If the subcontinent’s tragedy can be summed up in one word, it’s this: Selfishness. Almost every fabled giant is exposed to have the feet of clay. Tunnel vision defined those troubled times. A little magnanimity by leaders on either side would have perhaps averted the all-consuming madness that marked the eventual parting of ways after nearly a thousand year of co-existence. What’s more, the violent split in 1947 continues to eclipse the region even today as the nuclear neighbors remain locked in a perpetual duel
AIJAZ ZAKA SYED
[dropcap]W[/dropcap]ho was really responsible for the Partition? Jinnah and his Muslim League, the Congress led by Nehru and Patel or the retreating British? Could the catastrophic carnage that followed the violent separation have been averted if the leaders on both sides had demonstrated greater maturity and flexibility?
Did the Quaid-e-Azam, as he came to be known, really want a homeland for Muslims or was the demand merely a bargaining chip to protect the future of the ‘qaum’?
These are questions that have been visited and revisited ad infinitum by South Asian and international scholars and historians since 1947.
Yet the questions and the larger issues that they raise about the troubled legacy of the Partition and its continuing shadow over the present and future of the region remain as riveting as ever. And when they are raised and addressed by the grandson of Gandhi, the man who successfully steered the freedom movement and had been at the heart of all the action, they lead to a book as fascinating as ‘Understanding the Muslim Mind’. I cannot thank my friend enough who gifted this invaluable book by Rajmohan Gandhi, originally published in 1986 by Roli Books and later by Penguin and the State University of New York Press.
As the author puts it, this is a personal quest to understand the Hindu-Muslim question, “which has broken hopes, hearts and India’s unity”, and an exercise undertaken with the hope that it might “inform us of times when the other side too was large-hearted, and of other times when our side also was small-minded.”
He chooses an unusual approach to explore the psyche of the South Asian Muslim and the larger question of Hindu-Muslim relations. ‘Understanding the Muslim Mind’ examines the lives of eight Muslim leaders and intellectuals who did not merely leave an indelible imprint on their followers, they have been responsible for the way things have turned out for the region, at least for its nearly 600 million Muslims.
Gandhi aptly begins his pen sketches with Sir Sayyid Ahmed Khan (1817-1898), perhaps the earliest and most influential of political and social reformers in India and the pioneer of the Aligarh movement. Although a firm believer in Hindu-Muslim amity, Sir Sayyid opposed the Congress in its nascent stage, fearing as Jinnah and others did later that it would lead to a majoritarian polity. No wonder many in the Pakistan movement identified with Sir Sayyid.
Next in the spotlight is the legacy of the incomparable Muhammad Iqbal (1876-1938), seen by many as the ideological architect of Pakistan although the poet philosopher did not believe in the concept of nation state or man-made borders. A passionate believer in pan-Islamism, he died long before the idea of Pakistan acquired a distinct, tangible shape.
However, the bard who sang the soul-stirring ‘Saare Jahan Se Accha Hindustan Hamara’ did in 1930 talk of a single Muslim state comprising the Punjab, Northwest Frontier Province, Sind and Baluchistan. Gandhi devotes considerable time and space to Iqbal and rightly so. The poet’s influence on Muslims of the subcontinent and beyond remains formidable.
Also judiciously handled are Muhammad Ali Jauhar (1878-1931), the champion of the Khilafat movement and Hindu-Muslim unity, Bengal tiger Fazlul Haq (1873-1962), Congress leader and India’s first education minister Abul Kalam Azad (1888-1958), Pakistan’s first premier Liaqat Ali Khan (1895-1951) and the educationist responsible for the success of Jamia Millia Islamia and later Indian president Zakir Hussain (1877-1969).
However, it is Jinnah who remains at the center-stage throughout the book even when other dramatis personae are being profiled. The founder of Pakistan is dealt with in exhaustive detail offering interesting insight into his strong personality, leadership and existential struggle for the idea of Pakistan that eventually became a reality against great odds and at a colossal cost.
Interestingly, what is common among the eight luminaries is the fact that they had all been great believers in India’s syncretic heritage and diversity. At least, they began as such. Sir Sayyid, the founder of Aligarh Muslim University, described by Sir Hamilton Gibb as the first modernist institution in the Islamic world, who would describe Hindus and Muslims as the two eyes of the beautiful bride that is India, had come to despair of their peaceful coexistence in his twilight years.
Mohammed Ali Jauhar, who had been among the first leaders to welcome and embrace Gandhi on his return from South Africa and who travelled the length and breadth of the country with the Mahatma as part of the freedom struggle and Khilafat movement that saw Hindu-Muslim amity at its peak, died a bitter man far away from India, in Jerusalem.
Even Jinnah, the man routinely panned as the architect of the Partition, had been, in the words of Sarojini Naidu, the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity. Indeed, he had been the tallest leader of the Congress before Gandhi arrived on the scene. However, with the exception of Azad and Zakir Hussain, nearly all of them abandoned their hope and faith in the common destiny of Hindus and Muslims.
The question is why. The answer, not simple or straight by any means, stares you in the face throughout the eminently readable book. Rajmohan Gandhi blames the arrogance and partisanship of the Congress, over and covert exploitation of religion and the increasing insecurity of the Muslims in addition to personality clashes between leaders like Gandhi and Jinnah for the conflict and eventual rift. He cites the “ungenerous” attitude of the Congress to accommodate and share power with Muslim League in provinces in 1937 and inflexibility of Jinnah as the defining turning point that paved the way for the Partition.
A liberal like Nehru, later the first prime minister of India, refused to accept even two Muslims in the coalition eventually forcing the League out and strengthening its demand for Pakistan.
To be fair to Gandhi, he does not shy away from shining the light on the failings of the Congress leadership, including his own grandfather, that drove Jinnah out of the Congress and alienated a significant population of Muslims, including their top leaders like Mohammad Ali.
“In May 1937, when it was plain that Congress had scored huge victories, Jinnah sent a private verbal message to Gandhi; the communication urged Gandhi to take the lead in forging ‘Hindu-Muslim unity,” writes the Mahatma’s grandson, suggesting that Jinnah had in mind a Congress-League settlement involving, among other things, power-sharing. In response, the Mahatma wrote: “I wish I could do something but I am utterly helpless. My faith in unity is bright as ever; only I see no daylight…”
The author goes on to note that “it is the view of many scholars and public figures alike that the Congress’s failure in 1937 to share power with the League turned the ‘qaum’ in the direction of Pakistan. Pyarelal, Gandhi’s secretary and biographer, calls it a ‘tactical error of the first magnitude.’”
He quotes veteran journalist Frank Moraes who noted that “had the Congress handled the League more tactfully after the 1937 elections, Pakistan might never have come into being.” Penderel Moon, a Briton who served the ICS before and after Independence, describes the Congress’s failure to cooperate with the League in 1937 as the ‘prime cause for the creation of Pakistan’.
He is equally forthright in assessing the Muslim leadership and its many flaws and narrowness of the vision. He notes with amusement how Muslim leaders remained obsessed with the Caliphate and Ottoman Empire when it was being rejected by Turkey’s new leadership like Mustafa Kemal. Or how in demanding and settling for a ‘moth-eaten’ Pakistan, the League leadership which claimed to speak on behalf of the subcontinent’s Muslims ignored the fate of the vast population of Muslims left behind in India, accounting for more than 40 percent.
Indeed, as one has argued before, Indian Muslims have been the biggest losers in this battle of egos and game of one-upmanship between great men.
If the subcontinent’s tragedy can be summed up in one word, it’s this: Selfishness. Almost every fabled giant is exposed to have the feet of clay. Tunnel vision was the characteristic of the time. A little magnanimity by leaders on either side would have perhaps averted the all-consuming madness that marked the eventual parting of ways after nearly a thousand year of co-existence. What’s more, the violent split in 1947 continues to eclipse the region even today as the nuclear neighbors remain locked in a perpetual duel.
All said and done, the Partition is a reality. What really matters today is what India, Pakistan and Bangladesh can do to ensure that their future is better than their past.
Citing the Congress-League tussle and the convenient use of religion and religious discourse that led to the split, Gandhi calls for a ‘national idiom’ to be developed in India, to tolerate the other man’s beliefs and convictions. The advice is indeed valid for both India and Pakistan, beset by rising intolerance.
The same should apply to the India-Pakistan equation as well. Today, more than ever, the neighbors need to listen to each other and be more tolerant of each other’s perspective. They need to learn from history, not remain handcuffed to it forever.