he will not allow India to get divided.
M. K. GANDHI
Gandhi was popular among Hindus is beyond doubt. But it was not true for all the elite of Hindus. Some leaders who were outside Congress were against Muslims. Many leaders inside the Congress and outside the Congress were not happy when Gandhi was putting his efforts to not fall Muslims in line with Jinna. His this efforts were taken as the appeasement of Muslims.
The best example is Khilafat movement. Most people are ignorant of the real motives and strategic role of British to confuse Muslims.
India had nothing to do with Khilafat movement. This movement pertained to some other country. It was there between a religious leaders holding the political power too, and the leaders who were against holding both the power by the religious group. They wanted that religious group should hold only power so far Mosq is concern.
This was the concern of that country. But British made it international, and it supported by reformists Muslims. This caused to divide the strength of Muslims world. That is the religious leaders should not have political power.
This affected Indian Muslim leaders too. Congress leaders also poked their nose in the matter. Jinna was not a religious person. He wanted religion and politics should not be mixed up. Since Muslims are more prone to support Mullas, many Muslims became against Jinna.
MK Gandhi knew the strategy of British of dividing the Muslims in some other country. Since Jinna and many Congress leaders have already poked their nose in the matter not concern with Indian Muslims, they tried to attract Indian Muslims. Jinna had very good reason to oppose British.
It may be by tradition or by a law religious leaders are also holding political power, it becomes a part of religion. British should not intervene in the matter which could hurt the religious feeling. Besides this as for MK Gandhi it was an internal matter of that country.
The stand taken by MK Gandhi was understood as appeasement of Muslims. Off course this was a matter linked with early years of MK Gandhi in Politics of India. But this approach of MK Gandhi was used to criticize Gandhi for all the time by his Hindu opponents. (Just like Narendra Modi is continuously taken to target for the 2002 riots by pseudo secular leaders).
Many Hindu leaders were enjoying the division of Muslims on Khilafat movement. Muslims were getting divided in two groups viz. reformist (or secular) and fundamentalist (conservative). Jinna was supporting reformists. Most Muslims of India were conservative. Jinna took MK Gandhi as a leader who was dividing Muslims for political gain of Congress. Hindu conservative took MK Gandhi’s action as appeasement of Muslims.
MK Gandhi was of the opinion that fundamental changes in the law, (the law may be in force by virtue of a constitution or by the long established practice) should come up from the people. the leaders who hold power posts have no right to change any law. This point need very deep thinking to understand the heart of democracy. One can read the articles The Ram who was in flesh and blood is lost ( कहां खो गये मांस और हड्डीके बने राम?) at wwwDOTtreenetramDOTwordpressDOTcom to make it more clear.
The leaders who are not holding power post can only educate the people for the changes in the Law and Practice.
At a later stage MK Gandhi had resigned from Congress. He was not even an ordinary member of Congress party. This was because the people can express their views without any fear and the leaders can follow the changes suggested by the people.
Shirish Mohanlal Dave