L E T T E R S    T O    T H E    E D I T O R

Paying a heavy price for freedom

Anita Inder Singh’s article, “What led to Partition: Divided by issues, not just personalities” (Perspective, Sept 6) proves that it was not Jawaharlal Nehru or other Congress leaders but Jinnah and the British Raj who were responsible for the Partition. Under Gandhiji’s leadership, the Congress tried its best to keep the country united but Muslim and Hindu “communalists” sowed seeds of hatred between the two communities.

Though Hindus and Muslims lived together in India for centuries, they failed to cohesively integrate with each other. As a nationalist, Jinnah should have worked for the social and communal integration of both communities.

The Congress adopted a secular approach and tried to carry all the communities with it. Its main objective was to liberate India from the British Raj. Due to Jinnah’s inflated ego and communalism on one side and the Hindu communalists’ approach outside the Congress on the other, so many communal clashes occurred in India. The British did not act positively and ultimately Partition became inevitable.

The need of the hour is that both countries should live in peace and utilise their resources for the people’s welfare. In India Partition is a lesson to the communal forces because communalism ultimately plays a destructive role.

SUDESH KUMAR SHARMA, Kapurthala

II

I agree that India paid a heavy price for freedom because of the Congress’ inability to garner Muslim support in the Muslim-majority areas and its failure to defeat Muslim and Hindu communal forces.

The causes for Partition are many. I would mention five. One, state-sponsored communal riots under the British government, with active support from the government, by exploiting communal passions and disgruntled elements in India.

Two, communication gap among Hindu and Muslim leaders coupled with their ego problems and their failure to foresee the consequences of their approach. Three, the Congress’ failure to win the Muslims’ trust. Four, lectures on secularism by Congress leaders were addressed to Hindus only with no involvement of Muslims. And five, the Congress’ non-acceptance of Mahatma Gandhi’s proposal to make Jinnah the Prime Minister of India.

CHITRANJAN SHARMA, Chandigarh

III

The writer does not examine the fact that British imperialists had played their puppet show tactfully to divide India. Most book writers have always ignored the historical fact that after World War II the British wanted to dismantle its own empire into nation states to exploit their economic resources and strategic importance and check the advance of Communism from the erstwhile USSR and China.

We should examine the actual reasons that led to Partition — a tragic holocaust which claimed many lives of innocent Indians — Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs alike — and establishment of two nation states of India and Pakistan, the constituents of the British Commonwealth of Nations which Gandhi, Nehru and Jinnah admired of.n

AMAR THAKUR, London

The rise and fall of khap panchayats I read D.R. Chaudhry’s article, “Why are political parties silent on khaps?” (Perspective, Aug 16). Khap panchayats have been there since the Mauryan times. They also find mention in the records of Partiharas and the succeeding dynasties of Chahamanas, Paramaras and Chalukyas. According to Rohtak District Gazeteer-1910, these khaps were not necessarily of one tribe or caste but seemed to represent all communities. According to noted historian Dr Ishwari Prasad’s History of Medieval India (p.65), “At the advent of Muslims, all suits relating to debts, contracts, adultery, inheritance property and the like were decided by the Hindus in their traditional khap panchayats.” Initially, the British made best use of them in revenue, police and justice departments. Charles Eliot, a British bureaucrat, had called the khaps “corruption-free”. However, after the 1857 Uprising, the British did everything to dismantle the khaps because of their active role in the Uprising. Speaking historically, therefore, a big casualty of the British rule in India has been the age-old system and cheap legal relief. We have inherited the British judicial system which is highly inefficient, time-consuming and corrupt. SURAJ BHAN DAHIYA, Gurgaon