It is time to rethink Partition of the Indian Subcontinent

A look at the world of politics, statecraft, diplomacy and books

The Partition of the Indian Subcontinent by the British Government of Atless and the Congress Party headed by Jawaharlal Nehru left behind a trail of blood gore and bitterness. The fact that the Congress under Nehru was impatient for power left little time for a settled peaceful and civilized transition of power. Nehru exultant speech about his "tryst" with destiny insults  the victims of Partition on both sides of the Border. Gandhi in his own way tried to preserve the Unity of India by offering the Prime Ministership to Jinnah. It was the utter obscenity for political office that made Nehru reject the suggestion and though the Congress Working Committee rejected Jawahrlal Nehru as the candidate for prime Minister , Gandhi the doddering dutch Uncle of Jawaharlal Nehru ensured that the opposition to Nehru's elevation is brushed aside and his chosen favorite mounted the throne.

During the run up to Partition, especially during the Cripps Mission a number of important proposals were put forward which aimed at preserving the Unity of the country. The Congress which was wedded to a short sighted policy of agitational  politics rejected the Cabinet Proposals with disastrous effect on the unity and integrity of India. The hang over of the triumphalist approach to Indian History, the one associated closely with Bipan Chandra and his acolytes, avoids all difficult issues pertaining to the Nationalist/Partition Movement. The political errors in mass resignation after India's entry into World War II, the bringing forward of the date of Freedom from June 1948 to August 1947 all contributed to the chaos that ensued and in the process the mistakes and false strategies used by the Congress Party were neither questioned nor assessed. In fact anyone questing the politics of the Congress was labeled "Communal" and hence important questions were neglected.

It is time to pick up the threads from where they were left in 1947. A set of Constitutional proposals need to be debated in order to reduce the hostility between India and Pakistan.Since the creation of Pakistan was based on identity, the Muslims of India and the Hindus of Pakistan should be given the right to choose their homeland and the respective populations can be made voters in their respective Nations of choice. Thus a Hindu from Pakistan or Bangladsh can be a voter in India and a Moslem if he so chooses can ve a voter for Pakistan. Thus this proposal unshackles Partition. A joint Constitutional Council with shared Sovereignty will be the Governing Council and the Military of both countries brought under a common command on the basis of mutual agreement.

These proposals will effectively put an end to partition, solve the Kashmir dispute and help put these two benighted societies on the way to prosperity.

Politics over Sardar Patel's Legacy

A look at the world of politics, statecraft, diplomacy and books

The Patel Statue

There is no gainsaying the fact that History is being re visited today in India. Since Independence the State has propagated a version of history which, while serving the needs of the politically dominant party, the Indian National Congress and its central dynasty.has left a large number of gaping holes in the Narrative. Foremost is the question whether the Indian National Congress did enough to prevent Partition and its huge cost in terms of human life and suffering. Second, if Partition was inevitable as the "historians" of Jawaharlal Nehru University and the Leftist acolytes argue, can they tar all those who opposed Partition as "communal" elements "reactionaries" "obscurantists" and the list is endless. One reason for the lack of diversity in contemporary Historiography of India is the fact that the historical profession has been prevented from reassessing the role of the Indian National Congress in the Struggle for Indian Independence. The recent attempts on the part of the Modi Government to draw attention to the contribution of Netaji Subash Chandra Bose and Sardar Vallabha Bhai Patel are step in the right direction.

First the Statue. One of the many canards that are being spread by the mainstream media is that Modi seeks to "appropriate" the legacy of Sardar Patel. It is unclear hos the mere dedication of a National Monument is appropriation of a legacy. Also there are those in the Congress party who say that since the Patels are restive and are no longer the backbone of the BJP in Gujarat, Modi is seeking to assuage Patel Asmita or Pride. Reducing Patel to a mere icon of caste identity is to distort and undermine the stature of Patel. But then who has ever accused the Indian National Congress and the Dynastic Fascists of caring for people's sentiments or historical accuracy.  The fact is the Nrendra Modi proposed the Memorial to Sardar Patel in 2010 long before he became Prime Minister and in 2010 there was no sign of Modi emerging as the Prime Minister of India. By distorting the very chronology there is attempt to politicize the Monument. Construction began in 2013 and this was also before Modi became the Prime Minister. Projecting History backwards in a teleological arrangement is the favorite tactic of the JNU bran of Historiography and of course, give it a political spin to make that distortion resonate with "progressive" opinion.

Then the cost. The cost of the memorial works out to be 2854 crores. A huge sum of money. The justification for this spectacular Monument lies in the manner in which Patel was treated. A fact that is little recognized in modern Historiography of India is that Patel was chosen by 12 out of 15 Provincial Congress Committees to head the Congress in 1946 and would have become Prime Minister in the Interim Government. Nehru forced Gandhi to seek the resignation of Patel. A repeat of the Bose fiasco all over and given the enormous respect Patel had for Gandhi he stepped aside and let Nehru become the Prime Minister. This singular fact is hidden from History. Further, as the first Home Minister of Independent India, Patel welded the fractious assemblage of princely states into a united country using a subtle blend of tact and force. Junagadh and Hyderabad are good examples of Patel's strategic thinking. The only state/riyasat that was out of Patel's purview was Kashmir which was handled by Nehru directly and it continues to fester till this day. Patle wrote a letter to Nehru about the designs of China and this too Nehru ignored. Further, Nehru the patrician educated in the White Man's land treated Patel with open hostility and took delight in publically humiliating the great statesman. This factor contributed to the early death of Patel in 1950 and Nehru went on to live for 14 long years after the exit of India's saviour. Given this History, there is need to rehabilitate the Memory of this great Statesman. Nehru awraded himself the highest civilian honour, the Bharat Ratna and many in India seek to have that honour revoked. Sardar was honoured on in 1991 during a brief respite from the pestilence called dynastic rule.

Netaji Subash Chandra Bose remains an enigmatic personality in Indian History. He created the Indian National Army out of the prisoners of war captured by the Japanese in Singapore and turned them into a major force to liberate India. There is no doubt, as Clement Atlee said that it was the Indian National Army that finally convinced the British to leave India after the War. And again Netaji was forgotten. In fact Nehru even conspired with the Soviets to have Netaji declared a "war criminal". The alacrity with which Nehru declared that Netaji had died in the plane crash in August 1945 shows that Nehru was not interested in Netaji returning back to India. The return of Netaji would have meant the end of Nehru's dream of founding a Dynasty and keeping the Office of Prime Minister within his family. Modi rightly acknowledged Netaji's contribution by raising the National Flag on the ramparts of the Red Fort. Finally the fact that Netaji established the First Government of a  Free Independent and United India has been recognized.

Thus there is a great deal of scope for a revision of the dominant hegemonic discourse on modern Indian History. The congress centric narrative rests on distortions evasions and hagiography. It is time to change that and Narendar Modi has begun the task.