Chapter 22
Road to Pakistan
AS in previous years I had gone to Kashmir for the summer. Sheikh
Abdullah was there in jail on account of his criticisms of the
Maharajah’s government. The Congress was working hard to have him
released because of the critical situation. While I was there,
thousands of riot-affected Hindus and Sikhs of Hazara reached there.
Gandhiji was also in Kashmir then to persuade the Maharajah to set
Sheikh Abdullah free. I used to visit him daily.
I noticed then that the freshness and light-heartedness had gone out
of Gandhi. He was no longer prone to occasional small talk or
relaxed banner. One day I ventured to ask him about it directly. I
said that appeared to me for several days as someone with a burden
on his heart. The British were going. His and his colleagues’ long
political struggle and sacrifices were bearing fruit and the country
was about to attain independence. They were going to be among the
few in history who saw the result of their lifelong crusade in their
own time. The why they had rescued the 40 crore (400 Million) people
of the country from the dungeon of slavery and deprivation should be
a matter of great joy and satisfaction to them. Finally, on a light
note, I recalled that he had said that he would be happy to live up
to 125 years of age, and added that that would enable the liberated
country to benefit greatly from his wisdom and experience.
Gandhiji used to talk to people according to their age and taste. My
remarks made him very quiet and thoughtful. He said at length,
“Until now I wanted to live up to 125 years. Not now. My life’s
mission was not just independence of India, but also freeing the
country of all the ills that two hundred years of slavery to the
British had created among the people. I was particularly keen that
the gulf created by the communal politics of the colonial rulers
would be converted into such a bond of mutual love and goodwill that
together the people would work to banish poverty from the land and
fill it with all the bounties of which the British had deprived us.
But since I have not been able to achieve this ambition, to ensure
good relations between the Hindus and Muslims this independence is
incomplete for me. Today when Hindu and Muslim homes are divided and
when this division has assumed the form of permanent separation, I
can not but consider this as my political and spiritual defeat. That
leaves me with no desire to live any longer…”
Then, turning his face up to me, Gandhi added on a personal note:
“Do you think it was a day of rejoicing and independence for me when
I was saying goodbye to your father Bacha Khan at the Delhi station?
We have been travelling companions, partners in the trenches.
Independence has come to separate us probably never to meet in this
life. Tell me what joy has this independence brought me?”
Gandhiji had not yet finished.
“Look at the situation all over India. All the open grounds and
bazaar of Srinagar are crowded with Hindus and Sikhs who have fled
from the NWFP. Look at Bengal or Bihar. See what is happening to the
Muslims in Delhi. Above all, take Punjab on one side are the
caravans of Muslims, on the other processions of Sikhs and Hindus.
Even these fleeing masses of helpless people are not left alone;
humanity has been so possessed by bestiality. Every caravan is
raided by organised hordes. Genocide is rampant. Man or woman,
young, old or infant, there is no discrimination. Was this why we
wanted independence? Now you tell me, if I could not end this hatred
between Hindus and Muslims and if I could not create amity and love
between them in the name of God and religion, then what is the
purpose of my Life? I will now be happier to die than to live.”
There was great truth in this. Those whose vision was clear and who
were not blinded by narrow motives would have done things very
differently. If the partition of the country was necessary and
unavoidable then they should have sat down and sorted out things in
an orderly, sensible manner. There are other countries which were
one once but decided later to separate. Take Norway and Sweden. They
were together, but decided to part, and like civilised people drew a
line in between. They did not set about killing or robbing each
other. Later too, like grown up cultured neighbours, they have lived
in neighbourly harmony and peace, doing nothing to interfere in each
other’s affairs. But here, sheer insanity took control. Here, in
Peshawar, some one killed a Hindu; his relatives went to Delhi and
hacked down innocent Muslims; the latter’s kinsmen then came to the
areas allocated to Pakistan and wiped off a number of unconcerned
Hindus. Similarly if somebody seized a Sikh’s property here and
drove him out, he went and did the same to a Muslim there. This was
an unending chain, one fire caused another, and that a third. Worst
of all, this went on in the name of religion. In the name of Allah
the beneficent and merciful did the massacre of human beings go on
and on.
Partition of Provinces
I consider it necessary to dispel a false impression. The Muslim
League leaders pleased that the partition of province was the doing
of the British. This is untrue. Looking at the precarious balance of
Muslim and non-Muslim population in the Punjab and Bengal the League
leadership had realised that other things remaining the same if
elections were held there the Muslim League ministries might
constantly face problems. The statistics compiled by the Cabinet
Mission had made it clear that in Group C that is in Bengal and
Assam the ratio between Muslims and Non-Muslims was 36:34; in Punjab
it was 16:12. Thus in both the provinces the Muslim ministries
depended on two or three members. When Mr. Jinnah was pointed out
these problems, he had even then suggested ceding some of the
non-Muslim portions, which is on record in the documents on transfer
of power released by the British government.
Indeed, Lord Wavell writes in his diary dated February 1946:
Aga Khan came and talked of the necessity for Pakistan and the
impossibility of Hindus and Muslims agreeing. He said Jinnah was
willing to conceded Amritsar, Ambala etc, in the north-west and the
Hindu districts of Bengal and Assam. (P. 215).
Another proof of this is that Muslim League was keen on not letting
go Punjab. According to Wavell, the Sikh leader and a minister
Sardar Baldev Singh, “said that Jinnah did not want settlement (with
the Sikhs). He had had discussions with him in London, but had got
nowhere, and Jinnah offered no assurance to the Sikhs even if they
supported Pakistan.” (Wavell, P. 149).
This shows too many that Muslim League itself was not keen to keep
Punjab united. The objective seemed to be that so long as Muslim
League had full supremacy over it, it did not matter how small or
moth-eaten Pakistan was.
That also apparently was behind the effort to drive off the
non-Muslims from all Pakistan provinces. No body stopped to bother
about what would happen to Muslims on the other side when these
people, robbed of everything and bathed in blood, would reach there
– to the Muslims whom the League had sacrificed in pursuit of its
politics and which it had caused to be left behind in an atmosphere
of hate and communal insanity.
There is another incident worth recalling. The Khan of Kalat had for
some time been engaged in litigation with the British over Quetta
and areas around it. Mr. Jinnah was fighting the case for him the
case for him. When the partition was announced, the Khan raised the
point that the position of Kalat would have to be like Nepal’s since
it was not a part of India. He produced documents in support of his
contention, concerning the agreement reached by the British with his
forebears. In his book on the history of the Balouch and their
Khawanin, the Khan recalls the incident.
A meeting was called to consider the issue. On the one side were
Khan of Kalat and his legal adviser Sultan Ahmad Khan On the other
were the governor-general designate and prime minister designate of
Pakistan. Mr. Jinnah and Khan Liaquat Ali Khan. At the head was the
Viceroy Lord Mountbatten. The discussion finally ended in an accord
whereby it was agreed that:-
(a) On August 15, when the British rule would come to an end, the
state of Kalat would revert to its position of 1838, the position
just prior to its agreement with the British.
(b) If by then no agreement was reached between the Khan of Kalat
and the Government of Pakistan then the state would have the right
to accede to Afghanistan.
This accord was signed by the Khan of Kalat, Mr. Jinnah and Lord
Mountbatten.
One is amazed at these League leaders who approved of Suhrawardy’s
proposal of a sovereign independent united Bengal, then divided up
Bengal and Punjab, reconciled themselves to just one district out of
the whole of Assam, and allowed the Khan of Kalat the right to
accede to Afghanistan. All of this leads one back to that plea of
Liaquat Ali Khan’s to the British – that if they let the Leaguers
have just the desert of Sindh, even that would be acceptable.
When we used to tell the Leaguers that they were not partitioning
India but partitioning the Muslims of India that what the helpless
Muslims left on the other side would do when all the Muslim
political leaders and government officials had migrated here, they
would reply that the non-Muslims left in Pakistan would be our
hostages. If the Muslims in India faced any hardships, the
non-Muslims here would be put under pressure. That would help keep
the Indian Muslims safe. Now we asked these Leaguers how that
mechanism would work since all the Hindus and Sikhs had been driven
out. Who would be the hostage?
The truth is, that time no one was interested much either in Islam
or the Muslims. The Muslims left in India were nobody’s concern
here. Here the houses, shops and factories of Hindus and Sikhs were
being looted and their jobs, whether in the civil or military, were
being coveted. Even in this business of appropriation, if any one
had a right to the properties of the non-Muslims it were the Muslims
coming over from the other side robbed of what they had there.
Alternatively, those evacuee properties belonged to the state of
Pakistan so that the whole nation could benefit from them.
Government ought to have made it clear that in this division of the
country and the nation, the priority in all matters would go to
those selfless people who had spent their lives sacrificed all they
had, accepted the rigours of jail, struggling for independence of
the country and fighting against the tyranny of the British.
Especially deserving of attention were the families whose elders
were incarcerated and their little ones left behind without the
assurance of a piece of daily bread. They had had no opportunities
of education and upbringing.
Even more deserving were the dependants of those young ones who had
offered their lives for the freedom of their country, who had
sacrificed their and their family’s happiness for the sake of their
nation.
Deserving too were the young women who in the fight for independence
had followed their husbands to the front, the husbands who never
returned. Deserving were those mothers who offered the lives of
their children so that the nation could live in dignity.
Theses martyrs and mujahids, these men and women had put the country
under their eternal debt. It was for a grateful nation to try as its
foremost obligation to repay some of this debt that it owed to its
devotees and faithfuls.
But here the war was won by the British. These British had been
unhappy with the Khudai Khidmatgars because it was the Pushtoons
alone, besides the Ulema of Deoband, who as a collective entity had
raised their voice against them. The Pushtoons could expect no
reward for their pains even after the British had left. Here it was
the same rewarded of the British, the sirs, and the Nawabs and the
Khan Bahadurs, the jagirdars and the tail-bearers who were to be
seated on the thrones. It was they who could faithfully pursue the
policies the British had laid down for these parts in return for
their personal gains. The spirit that the Khudai Khidmatgars had
created among the common people, of pressing for their rights and
for their self-respect, suited the new rulers no more than it did
their masters, the British.
AS in previous years I had gone to Kashmir for the summer. Sheikh
Abdullah was there in jail on account of his criticisms of the
Maharajah’s government. The Congress was working hard to have him
released because of the critical situation. While I was there,
thousands of riot-affected Hindus and Sikhs of Hazara reached there.
Gandhiji was also in Kashmir then to persuade the Maharajah to set
Sheikh Abdullah free. I used to visit him daily.
I noticed then that the freshness and light-heartedness had gone out
of Gandhi. He was no longer prone to occasional small talk or
relaxed banner. One day I ventured to ask him about it directly. I
said that appeared to me for several days as someone with a burden
on his heart. The British were going. His and his colleagues’ long
political struggle and sacrifices were bearing fruit and the country
was about to attain independence. They were going to be among the
few in history who saw the result of their lifelong crusade in their
own time. The why they had rescued the 40 crore (400 Million) people
of the country from the dungeon of slavery and deprivation should be
a matter of great joy and satisfaction to them. Finally, on a light
note, I recalled that he had said that he would be happy to live up
to 125 years of age, and added that that would enable the liberated
country to benefit greatly from his wisdom and experience.
Gandhiji used to talk to people according to their age and taste. My
remarks made him very quiet and thoughtful. He said at length,
“Until now I wanted to live up to 125 years. Not now. My life’s
mission was not just independence of India, but also freeing the
country of all the ills that two hundred years of slavery to the
British had created among the people. I was particularly keen that
the gulf created by the communal politics of the colonial rulers
would be converted into such a bond of mutual love and goodwill that
together the people would work to banish poverty from the land and
fill it with all the bounties of which the British had deprived us.
But since I have not been able to achieve this ambition, to ensure
good relations between the Hindus and Muslims this independence is
incomplete for me. Today when Hindu and Muslim homes are divided and
when this division has assumed the form of permanent separation, I
can not but consider this as my political and spiritual defeat. That
leaves me with no desire to live any longer…”
Then, turning his face up to me, Gandhi added on a personal note:
“Do you think it was a day of rejoicing and independence for me when
I was saying goodbye to your father Bacha Khan at the Delhi station?
We have been travelling companions, partners in the trenches.
Independence has come to separate us probably never to meet in this
life. Tell me what joy has this independence brought me?”
Gandhiji had not yet finished.
“Look at the situation all over India. All the open grounds and
bazaar of Srinagar are crowded with Hindus and Sikhs who have fled
from the NWFP. Look at Bengal or Bihar. See what is happening to the
Muslims in Delhi. Above all, take Punjab on one side are the
caravans of Muslims, on the other processions of Sikhs and Hindus.
Even these fleeing masses of helpless people are not left alone;
humanity has been so possessed by bestiality. Every caravan is
raided by organised hordes. Genocide is rampant. Man or woman,
young, old or infant, there is no discrimination. Was this why we
wanted independence? Now you tell me, if I could not end this hatred
between Hindus and Muslims and if I could not create amity and love
between them in the name of God and religion, then what is the
purpose of my Life? I will now be happier to die than to live.”
There was great truth in this. Those whose vision was clear and who
were not blinded by narrow motives would have done things very
differently. If the partition of the country was necessary and
unavoidable then they should have sat down and sorted out things in
an orderly, sensible manner. There are other countries which were
one once but decided later to separate. Take Norway and Sweden. They
were together, but decided to part, and like civilised people drew a
line in between. They did not set about killing or robbing each
other. Later too, like grown up cultured neighbours, they have lived
in neighbourly harmony and peace, doing nothing to interfere in each
other’s affairs. But here, sheer insanity took control. Here, in
Peshawar, some one killed a Hindu; his relatives went to Delhi and
hacked down innocent Muslims; the latter’s kinsmen then came to the
areas allocated to Pakistan and wiped off a number of unconcerned
Hindus. Similarly if somebody seized a Sikh’s property here and
drove him out, he went and did the same to a Muslim there. This was
an unending chain, one fire caused another, and that a third. Worst
of all, this went on in the name of religion. In the name of Allah
the beneficent and merciful did the massacre of human beings go on
and on.
Partition of Provinces
I consider it necessary to dispel a false impression. The Muslim
League leaders pleased that the partition of province was the doing
of the British. This is untrue. Looking at the precarious balance of
Muslim and non-Muslim population in the Punjab and Bengal the League
leadership had realised that other things remaining the same if
elections were held there the Muslim League ministries might
constantly face problems. The statistics compiled by the Cabinet
Mission had made it clear that in Group C that is in Bengal and
Assam the ratio between Muslims and Non-Muslims was 36:34; in Punjab
it was 16:12. Thus in both the provinces the Muslim ministries
depended on two or three members. When Mr. Jinnah was pointed out
these problems, he had even then suggested ceding some of the
non-Muslim portions, which is on record in the documents on transfer
of power released by the British government.
Indeed, Lord Wavell writes in his diary dated February 1946:
Aga Khan came and talked of the necessity for Pakistan and the
impossibility of Hindus and Muslims agreeing. He said Jinnah was
willing to conceded Amritsar, Ambala etc, in the north-west and the
Hindu districts of Bengal and Assam. (P. 215).
Another proof of this is that Muslim League was keen on not letting
go Punjab. According to Wavell, the Sikh leader and a minister
Sardar Baldev Singh, “said that Jinnah did not want settlement (with
the Sikhs). He had had discussions with him in London, but had got
nowhere, and Jinnah offered no assurance to the Sikhs even if they
supported Pakistan.” (Wavell, P. 149).
This shows too many that Muslim League itself was not keen to keep
Punjab united. The objective seemed to be that so long as Muslim
League had full supremacy over it, it did not matter how small or
moth-eaten Pakistan was.
That also apparently was behind the effort to drive off the
non-Muslims from all Pakistan provinces. No body stopped to bother
about what would happen to Muslims on the other side when these
people, robbed of everything and bathed in blood, would reach there
– to the Muslims whom the League had sacrificed in pursuit of its
politics and which it had caused to be left behind in an atmosphere
of hate and communal insanity.
There is another incident worth recalling. The Khan of Kalat had for
some time been engaged in litigation with the British over Quetta
and areas around it. Mr. Jinnah was fighting the case for him the
case for him. When the partition was announced, the Khan raised the
point that the position of Kalat would have to be like Nepal’s since
it was not a part of India. He produced documents in support of his
contention, concerning the agreement reached by the British with his
forebears. In his book on the history of the Balouch and their
Khawanin, the Khan recalls the incident.
A meeting was called to consider the issue. On the one side were
Khan of Kalat and his legal adviser Sultan Ahmad Khan On the other
were the governor-general designate and prime minister designate of
Pakistan. Mr. Jinnah and Khan Liaquat Ali Khan. At the head was the
Viceroy Lord Mountbatten. The discussion finally ended in an accord
whereby it was agreed that:-
(a) On August 15, when the British rule would come to an end, the
state of Kalat would revert to its position of 1838, the position
just prior to its agreement with the British.
(b) If by then no agreement was reached between the Khan of Kalat
and the Government of Pakistan then the state would have the right
to accede to Afghanistan.
This accord was signed by the Khan of Kalat, Mr. Jinnah and Lord
Mountbatten.
One is amazed at these League leaders who approved of Suhrawardy’s
proposal of a sovereign independent united Bengal, then divided up
Bengal and Punjab, reconciled themselves to just one district out of
the whole of Assam, and allowed the Khan of Kalat the right to
accede to Afghanistan. All of this leads one back to that plea of
Liaquat Ali Khan’s to the British – that if they let the Leaguers
have just the desert of Sindh, even that would be acceptable.
When we used to tell the Leaguers that they were not partitioning
India but partitioning the Muslims of India that what the helpless
Muslims left on the other side would do when all the Muslim
political leaders and government officials had migrated here, they
would reply that the non-Muslims left in Pakistan would be our
hostages. If the Muslims in India faced any hardships, the
non-Muslims here would be put under pressure. That would help keep
the Indian Muslims safe. Now we asked these Leaguers how that
mechanism would work since all the Hindus and Sikhs had been driven
out. Who would be the hostage?
The truth is, that time no one was interested much either in Islam
or the Muslims. The Muslims left in India were nobody’s concern
here. Here the houses, shops and factories of Hindus and Sikhs were
being looted and their jobs, whether in the civil or military, were
being coveted. Even in this business of appropriation, if any one
had a right to the properties of the non-Muslims it were the Muslims
coming over from the other side robbed of what they had there.
Alternatively, those evacuee properties belonged to the state of
Pakistan so that the whole nation could benefit from them.
Government ought to have made it clear that in this division of the
country and the nation, the priority in all matters would go to
those selfless people who had spent their lives sacrificed all they
had, accepted the rigours of jail, struggling for independence of
the country and fighting against the tyranny of the British.
Especially deserving of attention were the families whose elders
were incarcerated and their little ones left behind without the
assurance of a piece of daily bread. They had had no opportunities
of education and upbringing.
Even more deserving were the dependants of those young ones who had
offered their lives for the freedom of their country, who had
sacrificed their and their family’s happiness for the sake of their
nation.
Deserving too were the young women who in the fight for independence
had followed their husbands to the front, the husbands who never
returned. Deserving were those mothers who offered the lives of
their children so that the nation could live in dignity.
Theses martyrs and mujahids, these men and women had put the country
under their eternal debt. It was for a grateful nation to try as its
foremost obligation to repay some of this debt that it owed to its
devotees and faithfuls.
But here the war was won by the British. These British had been
unhappy with the Khudai Khidmatgars because it was the Pushtoons
alone, besides the Ulema of Deoband, who as a collective entity had
raised their voice against them. The Pushtoons could expect no
reward for their pains even after the British had left. Here it was
the same rewarded of the British, the sirs, and the Nawabs and the
Khan Bahadurs, the jagirdars and the tail-bearers who were to be
seated on the thrones. It was they who could faithfully pursue the
policies the British had laid down for these parts in return for
their personal gains. The spirit that the Khudai Khidmatgars had
created among the common people, of pressing for their rights and
for their self-respect, suited the new rulers no more than it did
their masters, the British.
|
