kashmir myths – pakistan’s claims on Kashmir- 2
Continuing from: kashmir myths – pakistan’s claims on kashmir -1
THE LAHORE RESOLUTION:
March 1940, Nawab Sir Shah Nawaz Mamdot
“No constitutional plan would be workable or acceptable to the Muslims unless geographical contiguous units are demarcated into regions which should be so constituted with such territorial readjustments as may be necessary. That the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in majority as in the North-Western and Eastern zones of India should be grouped to constitute independent states in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign”.
Historical, Moral and Constitutional Perspectives – contd:
We pick up the threads from the events after the Quit India movement, i.e. after August 1942.
By 1944, the Muslim League had become quite weak. Jinnah faced considerable opposition even within the Muslim League. The Sind leader, Allah Baksh was a formidable rival to Jinnah, for whose public speeches only a few hundred would turn up now, as opposed to a hundred thousand in previous years. Jinnah retired from politics, a second time, and this was just three years before August 15, 1947!
On February 19, 1946, when the Labor party was in power in Britain, Prime Minister Atlee sent a delegation comprising of
Pethick-Lawrence, Secretary of State for India,
Stafford Cripps, then President of the Board of Trade, and
A.V.Alexander, the first Lord of Admiralty.On May 16, 1946, the British Cabinet Mission published its plan that had for its parts, a long-term plan toward India’s independence, and a short-term plan for governance of the region till the British completely surrendered power.
Both the Congress and the Muslim League accepted the long- term plan, but had differences over the short-term plan.
The long-term plan rejected the division of India into two separate sovereign states. Further, it did not provide for the princely states to secede from the union of India.
Statement by the Cabinet Delegation and His Excellency the Viceroy
(as issued in New Delhi on 16 May 1946).
[L/P&J/10/42: ff 53-5]
(Para) 4. It is not intended in this statement to review the voluminous evidence that has been submitted to the Mission; but it is right that we should state that it has shown an almost universal desire, outside the supporters of the Muslim League, for the unity of India.
(Para) 15. We now indicate the nature of a solution which in our view would be just to the essential claims of all parties, and would at the same time be most likely to bring about a stable and practicable form of constitution for All-India.
We recommend that the constitution should take the following basic firm:
(1) There should be a Union of India, embracing both British India and the States, which should deal with the following subjects: Foreign Affairs, Defence, and Communications: and should have the powers necessary to raise the finances required for the above subjects.
(2) The Union should have an Executive and a Legislature constituted from British Indian and States representatives. Any question raising a major communal issue in the Legislature should require for its decision a majority of the representatives present and voting of each of the two major communities as well as a majority of all the members present and voting.
(3) All subjects other than the Union subjects and all residuary powers should vest in the Provinces.
(4) The States will retain all subjects and powers other than those ceded to the Union.
(5) Provinces should be free to form Groups with executives and legislatures, and each Group could determine the Provincial subjects to be taken in common.
(6) The constitutions of the Union and of the Groups should contain a provision whereby any Province could, by a majority vote of its Legislative Assembly, call for a reconsideration of the terms of the constitution after an initial period of 10 years and at 10 yearly intervals thereafter.
Professor Deshmukh contd:
The cabinet mission returned to England on June 29, 1946, happy that both the Congress and the Muslim League had accepted the long-term plan.
We now narrate one of the most tragic instances in Indian history and see how ostensibly very minor events can change course of history. In May 1946, the Congress held elections for its next president, at the end of Moulana Azan’s term and Jawaharlal Nehru became the new President. Nehru addressed a press conference on July 10, 1946, in Mumbai, following a meeting of the Congress.
Right until that day, the amputation of India was not on the cards.
The unity of India was not threatened.To satisfy some congressmen over some of their concerns regarding the cabinet mission’s long term plan, Nehru announced at the press conference that certain aspects of the long-term plan were not resolved. This gave Jinnah the opportunity to claim that the Congress was pettifogging and haggling and could not be trusted.
Jinnah called upon the Muslim League to demand for Pakistan, rejected the cabinet mission plan, and called for a civil war against the British and against the Congress on August 16, 1946, which he declared as the Direct Action Day. A large number of Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs were killed in the! violence following Jinnah’s call for direct action.
A copy of a secret report written on 22 August 1946 to the Viceroy Lord Wavell,
from Sir Frederick John Burrows, concerning the Calcutta riots.
[IOR: L/P&J/8/655 f.f. 95, 96-107]
After the Muslim League had retracted its acceptance of the Cabinet Mission’s Plan and called for a ‘Direct Action Day’, communal violence broke out.
16-18 August saw the first wave with the ‘Great Calcutta Killing’. Around 4,000 people were killed in Calcutta and many more injured, with around 100,000 made homeless.
This report was written after the event, from the viewpoint of the British Governor of Bengal. There was criticism of Suhrawardy, Chief Minister in charge of the Home Portfolio in Calcutta, for being partisan and of Burrows for not having taken control of the situation.
The troubles then spread to the Noakhali district in East Bengal and to Bihar where approximately 7,000 Muslims were killed. There were also troubles in Bombay and the United Provinces, but little elsewhere. The original report by sir John Burrow was lengthy and laborious containing 10 pages of narratives. The following is an extract…
(Para) 2. The setting. Omitting the more remote causes of the riots – the long struggle for power between Hindus and Muslims, in which Calcutta is a focal point, the weakening of our authority which is an inevitable consequence of our impending departure, the dislocation of the normal life of Calcutta by war and famine, and the presence of a Muslim Ministry in a predominantly Hindu city – the proximate cause was the resolution of the Council of the All-India Muslim League passed at Bombay on July 29th, calling on ‘the Muslim nation to resort to direct action to achieve Pakistan’, and the consequent fixing of August 15th as ‘Direct Action Day’.
Professor Deshmukh contd:<
Viceroy Wavell was left with no choice, with the Muslim League having declared defiance, but to invite the Congress alone to form the interim government that would govern till the already approved long-term plan of India’s independence could be implemented. Realizing however that an interim Government without the Muslim League would cause only more bloodshed, and out of sheer exasperation, Nehru invited Jinnah and some other Muslim League members to join the short-term interim Government.
The Muslim League members would not cooperate with the Congress on the simplest of things, and both Patel and Nehru helplessly out of frustration reconciled with the eventual formation of Pakistan.
TERMS OF DECLARATION OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF INDIA
Prime Minister Atlee declared, on February 20, 1947, that Britain would transfer power by June 1948, by which time the Congress and the Muslim League were supposed to resolve their differences and accept some plan.
Atlee declared that if no comprehensive plan were put forth, then power would be transferred to one or more governments in different regions (as per their divide and quit policy).
Churchill, who had always remained contemptuous of India and Indian people, and had never agreed to surrender power to India, condemned the Atlee government for its resolution to transfer power to India’s politicians who were men of straw, of whom in a few years no trace would remain. The same day, the British Government recalled Wavell, since he was committed to surrendering power to a united India, and replaced him by Mountbatten as India’s last Viceroy.
Viceroy Wavell (center)
Viceroy Wavell was indeed reluctant to dividing India.
Wavell is generally considered the best Viceroy and Governor General of India, for not only he had done all his homework before he became viceroy, but he is also considered one of those British personalities who touched Indian souls and understood them.
His understanding of the Indian situation and the ignoring of his requests and proposals by Winston Churchill had made him quite frustrated. He was relieved to see Clement Attlee replace Churchill as Prime Minister in July 1945; however, he was unhappy with Attlee’s slowness to make decisions.
He had himself requested several times to be removed from his post, but his requests were turned down by London. However, had Wavell not been there, the communal tension and civic strife could have been prolonged and more bloody. Wavell was against the Partition of India, as he knew this would lead to bloodshed which neither Indians nor the British would be able to control.
Professor Deshmukh contd.
Wavell has reported in his diary that Churchill wanted him to divide India between Hindustan, Pakistan and Princestan; hence Churchill’s brief to Mountbatten: If the British could not hold India, it was best to divide her.
Communal riots broke out in February-March, 1947, and the Congress demanded the partition of Punjab and Bengal on communal lines in the hope that this would stop violence. Patel and Nehru were advised by V.P.Menon, the Reforms Commissioner and Constitutional Advisor to the last three viceroys (Linlithgow, Wavell, Mountbatten), that the Cabinet Mission plan would not work and that it would therefore be better to concede to the Muslim League’s demand for Pakistan.
THE MENON MOUNTBATTEN PLAN:
It had now become clear that India would be disintegrated and that the British would withdraw soon. Several small regions sought sovereignty.
It was decided that Atlee’s deadline of June 1948 be advanced to August 15, 1947. V.P. Menon proposed the TWO-DOMINION of INDIA and PAKISTAN plan that was accepted by Mountbatten and by Nehru on May 11, 1947.
On June 2, 1947, the Menon-Mountbatten plan was accepted by Nehru, Kripalani and Patel on behalf of the Congress, by Baldeo Singh on behalf of the Sikhs, and by Jinnah (with a nod!) on behalf of the Muslim League.
Indian Empire 1901: 565 Princely States
Professor Deshmukh contd.
The STATUS OF THE PRINCELY STATES
The British had divided what makes up for the present Bangladesh, India and Pakistan into several segments.
About 40% of this territory came under ‘British India’ over which alone the British Parliament could legislate.
The British Parliament did NOT legislate for the remaining 60% of the territory that was ruled by the princes, the maharajas, and the nizams, and they reported to the Viceroy.
There were nearly six hundred of these princely states. The Indian princely states were left free to decide if they would stay independent or join one of the two countries.The British Government’s ruling, contained in His Majesty’s Government’s statement of June 3, 1947 was clear: the decision announced about the partition relates only to British India (seven provinces) and that their policy towards the Indian (princely) states remains unchanged .
There was no provision to influence the destiny of the princely states with regard to any communal factor, which was the governing factor for the partition only of British India over which alone did the British Parliament legislate. The future of the nearly six hundred princely states was thus completely, exclusively and irrevocably to be determined by their monarchs.
PAKISTAN DECLARATION 1933:
NOW OR NEVER: ARE WE TO LIVE OR PERISH FOR EVER?
Rahmat Ali’s Pakistan Declaration issued on January 28, 1933 from Cambridge.
At this solemn hour in the history of India, when British and Indian statesmen are laying the foundations of a Federal Constitution for that land, we address this appeal to you, in the name of our common heritage, on behalf of our thirty million Muslim brethren who live in PAKSTAN – by which we mean the five Northern units of India, Viz: Punjab, North-West Frontier Province (Afghan Province), Kashmir, Sind and Baluchistan – for your sympathy and support in our grim and fateful struggle against political crucifixion and complete annihilation.
This is more especially ture when there is just and reasonable alternative to the proposed settlement, which will lay the foundations of a peaceful future for this great continent; and should certainly allow of the highest development of each of these two peoples without one being subject to another. This alternative is a separate Federation of these five predominantly (sic) Muslim units – Punjab, North-West Frontier (Afghan Province), Kashmir, Sind and Baluchistan.
The States of Kalat (Balochistan) and Kashmir, were princely states and never under the legislate of the British Parliament. Their future was not going to be decided by the Partitioning of India. Yet the future rulers of Pakistan, by proclaiming the name “Pakistan” proves that as early as in 1933, they had decided on the future of these states.
Professor Deshmukh contd.
PAKISTAN WAS CONCEIVED AND FORMED AS A MUSLIM STATE
INDIA WAS NOT, BY DEFAULT, FORMED AS A HINDU STATE.Sardar Patel led a marathon and magnificent campaign that can be compared perhaps only with the unification of India by the Mouryas or the Guptas and got most of the princely states to take suitable decisions.
These princely states were encouraged to accede to either Pakistan or to India as per the wishes of their rulers. It was expected, naturally, that the rulers would keep in mind the interests of their subjects. Given the treatment handed to the Muslims from India who went to Pakistan, any Government of Jammu and Kashmir, it was obvious, would opt only for accession with India.
Pakistan was conceived and formed as a Muslim state. India was not, by default, formed as a Hindu state. Most of the princely states acceded to one or the other country in a very dignified way, governed by simple logistics. However, there were some exceptions…
Viceroy Wavell’s had concluded his presentation with:
(Para) 24. To the leaders and people of India who now have the opportunity of complete independence we would finally say this. We and our Government and countrymen hoped that it would be possible for the Indian people themselves to agree upon the method of framing the new constitution under which they will live.
Despite the labours which we have shared with the Indian Parties, and the exercise of much patience and goodwill by all, this has not been possible. therefore now lay before you proposals which, after listening to all sides and after much earliest thought, we trust will enable you to attain your independence in the shortest time and with the least danger of internal disturbance and conflict.
These proposals may not, of course, completely satisfy all parties, but you will recognise with us that at this supreme moment in Indian history statesmanship demands mutual accommodation. We ask you to consider the alternative to acceptance of these proposals. After all the efforts which we and the Indian Parties have made together for agreement, we must state that in our view there is small hope of peaceful settlement by agreement of the Indian Parties alone.
The alternative would therefore be a grave danger of violence, chaos, and even civil war. The result and duration of such a disturbance cannot be foreseen; but it is certain that it would be a terrible disaster for many millions of men, women and children. This is a possibility which must be regarded with equal abhorrence by the Indian people, our own countrymen, and the world as a whole.
We therefore lay these proposals before you in the profound hope that they will be accepted and operated by you in the spirit of accommodation and goodwill in which they are offered. We appeal to all who have the future good of India at heart to extend their vision beyond their own community or interest to the interests of the whole four hundred millions of the Indian people.
We certainly got that one historically wrong.
Kashmir
history
India
Pakistan
propaganda
human rights
To be continued
kashmir myths - pakistan’s claims on kashmir- 3 | "me no big chief ... said this on October 18th, 2008 at 10:40
[…] Continuing from: kashmir myths – pakistan’s claims on kashmir -2 […]