IN DEFENCE OF EDITOR’S PLEA IN PAKISTAN
Confederation averts Brahminical terrorism in sub-continent
Dr. K. JAMANADAS, “SHALIMAR”, MAIN ROAD, CHANDRAPUR - 442 402
This refers to DV, May 16, 2007, the Editor’s speech in Pakistan, wherein he advocated formation of confederation of Pakistan, Bangla Desh and India by retaining its existing boundaries and its rebuttal by N. Haq from Islamabad and Parvez Khan from Germany who snubbed the Editor for such an idea. A small article like this cannot address the problem. I think a debate is necessary.
Gandhi knew of partition
The Editor had always maintained that view. It is not the new idea of Editor. When asked, whether he welcomed India’s partition, he replied (to quote from the Ready Reference to Revolutionaries,1991, p. 6):
“The partition of India and Pakistan was a grave error. The upper caste leaders led by M. K. Gandhi conspired to divide India. They feared if Muslims remained in undivided India, they would side with SC/ST/BCs, and the upper castes would be isolated and reduced to a minority. This was a conspiracy. We must undo the partition so that we may solve many of our problems ourselves. We are for Akhand Bharat, which is a nazi slogan now forgotten, meaning uniting Pakistan and Bangladesh back with India. Are the Nazis ready?”
The Editor’s idea is approved of by Ambedkarites.
I do not think his idea to be preposterous and if some cool heads work on it, may be the thought would appear that it is the only saner idea which would be agreed to by all, if not today, tomorrow. Those who read Dr. Ambedkar’s Thoughts on Pakistan, would agree with me.
Though journalists like Jagan Fadnis maintain that M. K. Gandhi was kept in dark by Nehru and Patel about agreement between them and Mountbatten regarding partition of India, it was not true.
The Editor has mentioned that when Babasaheb’s book, Thoughts on Pakistan, was seen by C. Rajgopalchari, “a Southern fox and extraordinary cunning Brahmin from Tamilnadu”, “he was one of the first persons to grasp the significance of partition and its advantages to Brahmins”. He ran to Gandhi and explained him how giving Pakistan to Muslims is more beneficial for the Brahmins than to Muslims.
PARTITION HELPED BRAHMINS
Though RSS was opposed to partition, Nehru and Rajaji favoured it. VTR says:
“It would be difficult for the Brahmins to check the rising aspirations of the shudras and the Dalits. And when the low caste (proletariat) unrest gets uncontrollable, they are certain to join with the Muslims and Christians, their co-sufferers, as both the sections are victims of common enemy. The “Socialist Brahmins” … decided that unless the Muslims are driven out, they would prove to be greater danger to Brahmins inside. Brahmins forming less than 5 % of the total population of India will not be able to control much less thwart a revolution when it breaks out when the Dalits explode with the help of enemies of Hinduism, namely Muslims, Christians and Sikhs.”
It was after Gandhi’s consent, that all the wheels moved in accepting the proposal of Pakistan, says VTR in his book, Why Godse killed Gandhi? (1986, p. 38).
Can India ever become a Hindu Raj
In the days of Hindu Mahasabha, in my childhood, there used to be a slogan, hindustan hinduo ka, nahi kisi ke baap ka. At least they should have said, nahi kisi aur ke baap ka. All think that India can be Hindu nation. Is it possible? I think not. There is a trick in Hindutvawadis claiming population of Hindus to be 80 to 85%. They include SC/STs, whose population at a conservative estimate is not less than 25%. If one adds 20% Muslims, Sikhs, Budhists and Christians, there remain only 55%, about 35% of whom are BCs who are against the upper castes.
It is rather unfortunate that Muslim leaders also like to combine Dalits with Hindus. This, I feel, is short-sightedness. This mistake was committed by the Muslim leaders of the past, and is continued by the present-day leaders like Syed Shahabuddin also.
Our Editor says:
“Godse accuses Gandhi of divide and rule, but how can anybody divide a people if they are not willing to be divided? Hindu caste system has divided the Hindus and that is why they are too willing to be divided. RSS leaders now and then express their fear that Hindus may be reduced to a minority in India. Their fear is genuine. When Dalits and shudras realize their slavery under the Aryan invaders, the “Hindus” will be reduced to a minority. This is bound to happen soon. Already Dalits have declared they are not Hindu. So also the Sikhs. Many more will say so soon. Then the “Hindus” will become a minority.” [Why Godse killed Gandhi?, p.32]
Dr. Ambedkar’s views
Dr. Ambedkar’s monumental book deserves to be studied even now after partition by all Hindus as well as Muslims. It has maintained that though giving Pakistan to Muslims is beneficial to the Hindus, it is not beneficial to the Muslims to ask for and accept Pakistan.
Addressing the Hindus, he said:
“Once it becomes certain that the Muslims want Pakistan there can be no doubt that the wise course would be to concede the principle of it.”
To Muslims, Dr. Ambedkar asked, “Must there be Pakistan?” and raised many questions like:
1. Because a good part of the Muslim population of India happens to be concentrated in certain defined areas, which can be easily severed from the rest of India.
2. Because there is communal antagonism between the Hindus and the Muslims?
3. Because the Muslims have lost faith in the Congress majority?
4. Because the Musalmans are a nation?
5. Because otherwise swaraj will be a Hindu Raj?
HINDUISM A MENACE
He answered all these questions. The last question was the most important one: “Because otherwise Swaraj will be a Hindu Raj?” to which he himself answered:
“If Hindu Raj does become a fact, it will, no doubt, be the greatest calamity for this country. No matter what the Hindus say, Hinduism is a menace to liberty, equality and fraternity. On that account it is incompatible with democracy. Hindu Raj must be prevented at any cost. But is Pakistan the true remedy against it?”
How to avoid Hindu Raj
He had also given the method to avoid the Hindu Raj. It was to put a ban on communal parties in politics. He said:
“Not partition, but the abolition, of the Muslim League and the formation of a mixed party of Hindus and Muslims is the only effective way of burying the ghost of Hindu Raj.”
He stressed that the formation of a mixed party of Hindus and Muslims would not be difficult in India, because:
“There are many lower orders in the Hindu society whose economic, political and social needs are the same as those of the majority of the Muslims and they would be far more ready to make a common cause with the Muslims for achieving common ends than they would with the high caste of Hindus who have denied and deprived them of ordinary human rights for centuries.”
And he averred that such co-operation was seen when under the Montague-Chelmsford Reforms in most Provinces the Muslims, the Non-Brahmins and the Depressed Classes united together and worked the reforms as members of one team from 1920 to 1937, and observed that this was
“The most fruitful method of achieving communal harmony among Hindus and Muslims and of destroying the danger of a Hindu Raj.”
As Jinnah had the ability to organize and had the reputation of a nationalist:
“Even many Hindus who were opposed to the Congress would have flocked to him if he had only sent out a call for a united party of like-minded Hindus and Muslims.”
Initially, “Mr. Jinnah showed that he was for a common front between the Muslims and other non-Muslim minorities.” But later he passed in 1939, a resolution in favor of Pakistan. About this, Dr. Ambedkar observed that he has done disservice to Muslims. He explained what would happen if Pakistan came.
Pakistan is worse than useless
“Take an all-India view. Can Pakistan prevent the establishment of Hindu Raj at the center over Muslim minorities that will remain in Hindustan? It is plain that it cannot. What good is Pakistan then? Only to prevent Hindu Raj in Provinces in which the Muslims are in a majority and in which there could never be Hindu Raj. To put it differently Pakistan is unnecessary to Muslims where they are in a majority because there, there is no fear of Hindu Raj. It is worse than useless to Muslims where they are in a minority, because Pakistan or no Pakistan they will have to face a Hindu Raj. Can politics be more futile than the politics of the Muslim League? The Muslim League started to help minority Muslims (in India) and has ended by espousing the cause of majority Muslims (in Pakistan). What a perversion in the original aim of the Muslim League. What a fall from the sublime to the ridiculous. Partition as a remedy against Hindu Raj is worse than useless.”
So what did the Muslims achieve by getting Pakistan? They achieved Muslim rule in Provinces, which in any case were to be ruled by the Muslims, even in undivided India.
What did the Muslims lose by getting Pakistan? They put more Muslims under Hindu Raj more than the number escaping Hindu Raj, by creating Pakistan. Because the population of Muslims in India is more than in Pakistan.
A few points on Kashmir. Present day conception is that Kashmir problem is the main bone of contention between two countries. I have written an article “Kashmir problem from Ambedkarite view point”.
I supported the view of Dr. Ambedkar, who had suggested partition of Kashmir. Jagan Fadnis has said that Kashmir was an independent nation from Aug.15, 1947 till Oct. 27, 1947. It was because Pakistan put their armed forces there, as infiltrators, that the Hindu ruler Hari Singh asked for help from India and Indian troops were sent to Kashmir after Hari Singh signed a pact of accession with India. Does the question occur to Muslim intelligentsia, what was the need of putting military in Kashmir? Was not Kashmir a predominantly Muslim state? Why then the action by military? Similarly was not East Pakistan a Muslim state? Why military action there? Views of Dr. Ambedkar on the Linguistic Provinces would be very useful to understand the problems.
Are we really fully sovereign?
Today both India and Pakistan pretend to rule their own countries. Are they really fully independent and sovereign? Can they really negotiate with, say for example, Iran for a pipeline without consent of USA? If we are willing to surrender to wishes of America, can we not ourselves solve our own problems by negotiations? If so, what is wrong in a Confederation?
Let us see who is opposed to such an idea in India. Immediately after “independence”, the Hindu terrorists used to clamor for Akhand Bharat. Later they stopped all such talk. When some junior members tried to speak of Akhand Bharat, the seniors snubbed them. Since then only the non-Brahminical elements talk of it.
If the principle of complete autonomy of provinces is accepted, as VTR says, the Confederation of Pakistan, Bangla Desh, India (and Muslim areas in Kashmir) can be a strong country. Not only it is feasible, but it is most desirable for both Muslims and non-Muslims of the sub-continent.
By this time people from both sides of border have realized that they cannot wish away the nation across the border. Why not try to learn to live with the realities? And the best way to do so is to have a confederation. Whether the ruling dignitaries like it or not, the masses should strive for it from both sides of the border.