Sunday, February 20, 2000		Article

A man of unusual courage and vision
By Bhai Mahavir

AMONG those who attended Bhai Parmanand’s cremation were a handful who might have recalled an event of three decades earlier. The most famed name of freedom struggle in Punjab was that of Lala Lajpat Rai, who passed away on November 17, 1928, and had been given a hero’s farewell in Lahore. The feeling all around was that the void created by his passing away could not possibly be filled. The void was, for Bhaiji, a personal loss too. It was the end of a long friendly companionship lasting over one-third of a century.

Some important Congress leaders of Punjab called upon Bhaiji soon after that, and urged him to accept Lalaji’s mantel of party-leadership.

Bhai Paramanandji kept silent for a moment. The question was not only of filling the gap caused by the loss of an old friend. It involved a suppression of his conscience. After a few moments’ careful thought, he answered his visitors, "I am grateful for what you have said in appreciation for whatever little I have done, but my opposition to the Congress at the moment is a question of principle for me. I had a long discussion with Babuji (the term by which Lala Lajpat Rai was addressed by his contemporaries) and he could not at all say how I was wrong. As for the question of public respect and the crowds at my funeral at the cost of my ideals, I would prefer a couple of municipal employees taking my dead body to the cremation ground and disposing it off rather than stifle the voice of my conscience."

"Swaraj Party had won a great victory in the Central Assembly. It had got a virtual walk-over everywhere except in Punjab, Maharashtra and UP. Then started the talks about giving a permanent shape to the Constitution. When the Punjab Government decided to introduce political reforms, it promised that the Constitution would be given a permanent shape in a decade. With this end in view, the British Parliament appointed a seven-member commission under the chairmanship of Sir John Simon, hence it was termed "Simon Commission". Some Congress members of the Central Assembly had been harbouring hopes of being included in the commission. When they found that all its members were Englishmen, they took it as a national humiliation and decided to boycott it.

"Birkenhead was the Secretary General of India then. He made a clever move. He said that Indian leaders could not prepare a Constitution acceptable by all. This was the trap in which Congress leaders got caught. They undertook to draft a unanimous Constitution with a vengeance.

"Now for this the Congress commenced a series of unity conferences which hopped between Delhi and Shimla. Terms of unity became the hottest subject of public discussion, but these Congress leaders failed to grasp one basic aspect as to how important the Muslim leadership considered freedom to be when they were stressing minor issues in a very obstinate manner. Mr Jinnah had prepared a list of 14 points but never stated what would happen if the demands were accepted. Congress leaders were taking the points to be conditions of unity, but nobody knew what the outcome would be even if this miracle of unity was achieved. Would the British Government flee out of fear in the face of this exhibitionist unit?

"Congress leaders were working on a new plan. The proposals they framed were termed ‘Motilal Nehru Report’. It carried signatures of two or three Muslims also which were subsequently withdrawn. The Congress called a convention in 1927 to win a general acceptance for the Nehru report. Hindu Mahasabha was also informed for its support. We fixed a meeting of the Mahasabha working committee to consider the scheme and decide upon our response.

"The Nehru report or scheme had conceded to the following demands of Mr Jinnah: (1) Separation of Sindh from Bombay, (2) Political reforms in the frontier provinces and in Baluchistan, (3) Claim of Muslim majority in Punjab. I stressed the point that Jinnah’s demands were communal, and we should not accept them. To this, Lalaji said "Hindu-Muslim unity is being achieved on these conditions alone, therefore, they should be accepted". I asked, "Lalaji, you have struggled against communalism. How can you give your consent to a ‘Muslim India’? He answered, "Bhaiji, I am so sick of British atrocities that I would prefer Muslim Raj to get rid of it."At this, I said, "O.K. Babuji, in that case, I am sorry that here we part". The ideal should be to have a people’s rule in the country but if you are settling for a change of masters only, I care two figs for it.

"Lalaji became the chief exponent of the Nehru scheme. He criticised my views and I had to start my paper The Hindi to reply to him. For 35 years I had very intimate relations with Lalaji, but it is a matter of regret for me that a few months before his passing away, those relations were snapped. Now it is for the Hindus of Punjab to decide which one of us was at fault, because the consequences of Muslim rule are before them today."

Bhai Parmanand did not do anything for material gain. Nor had he any craving for popularity. He had predicted in 1938, that the ultimate aim of the Muslim leadership was the establishment of Pakistan, and had sounded an apprehension that the Congress would concede to their demand. When the last elections to the Central Assembly took place in 1945, Congress made Independence the central issue of its campaign. Bhaiji was very ill but even then he decided to contest the elections despite efforts on the part of friends and followers to dissuade him. Bhaiji felt that Partition was the issue before the country and the top leaders of the Congress were not prepared to commit that they would not accept Partition under any circumstances. Therefore, Bhaiji concluded: "Let the people not vote for me but I want to go on record that at this time I warned them and awakened them to the probability of a let down by the Congress and Gandhiji".

The fulfilment of this apprehension was the cause of his giving up all desire to live and passing away brokenhearted — on December 8, 1947.