|
|
A Tribune Special Jaswant Singh’s book suffers from widespread misconception, says D.N. Panigrahi NOW that the dust is beginning to settle on Jaswant Singh’s book, Jinnah: India, Partition, Independence, it may be appropriate to evaluate the role of Mohammad Ali Jinnah in India’s partition. Several eminent contemporaries of Jinnah have attempted it including Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Patel, B.R. Ambedkar, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai, Lord Mountbatten, Clement Attlee, Winston Churchill and a host of others. The Indian leaders mentioned above had denounced Jinnah’s two-nation theory as being responsible for divisive politics in the penultimate phase of withdrawal of British rule from India. |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hotbed of politics
Profile
On Record
|
A Tribune Special Jaswant Singh’s book suffers from widespread misconception, says D.N. Panigrahi The Indian leaders mentioned above had denounced Jinnah’s two-nation theory as being responsible for divisive politics in the penultimate phase of withdrawal of British rule from India. Most of them had regarded Jinnah’s conceptualisation of Indian past as unhistorical and untruth and his reading of history as rabidly communalistic. All of them including the British statesmen at the same time were unanimous in their view that Jinnah had emerged as a great leader of Muslims in India, but was bent on settling scores with his opponents primarily motivated by power politics. His virulent attack on Hindus and the Indian National Congress had a typical Churchillian flavour. Yet Jinnah was a different man altogether till Gandhiji emerged as an undisputed leader of the Indian National Congress, especially with the passing of non-violent non-cooperation resolution of 1920. Jinnah was horrified to see the “half-naked faqir” — to use the Churchillian vocabulary for the Mahatma — deliberating with his political supporters and delivering address exhorting the people to wreck the government by following the path of non-violent non-cooperation movement. The resolution was carried through with thunderous applause. And thousands of people who had gathered outside the Congress pandal, hailed Gandhiji as the man of destiny, as the political messiah who showed the unarmed millions of Indians a new path of political action, the essential weapon of which was non-violent non-cooperation with the alien government, the satanic government, as he called it, for having committed the Jallianwala Bagh massacre not long ago in 1919 at Amritsar. The moderate Jinnah was shocked to witness the unprecedented spectacle and realised that his hopes of succeeding Bal Gangadhar Tilak, as the leader of the Congress, who had just died on August 1, 1920, would not be fulfilled. He never forgave Gandhiji for it. He declared in prophetic vein that freedom would not be gained by non-violence and resigned from the Congress thereafter. It was a sad blow to his ambition. Way back in 1906, he had served the Grand Old Man of the Congress, Dadabhai Nauroji, as his Secretary. Although he represented Bombay Muslims in the Central Legislature in 1910 having been elected from the Muslims Reserved constituency, he always espoused nationalist causes in the legislature. He brought about a compromise on electoral issues between Hindus and Muslims, and the Congress-League pact at Lucknow in 1916 was signed. For this, he was hailed as an ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity by none other than the poet-politician Sarojini Naidu, the Nightingale of India. The rift between Jinnah and Gandhiji and the Indian National Congress thus began in 1920. He also objected to Gandhiji’s attire or lack of it; his way of functioning using religious symbolism; his stress and reliance on God, morality, ethics, and sense of values which to Jinnah appeared to be predominantly Hindu.
Another personal tragedy was to occur soon; his marriage was on the rocks, floundered at the altar of Hinduism. Jinnah had married a great Bombay socialite, a charming Parsee lady Ruttie, daughter of Sir Dinshaw Petit. They were married in 1918 against the wishes of Ruttie’s parents and although Jinnah’s lifestyle was liberal, Ruttie was converted to Islam before marriage. Till 1924, both Ruttie and Jinnah used to attend Muslim League meetings of which Jinnah was President, but not afterwards. Ruttie came under the influence of Theosophical Society and soon became deeply involved in their teachings and activities. Jinnah and Ruttie separated thereafter. In 1928, Ruttie died forlorn at the young age 28. Jinnah loved her, cared for her, but they could not pull on mainly because of Jinnah’s commitment to his legal profession and his politics. In the same year, the Nehru Report was produced. Jinnah and the Muslim League objected essentially to the idea of joint electorate introduced in the Report. However, the Delhi Agreement of 1927 had endorsed it, of which Jinnah was a participant and had accepted it. In 1928, another group of the Muslim League refused to accept it and Jinnah readily sided with them, declaring that the Nehru Report was an instrument of dominance and betrayed Muslim cause. The personal and political elements in Jinnah coalesced and took a toll of liberal secular Jinnah. Jinnah’s journey from nationalism to communalism could be traced to the mid-1920s. Jinnah’s two-nation theory was the most pernicious doctrine ever propounded and hoisted on the political, social and cultural domain in India. It created deep social and cultural cleavages between the two dominant religious groups inhabiting South Asia. The two-nation theory was neither a politically valid concept nor a historical reality; yet the fact remains it served as a powerful instrument to drive a wedge between diverse communities, religions, cultural and ethnic communities in India. Jinnah’s ferocious denunciation of Hindus in general and the Indian National Congress, as a Hindu Congress, destroyed whatever political goodwill was in existence. Jinnah declared that Muslims could not be safe in Hindu-dominated India and demanded a separate homeland for Muslim brotherhood. This had an instant appeal on most Muslims in NorthWest and North-East. India and Pakistan demand seemed to have some substance in the minds of Muslim brotherhood. Jinnah became a prophet of Muslim nationalism as well as separation at the same time. Jaswant Singh’s new-found love of Jinnah should not surprise us. We have seen such emotive outbursts from other BJP stalwarts as well. Not long ago, Mr L.K. Advani, the veteran BJP leader, paid his obeissance to Jinnah during his visit to Pakistan. Jinnah’s two-nation theory and the BJP’s Hindutva ideology of the Hindu right constitute two sides of the same coin. Both are exclusivists and chauvinists socially, racially and politically. Both see in each other the enemy face to face as also the enemy hidden within a galaxy of Hindu ideologues, namely, V.D. Savarkar, Guru M.S. Golwalkar and others of the RSS have more or less accepted that the religious divide between Hindus and Muslims was unbridgeable just as Jinnah had declared that Islam and Hinduism belong to two different cultural, religious streams and social orders, which never ever met and, if ever they did, ended in conflict. Obviously, the Hindutva enthusiasts like Advani and Jaswant Singh did not find it odd to be on the side of Jinnah ideologically and politically. The Indian National Congress was the common enemy of both Jinnah and BJP and Jawaharlal Nehru the bete noire of both. Hence their proximity and bonhomie with separatists and communalists, whether Muslim or Hindu. Besides, they bemoan the fact that the Partition of India destroyed the idea of Akhand Shamt, so sacred to the Hindutva brigade. They also failed to reconcile to the idea that while Pakistan was an Islamic State, India continued to be a Secular State and the idea of Hindu Rashtra was destroyed by the Congress; hence the enemy number 1 of the BJP and the RSS. We should be wary of politician’s verdict on politicians. Whether Jinnah or Nehru was responsible for partitioning India, is essentially a populist political question, which tends to ignore and gloss over seminal historical forces or forces which operated in India especially in the 1920s and during the penultimate phase of the British retreat from power. Historians’ history, therefore, might differ from politically motivated story, told by politicians of one genre or the other. This is not to say that all historians are objective or true to their salt or not influenced by political ideology or instincts while writing on such a subject like the Partition of India. There is a widespread misconception from which Jaswant Singh also suffers that the Congress rejected the idea of federation to which Jinnah was willing to accept. It is a total falsehood. Both parties had rejected the idea of federation of the 1935 Government of India Act. But during the Gandhi-Jinnah dialogue held in September 1944 for 18 days, Gandhi had offered the basic elements of federation which Jinnah rejected. Gandhiji acepted that the Muslim majority areas of NorthWest and North-East should form a separate autonomous state; and the Centre should have four subjects under it. Gandhiji wrote to Jinnah on September 24, 1944: “I proceed on the assumption that it is not to be regarded as two or more nations, but as one family consisting of many members of whom the Muslims living in the North-West Zone, i.e. Baluchistan, Sind, North-West Frontier Province and that Palt of Punjab where they are in absolute majority over all the other elements and in parts of Bengal and Assam where they are in absolute majority, desire to live in separation from the rest of India.” (CWMG, Vol. 78. pp. 110-11) Gandhi also observed that although he differed with Jinnah “on the general basis” of Pakistan, he would still recommend to the Congress and the country the acceptance of the claim for separation contained in the Muslim League resolution of Lahore 1940, on the following terms: “The areas should be demarcated by a commission, approved by the Congress and the League. The wishes of the inhabitants of the area should be ascertained through the votes of the adult population of the areas or through some equivalent method. If the vote is in favour of separation, it shall be agreed that these areas shall form a separate state as soon as possible after India is free from foreign domination and can therefore be constituted into two sovereign independent states. There shall be a treaty of separation which should also provide for the efficient and satisfactory administration of Foreign Affairs, Defence, Internal communications, Customs, Commerce, and the like which must necessarily continue to be matters of common interest between contracting parties...The treaty shall also contain terms for safeguarding the rights of minorities in the two states.” (ibid pp. 126-7). This was a rational mode for arriving at a settlement. Within the terms of agreement various issues could be studied and solutions arrived at. Pakistan, both in principle and in concrete terms, was in effect accepted by Gandhi. The very area suggested by Gandhi became Pakistan: rivers of blood and holocaust could have been avoided if Gandhi’s solution, which was not at all intractable, had been accepted. However, Jinnah was under the misapprehension that he would get more areas without a plebiscite with the connivance and support of the British government. That was the tragedy of Jinnah and the country. Jinnah declared in his letter of September 25, 1944 to Gandhi: “If this term were accepted and given effect to the present boundaries of the present provinces will be maimed and mutilated beyond redemption and leave us only with the husk, and it is opposed to the Lahore Resolution.” (ibid. App. ix, pp. 413-14). Gandhi’s ideas of Partition, which he called “a Partition between two brothers if a division then must be” was ridiculed by the British government. Jinnah was opposed to any idea of shared responsibility for foreign affairs, communications, commerce and such like. This violated the Lahore resolution: “The matters which are the “‘lifeblood of any state cannot be delegated to any central authority or government”. Jinnah declared that Gandhi’s Rajaji formula was “one calculated to completely torpedo the Pakistan demand of Muslim India”. Jaswant Singh talks of “sovereignties”, “autonomous” units agreeing to form federal form of government. Jinnah had rejected this idea in his argument with Gandhiji. Later, at no point of time, as far as this writer knows based on available record, Jinnah ever entertained such an idea. It is a canard to argue that Nehru was opposed to it. Nehru was, of course, for United India; considered unity of vital importance for India’s very existence and survival. In 1964, Sheikh Abdullah, after discussing with Nehru, Jayaprakash Narayan and Rajaji, went over to Pakistan carrying the idea of confederation to President Ayub Khan. To the dismay of Sheikh Abdullah, President Ayub Khan rejected outright the confederation plan declaring it as “the absurd proposal”. In his autobiography, Friends Not Masters, Ayub Khan writes: “I told them (Sheikh Abdullah and Mirza Afzal Beg) plainly we should have nothing to do with it. It is curious that whereas we were seeking the salvation of Kashmiris, they have been forced to mention an idea, if pursued, would lead to our enslavement. It was clear that this was what Mr Nehru had told them to us: ... He went on to express: “How they came to such conclusion was beyond me. Only those who had neither knowledge nor appreciation of history could think on those lines. India and Pakistan could never work as a Confederation even if such an arrangement were to be brought about by force. And the reason is simple: Indian nationalism is based on Hinduism and Pakistan’s nationalism is based on Islam. The two philosophies are fundamentally different from each other. These two nationalisms cannot combine, but it should be possible for them to live side by side in peace and understanding. This is our foreign policy objective towards India.” (OUP, London 1967, p. 128). The spectre created by Jinnah’s two-nation theory was lucidly provided by Field Marshal Ayub Khan. The so-called idea of joint defence, as advocated by him, also foundered on the same logic as advanced by him.
The writer is the author of “India’s Partition: The Story of Imperialism in Retreat” (Routledge London, New York, 2004); and “Jammu and Kashmir: The Cold War and the West”(Routledge London, New York, 2009)
|
Hotbed of politics
THE Central Advisory Board of Education’s decision to insulate the office of Vice Chancellor (VC) and other major academic positions from political interference is welcome.
The CABE has proposed the system of a collegium consisting of eminent persons, academicians and Nobel Laureates to recommend names for the post of Vice-Chancellor and members of the National Commission on Higher Education and Research (NCHER).
Most universities in the country have become hotbed of politics. This has vitiated the autonomy of universities. A major problem, especially in the state-run universities, is the mode of appointment, removal, extension or curtailment of the tenure of Vice-Chancellors on considerations of caste, regionalism, etc.
To quote Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, “I am concerned that in many states, university appointments, including that of Vice-Chancellors have been politicised and have become subject to caste and communal considerations. There are complaints of favouritism and corruption. I urge states to pay greater attention to this aspect. After all a dysfunctional education system can only produce dysfunctional future citizens.”
Clearly, Vice-Chancellors appointed on the basis of political manipulation or caste cannot provide vibrant leadership to universities. They become pawns in the hands of politicians who hold universities to ransom.
Universities which have witnessed increasing political interference in this region are Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, Punjabi University, Patiala, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, Dr Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Solan, Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot, Kurukshetra University, Ch. Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, Maharashi Dayanand University, Rohtak and Ch. Devi Lal University, Sirsa
In Punjab and Haryana, the Chief Ministers of all political parties have recommended names of political advisers, friends, classmates, relatives, MLAs and MPs for the post of Vice-Chancellor, making merit and scholarship the worst casualty. In some cases, in Kurukshetra University, for example, the Chief Minister told the incumbent Vice-Chancellor to contest the Assembly election. He later became a minister. Another Vice-Chancellor, after completing his term, acted as a spokesperson of the political party. The Vice-Chancellors also canvassed for votes for the ruling party’s candidates in the elections. This kind of culture blurs the line of distinction between politically-run government departments or Boards and autonomous universities.
Sometimes, the Chief Ministers’ attempt to get their men appointed as Vice-Chancellors has led to confrontation with the Governors. The Governors who turned down such recommendations are: G.D. Tapase (Uttar Pradesh), Dr M. Chenna Reddy (Punjab), A.P. Sharma (West Bengal), Ram Lal (Andhra Pradesh), S.M.H. Burney and B.A. Barari (Haryana).
The then Governor of West Bengal, Uma Shankar Dikshit appointed D.K. Setia as pro-Vice-Chancellor, Calcutta University, by ignoring the state government’s recommendation. The Chief Minister wrote a letter to the Prime Minister for the Governor’s removal. The ruling CPM decided to socially boycott him.
In Haryana, the state government has amended the statute to abolish the post of Pro Vice-Chancellor when the Governor made appointment to the post at Kurukshetra University, contrary to the Chief Minister’s wishes.
Experience has shown that Vice-Chancellors, just out of sycophancy and curry favours, invite politicians who have no knowledge of the subject to inaugurate academic conferences, seminars and workshops. Thus, university campuses, to quote Sam Pitroda, Chairman, National Knowledge Commission, have become “outposts of political parties”.
Politics is not confined to the post of Vice-Chancellor alone. It has spread its tentacles to appointments and promotions of teaching faculties. Media reports and court judgements show how teachers in the universities are not appointed on the basis of knowledge, eligibility criteria, communication skills and research publications but on the recommendations of Chief Minister, ministers and influential politicians.
The modus operandi of university appointments is such that much before the interviews, the Selection Committees have already selected the chosen candidates at the behest of the powers that be, making formal interviews a farce. The vicious circle of politics has percolated down to academic bodies of universities where the ethos of accommodation and consensus are hijacked by politically induced confrontation and factionalism. The decisions in the Executive Council, Academic Council and Syndicates are dominated by political considerations. The government nominees support or oppose the agenda on political grounds as witnessed at Punjabi University, Patiala, not long ago.
The collusion between the faculty members, students and political leaders took an ugly shape during the students’ union elections in Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh, where students allegedly killed Prof H.S. Sabharwal. In view of the Lyngdoh Committee report, a majority of universities in India have become feeder devices for political candidates and party workers as well as a mechanism to bypass conduct norms prescribed by the Election Commission.
There is a need to involve persons of impeccable character and integrity in the selection process of Vice-Chancellors and other faculty members. No person who is affiliated with any party should be appointed as Vice-Chancellor. The Chief Justices of the Supreme Court and/or High Court, Leader of Opposition, a member of the UGC or the proposed NHECR and an outstanding academician from outside the state should be included in the collegium.
The collegium model per se will not be a panacea for all the evils of the university system. However, this initiative is expected to check the entry of non-academic and unworthy persons into universities. Democratic ethos cannot be nurtured by any structural overhaul; these need to be inculcated and sustained by society as a
whole.
The writer is Reader, Department of Public Administration, Ch. Devi Lal University, Sirsa, Haryana
|
|
Profile
The film, Naalu Pennugal, is the story of four women who belong to different strata of society. The first, The Prostitute, is about a young prostitute, who gives up her profession to start a new life with a kind and caring worker who has the low menial job of carrying loads on his head. In her fierce determination to eke out a decent living, she has taken on a job that demands hard physical labour. The couple nurse dreams of building up a future together free from the hazards of living on the streets. However, they find themselves helpless before the law of the land to prove that they are husband and wife. The second story, The Virgin, is centred round a farm worker who is forced by her father to take on the responsibility of running her household at a very early age. In course of time, the fact that she was getting past the age of marriage became a constant worry for the parents as they could not find a suitable match for her. Then a friendly neighbour brings a proposal which appears to be suitable. The wedding is conducted with the usual fanfare and she is taken to the bridegroom’s house. There the man behaves strangely as he keeps evading any conversation or physical contact with her. After a couple of days, the man makes the customary visit to the in-laws and leaves her behind.
As days pass stories spread that she has been abandoned by him because of her infidelity. The scandal grows and a worried father picks up a quarrel with the neighbour who had brought the proposal. The girl, who had been silent all the while, intervenes and announces that there was no relationship between her and the man. One morning, she is visited by a senior classmate of hers on one of his frequent visits to his mother living in the neighbourhood. They reminiscence over past days. The worldly-wise man finds in her an innocent woman who is distraught over her childlessness. He thinks she is vibrant. The last one, The Spinster, is about an upper middle class girl who is obliged to bear the brunt of all the moral values and norms of her society. Her widowed mother runs the household with four children to look after — a boy and three girls. A marriage proposal for her which is almost finalised fizzles out when the groom suddenly prefers her younger sister. The mother agrees to it as it is seen as a good alliance for the family. Even her elder brother decides to get married. In due course, a suitable match is also found for the youngest sister. Then her mother passes away, forcing the daughter to move in with her younger married sister. Even this does not work as her sister cannot put up with another woman she sees as rival in the house. That takes her back home. She is alone, refusing to live with either her brother or the youngest sister. She has now resolved to face the world by herself. Adoor started his artistic life as an actor in amateur plays when he was eight. Later, he shifted his base to writing and direction and wrote and directed a few plays. After securing a degree in Economics, Political Science and Public Administration in 1961, he worked as a government officer near Dindigul in Tamil Nadu. In 1962, he left his job to study screenwriting and direction from the Pune Film Institute. He completed his course from there with a scholarship from the Government of India. With his friends and classmates, Adoor set up the Chitralekha Film Society and the Chitralekha Sahakarana Sangham. This was the first film society in Kerala and it aimed at production, distribution and exhibition of films in the co-operative sector. Adoor was influenced by the work of Satyajit Ray and his films borrowed Ray’s technique of emphasising the psychology of the characters through gestures.
|
|
On Record
With the UPA government’s renewed focus on the aam admi, all eyes are on Union Minister of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj C.P. Joshi. This Ministry’s impoprtance has increased manifold after Union Finance Minister Pranab Muikherjee had substantially increased the allocation of funds to schemes for rural populace with the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGA) leading the list with a huge allocation of Rs 39,100 crore. In an interview to The Tribune in Jaipur, Joshi talks about his priorities and plans to live up to the people’s expectations. Excerpts: Q: What are your priorities as the Union Minister for Rural Development and Panchayati Raj? A: Consolidation of the existing flagship programmes for rural infrastructure and effective implementation of the NREGA. Q: The Congress had promised in its manifesto that the NREGA, a flagship programme of the UPA government, will be expanded so that it benefits individuals and not just families. What is your action plan? A: We are in touch with stakeholders and after holding discussions with them we will be able to spell out our action plan. Q: There have been shortcomings in the NREGA’s implementation in terms of the number of days of employment being provided and payment of real wage of Rs 100. How will you address these issues? A: Let me be very clear that the NREGA is a demand-driven scheme in which people are supposed to apply for work. If they are not applying for work, you cannot compel them. As for real wage, we are seized with the matter and will address it soon. Q: You said that except nine districts of Arunachal Pradesh no state has succeeded in providing 100 days of work under the NREGA. A: Here again either the people in rural areas are not applying for work or the states are not functioning properly to implement the scheme. Either way, something is wrong which has to be set right. Q: It is said that the scheme is not creating real assets and that it is only a short-term measure. What is your assessment? A: The scheme is not meant to create assets. It is primarily meant to provide employment to unskilled persons for 100 days. Q: Is the NREGA enough to check distress migration from villages? A: The Rural Development Department deals with only two such schemes, including the NREGA while the issue of distress migration relates to other ministries. So, we must have a holistic approach though the NREGA is partially addressing this problem. Q: How do you plan to converge NREGA with schemes of other departments as proposed in the Union Budget? A: We have already initiated the process by allowing under it work done on private land belonging to SC/ST farmers. We are expanding it for small and marginal farmers. We are also holding talks with the Agriculture Ministry and others on how to converge the NREGA with other schemes. The process will take some time. Q: Considering the huge allocation for the NREGA, what measures are you taking to check corruption and ensure transparency? A: The social audit concept is there. This model is working effectively in Andhra Pradesh. We are thinking of having an ombudsman at the district level to ensure proper utilisation of funds under the NREGA. Q: Are you planning to expand the NREGA beyond 100 days and including the food grain component in it because of drought? A: We are mainly focusing on effective implementation. We will consider any such measure later if necessary. The states have not yet exhausted 100 days and their average is a meagre 48 days. There is still much room for improvement. Q: What prompted you to call an all-party meeting on the NREGA? A: States are governed by many political parties. MPs also have raised the issue of corruption in the NREGA. The purpose of the meet was to make all parties come forward and point out the shortcomings in the NREGA so that we can implement it effectively.
|
||
|
|
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Letters | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
NOW that the dust is beginning to settle on Jaswant Singh’s book, Jinnah: India, Partition, Independence, it may be appropriate to evaluate the role of Mohammad Ali Jinnah in India’s partition. Several eminent contemporaries of Jinnah have attempted it including Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Patel, B.R. Ambedkar, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai, Lord Mountbatten, Clement Attlee, Winston Churchill and a host of others. 
N