No One Noticed
Ramanjit Singh
While examining the correspondence between Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru from 1938, where they discussed India's future path and power allocation, a noticeable sense of distrust and arrogance between them emerges. It was evident then that the British would eventually leave India. After the provincial government elections in which Congress gained a majority, the matter of minority representation became vital for Jinnah regarding how Muslims would be treated under the new provincial governments.
There was a continuous exchange regarding the issues highlighted by the two leaders. Jinnah was concerned about how the rights of the Muslim minority would be safeguarded under the Congress party's rule, which governed the United and Central Provinces, Bombay Presidency, and Madras. His concern extended beyond these regions, focusing on the future of Muslims throughout India.
In his correspondence with Nehru, he expressed the feeling that Muslims were being excluded from key aspects of representation and governance. Jinnah sought to understand Nehru, trying to determine if Muslims had a reliable ally in Congress or if their concerns would be ignored. The issues Jinnah raised were not just about specific details; they were about assessing whether Muslims could be part of a national government with equal rights. Jinnah did not perceive this assurance from Nehru.
Nehru emphasized that his main focus was the well-being of all Indians, irrespective of their religious backgrounds, and he prioritized improving their living conditions over addressing issues specific to any single group. He believed that Jinnah's concerns were not as significant as they seemed. His correspondence was somewhat arrogant and confrontational, questioning whether Mohammad Ali Jinnah genuinely represented Muslims. Relationships don't end abruptly; they deteriorate gradually through a series of events, with connections breaking one by one. Nehru failed to grasp Jinnah's true intentions in their interactions.
If we become the other for just one day, maybe we can better understand the other.
Nehru read those letters like a bureaucrat reviewing a plea, rather than from the perspective of a community that felt leaderless, being thrust into a new world increasingly indifferent to their welfare. The concerns arose from a deep sense that the new India would not be theirs to govern. They sought an equal seat in this new power distribution, not as a subordinate to anyone else.
In the 1920s and 30s, discussions about the Partition of Punjab and India were emerging from the fringes of both Muslim and Hindu communities. This idea gained further support from figures like Lala Lajpat Rai, Muhammad Iqbal, and the right-wing extremist Hindu Mahasabha (including Savarkar and others). The notion of separation was already being discussed and written about in Hindi and Urdu newspapers, and it was being brought up in the religious gatherings of both communities. The divisions between the two were now quite apparent, leading to a sense of apprehension about the future.
In these exchanges, it is clear that although these leaders deliberated on the country's future, they either ignored or did not realize how their political decisions would affect the inhabitants of these provinces, especially Punjab. They did not understand the impact of Partition on the lives of children, the most vulnerable in society, who suddenly ended up on the other side of these newly established borders.
No one realized how their political agendas, whether genuine or not, would impact the lives of millions who became outsiders in a community that refused to embrace them. The manipulations of power politics failed us all. Nehru was arrogant and an idealist, and Jinnah was inflexible and a realist. These fundamental human traits cost us dearly. At times, I think Jinnah was right; observing India's current situation, he predicted that after Nehru and Gandhi, there would be no trustworthy leaders. He questioned what would become of Muslims once Nehru and Gandhi were gone.
Jinnah did not wish to entrust the destiny of his community to the Congress leaders he was engaging with at that moment. He was considering the future of his community based on the kind of leaders who would emerge on the political stage after he and others were long gone. Today, his concerns have been validated. The growing hatred in India is not only shocking, but the complete lack of outrage from the majority community also highlights Jinnah's fears about the future of Muslims in India. And let's not pretend we are secular or adhering to the constitution anymore.
We can no longer claim to be the country that says "we are better than them." We are not, perhaps we were before, but not now.
Jinnah in his last response to Nehru, wrote the following:
As to the rest of your letter, it has been to me a most painful reading. It seems to me that you cannot even accurately interpret my letter, as you very honestly say that your ‘mind is obsessed with the international situation and the terrible sense of impending catastrophe that hangs over the world’, so you are thinking in terms entirely divorced from realities which face us in India. I can only express my great regret at your turning and twisting what I wrote to you and putting entirely a wrong complexion upon the position I have placed before you at your request. You have formulated certain points in your letter which you father upon me to begin with as my proposals. I sent you extracts from the press which had recently appeared simply because I believed you when you repeatedly asserted and appealed to me that you would be grateful if I would refer you to any recent statements made in the press or platform which would help you in understanding matters.
Those are some of the matters which are undoubtedly agitating Muslim India, but the question how to meet them and to what extent and by what means and methods, is the business, as I have said before, of every true nationalist to solve. Whether constitutional changes are necessary, whether we should do it by agreement or conventions and so forth, are matters, I thought, for discussion, but I am extremely sorry to find that you have in your letter already pronounced your judgment and given your decisions on a good many of them with a preamble which negatives any suggestion of discussion which may lead to a settlement, as you start by saying ‘I was somewhat surprised to see this list as I had no idea that you wanted to discuss many of these matters with us; some of these are wholly covered by previous decisions of the Congress, some others are hardly capable of discussion’, and then you proceed to your conclusions having formulated the points according to your own notions.
Your tone and language again display the same arrogance and militant spirit as if the Congress is the sovereign power and, as an indication, you extend your patronage by saying that ‘obviously the Muslim League is an important communal organization and we deal with it as such, as we have to deal with all organizations and individuals that come within our ken. We do not determine the measure of importance or distinction they possess,’ and then you mention various other organizations.
Here I may add that in my opinion, as I have publicly stated so often, that unless the Congress recognizes the Muslim League on a footing of complete equality and is prepared as such to negotiate for a Hindu-Muslim settlement, we shall have to wait and depend upon our inherent strength which will ‘determine the measure of importance or distinction it possesses’. Having regard to your mentality it is really difficult for me to make you understand the position any further. Of course, as I have said before, I do not propose to discuss the various matters, referred to by you, by means of and through correspondence, as, in my opinion, that is not the way to tackle this matter.
What if Nehru had accepted the power-sharing proposals that Jinnah advocated in the 1930s? What if he had been more sincere to the concerns of a community that was the majority in significant regions of the country (Sindh, Punjab, NWFP, Bengal, Baluchistan, Hyderabad)? Could a predominantly Hindu government, claiming to represent all communities, have succeeded in preserving their identity? Jinnah comprehended these issues well, but Nehru failed to understand their importance and the context in which they were presented to him. It is surprising that, as a student of Indian history, Nehru did not grasp the underlying significance of power-sharing for the Muslims.
Muslims believed they could still be part of a joint central government, and they felt that their cultural and historical role in India needed recognition after independence. They thought their contributions to India over the centuries could not be dismissed by an indifferent central authority that overlooked their fundamental rights.
In a sense, Jinnah was offering a solution to the dilemma, attempting to convey to Nehru that these concerns were legitimate and not merely his personal opinions that could be dismissed. However, Nehru and the Congress Party, in general, were unwilling to acknowledge that the issues raised by Jinnah deserved genuine and serious consideration. Jinnah was addressing a strategic issue, while Nehru viewed it from a tactical perspective. Consequently, the clash was unavoidable, and Partition became inevitable.
No one noticed the direction in which things were heading.
The exchange between the two further reinforced Jinnah's perception of the Congress Party and the approach he needed to adopt for full independence. This clarified in his mind the necessary actions, ultimately resulting in the declaration of the Pakistan Resolution in March 1940, in Lahore. This declaration was not a sudden outburst from Jinnah, the idea of Pakistan was building for couple of decades in the hearts and minds of many Muslims.
Politics involves evaluating opponents, seeking compromise, and finding common ground. At times, demands may seem unjust, and an opponent's position might appear insincere. However, understanding the historical and social context of a leader's perspective is essential to acknowledging and respecting the other side's views. The British were responsible for unifying the various regions of the subcontinent into the political entity known as India. Prior to British rule, there was no single political boundary encompassing India. Regions like Punjab, the Marathas, the Deccan, and Bengal were separate and completely independent entities.
The concept of India did not exist before the British, although there were different empires that included areas from Bengal to Afghanistan, but not as a single political entity that the British managed to create. When the idea of an independent India emerged and the political discourse about its future was discussed by concerned parties, such as Muslims under Mr. Jinnah's leadership and Dalits under Mr. Ambedkar's leadership, their genuine concerns about their role in that independent India could not be ignored. Jinnah saw an escape route and was relentless in pursuing it. As someone said about him, he had a pistol and he used it.
No one noticed that their choices would affect so many lives. It pains me to hear about the children who fled to the fields to avoid the mob. No one noticed how the idea of separation would affect the most vulnerable among us. We are not a society that readily accepts the idea of migration. The assumption that people would either remain where they were or be compelled to leave the newly formed countries was poorly thought out. We consisted of nations within a larger nation. Muslims in Punjab lived in their own realm, distinct from the Hindu culture of the United Provinces. For them, separation was logical, but for those in other areas, the concept of Partition was unfathomable.
In a land of constant contrasts, how can one formulate a power-sharing strategy acceptable to all? It’s impossible, and Jinnah realized that. Initially, he pursued a political resolution within a united India, but eventually, the differences and the apathy from the other side became too great. It wasn’t Jinnah's choice; it was the reality thrust upon him. Sometimes I think he was in control, but other times I believe he was merely trying to lead his community through the chaos that he was partly responsible for creating.
Partition was separation of minds. People who did not trust us, left us. But there are so many other communities who remained. They chose India because they trusted the promise of India. Not every Muslim wanted Pakistan and there were millions who chose to stay in India because they believed in Nehru and Gandhi's vision of India. Sikhs chose India and refused the "blank check" offered by Jinnah to keep Punjab united. Dalits wanted equal protection and representation in the government. India is a nation consisting of many nations, it cannot be a community of one. If that is what the majority wants, then we need our own escape routes.
Maybe this is the reason, those who can escape are moving out of India in larger numbers. But many can't, the poor can't, the millions of children who are not getting food or are out on the streets begging for money, they can't escape either. I'm seeing a complete breakdown of the quality of life in India. Only few are making money, rest are just lingering on for the sake of just lingering on. Who will represent them?
In my recent visit to India, I felt that there is a sense of malaise settling in, the feeling that things are not heading in the right direction. Hate has filtered through in our perception of others. As if someone is taking away someone else's right to exist. No one notices the hardened attitude people have now formed towards each other. No one seems to be happy. Almost all are drowning in debt, taxes, inflation and lack of business growth. Seems like a million mutinies are about to happen at any time.
The moment we free oursleves from seeing India from the prism of religion, we can move on to other things that are important in life, such as jobs, education, healthcare and economic expansion. We have failed in all these measures. We have failed our chilldren, we have truly failed our children.
Opmerkingen