Several books have been published since 1947 on the question of how India was divided. The more old government documents and autobiographical books of the politicians of that era come out, the more mysteries are revealed. Immediately after the partition of India, he was unilaterally convicted by the Muslim League, especially the leader of the Muslim League, Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, and was given the title of Bashambad Das of British puppet-imperialism. It was said that the partition of India would not have been necessary if the Muslim League had not raised the issue of biracialism or if the Muslim leaders had any willingness to compromise. No one was willing to discuss what responsibilities Congress leaders might have. Whenever any book or discussion has come out in support of Pakistan at home and abroad, it has been termed as a distortion of history.
Although there is self-contradiction in the argument of Indian writers, no one has taken it into account in politics. In impersonal discussions, they have sometimes acknowledged the ethnographic, linguistic and cultural diversity of the Indian subcontinent. That said, there is more diversity in India than in Europe. But they did not hesitate to say that India is one nation. Many are in trouble trying to determine the nature of this nationality. No one has been able to come up with an indisputable definition of why India should be called a nation, despite the differences in customs, usage, religion, culture, language and social life. When a man like Jawaharlal Nehru went to discover the true form of India in his Discovery of India, what he discovered was the form of Hindu India, not all of India’s medieval history fit into his definition. Because, that history was the history of the Muslim era. Everything that Muslims have done in architecture, literature, fine arts, lifestyle – the imprint of which will never be erased. Nehru did not give him Amal.
Similarly, the nationalism that Arvind Ghosh wanted to establish on Indian culture was Gita-based culture. Islam had no place in it. It is true that some scholars like Dr. Tarachand have acknowledged the contribution of Islam in Indian life, but no Hindu leader involved in politics has actually acknowledged it. On the other hand, in the book, all the scholars, local and foreign, have identified these two main groups as Muslims and Hindus as representatives of two different civilizations.
The Congress was formed in 185. At first there was not so much emphasis on nationalism as there was on building an all-India political arena. But then far-sighted people like Sir Syed Ahmed were warning the Muslims. He said that where the interests of the two groups were not the same, there would be danger if they joined the same political organization. His prediction came true. Because, when the Congress started talking about nationalism, it was seen that it was just a name for Hindu nationalism.
When Mahatma Gandhi came from South Africa and joined the Congress and other leaders were forced to accept his authority due to the influence of his personality, the Congress became more and more manifested in the form of nationalism. Gandhi openly introduced religion into politics. Talking about the ideology of Ram Rajya, he did not listen to the objection that the image of the ideology that appears in the Muslim mind is exclusively Hindu ideology. Muslims began to lose confidence in the Congress.
However, the character of Hindu politics was captured even before the advent of Mahatma Gandhi. The anti-partition movement of 1905 is particularly significant in the context of these events. The creation of a new province in the eastern part of Bengal gave impetus to the Muslim community as it saw the potential for improvement in the economy and politics but the anti-Muslim communal movement that created the tumultuous terrorism that the Hindus opposed. The terrorists used to take oath in front of Durga. The main reason for opposing the partition was that it threatened to reduce the power and influence of Hindu zamindars and moneylenders.
In the midst of all this, the true mystery of Muslim separatism is captured. At first they did not speak of an isolated state. By negotiating with the Hindus, the British wanted to create a future within the scope of the India they created. But the Congress did not allow that to happen.
All this is not new. Muslim writers have said this more than once, but they are driven by sectarian narrow-mindedness – all their arguments have been blown away.
In present day India, a clear view has been emerging among those who have begun to think anew about it. The recently published book ‘Jinnah: Pakistan: New Thoughts’ from Calcutta, starring Annada Shankar Roy, contains a lot of truth about the 1947 partition, although both the author and Annada Shankar Roy declared their own contradictory decision. On the one hand, they have shown that the cancellation of the Nehru Cabinet Mission Plan made the partition of India inevitable. On the other hand, Quaid-e-Azam Jinnah was convicted for this. The book’s reputation has been tarnished by this self-contradiction. Because, the reader only asks, if Nehru’s decision makes the partition of India inevitable, then why should Jinnah stand on the fence of history and be held accountable for it?
From here, the newly published (1991) ‘How India was divided’? The whole book is exceptional. The author Bimalananda Shasmal analyzes the character of Hindu society with a nirmoh point of view and shows that the seed of separatism was rooted in the core beliefs of that society. His courage, fearlessness is wonderful. He did not hesitate to present where he had found the truth.
Beginning with a discussion of the ancient history of India, Bimalananda Shasmal, a Hindu, admits that it is impossible for any other community to develop for the caste system of Brahmanism. Casteism is re-established on Karmaism. The lawlessness of the society as a result of which the lower caste Hindus have been persecuted for ages has been called the karma of pre-birth, i.e. no upper class is responsible for it. In this way the dominance of the Brahmin class was established in the society.
The selfishness that has worked behind this has inevitably affected the contact of the Hindu community with the non-Hindu communities. The upper class Hindus have always wanted to protect their own interests. At the slightest loss of all the privileges and privileges they have acquired, they become enraged at such fears.
In this context, Mr. Shasmal has reviewed the politics of British India. He showed that the Congress had assumed from the outset that there was no need to defend any interest other than Hindu interest. The Congress leaders were not ready to discuss the idea that the religious sentiments and self-interest of the Muslims might be different.
During the anti-Bengal movement, the differences between the Hindu and Muslim views were particularly noticeable. But the Hindus continued to call the interests of their zamindar and mahajan class as nationalism. The author unequivocally admits that the anti-partition movement was anti-Muslim.
Not that there was no liberal among the Hindus. The author’s father, Birendra Shasmal, was finally expelled from the Congress for criticizing the terrorists. Among the leaders of the Bengal Congress he understood the problems of the Muslims of Bengal. But Subhash Bose, Sarat Bose, Bidhan Roy did not support him but supported the terrorists.
Another liberal was Chirattaranjan Das or CR Das. He realized that the independence movement would not succeed by leaving the Muslims behind. Inspired by this feeling, the Bengal Pact of 1923 was signed. But with his death, when Subhash Bose rejected the pact, the last possibility of Hindu-Muslim unity vanished.
The Bengal Pact was not supposed to give any special benefits to the Muslims. The only recognition was that they would have proportional representation in the job and in the legislature. They have been neglected for so long due to their backwardness in education. But they have to give 55 per cent jobs, Hindus have to give some concessions. It was not tolerated by other Hindu leaders. More interestingly, the pact also said that music should not be played in front of mosques to hurt the minds of Muslims. Congress Hindus are now marching more and more in front of the mosque playing music. The man who led the movement in Patuakhali was Satin Sen, a local Congress leader. In the words of Bimalananda Shasmal: “Barisal leader Satin Sen started a satyagraha in Patuakhali. So that every day the satyagrahis would march in front of the mosque playing musical instruments and this illegal procession would be arrested for acting illegally. Satin Sen was the secretary of Barisal District Congress”. (107 pages)
As a result of the Patuakhali Satyagraha, 21 unarmed poor Muslims were shot dead by the police in a riot in Barisal city.
This incident in Patuakhali is significant because the movement in front of the mosque was accompanied by a movement of the Congress and the Bengali Congress leaders did not protest against it, just as the Hindu leaders of all India did not speak out against it.
After that, there was no reason for Muslims to have any doubts about the nationalism of the Congress.
Bimalnanda Shasmal has mentioned many such incidents. For example, after the 1937 elections, when Fazlul Haque’s Krishak Praja Party wanted to hold a meeting of the Coalition Minister with the Congress, Gandhi did not agree. It is also worth mentioning here that in the United Provinces (now both provinces) the Muslim League made a similar proposal to the Congress, which Jawaharlal Nehru rejected. He said such cooperation was possible only if members of the Muslim League resigned from the party and joined the Congress. According to Bimalananda Shasmal, the recklessness and short-sightedness of the Congress leadership gradually led Muslims to believe that they had no hope of living a dignified life in undivided India. Evidence that Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali was ready to compromise even after the so-called Pakistan resolution was adopted in Lahore in 1940 was found during the 1948 Cabinet Mission resolution. Even before Mr. Shasmal, many have admitted that the cabinet mission failed due to the irrational behavior of Gandhi and Nehru. Maulana Azad in his book ‘India Wins Freedom’ showed that if Nehru had not rejected the mission proposal, the partition of India would not have been necessary. Shasmal has further argued in his support.
Pakistan was not the last word for Quaid-e-Azam Jinnah. He was willing to come to a dignified settlement if given the opportunity. We have not even heard a proposal from the Congress to form a United States of India like the United States. They dreamed of Indian nationalism from the very beginning. Bimalananda has repeatedly admitted that there was no difference between this nationalism and the dream of revival of the Hindu nation.
The truth that the Congress has never acknowledged is what some Hindu leaders have said. In 1923, Bhai Paramananda said that it would be democratic to divide India into Hindu India and Muslim India. Pakistan and India are implementing that proposal a lot. But just as the Congress could not defend India’s integrity with its persistent insistence, it could not accept the 1947 resolution unconditionally. This is the root of the bitterness of his subsequent relations with Pakistan.
In New Delhi in 1962, I was shocked to hear Jawaharlal Nehru speak. In his inaugural address to the Commonwealth Education Conference, he said that Sanskrit is the foundation of Indian culture. There is no reason to doubt that the culture in which Nehru uttered this statement was Hindu culture. Nehru completely removed the civilization and culture that Muslims had created in India for seven hundred years from the definition of Indian culture. As a Hindu, of course, he had the right to say so, but he was the one who spoke the most about secular culture.
On the one hand, I was amazed at Nehru’s speech, on the other hand, I praised his outspokenness. I thought, if realism had been manifested in his politics, the advocated India would not have suffered so much.
According to the principle on which Pakistan and India were created in 1947, Kashmir should be annexed to Pakistan. Here, too, Nehru pursued a policy that forced India to break all its public commitments to the United Nations. But I will ask again, what did India get in return? All human rights in Kashmir are lost today. Inhumane torture is depriving the people of Kashmir of their right to self-determination. But sadly, even Nehru’s successors are clinging to Nehru’s irrational dream. Just as Kashmiris are losing their lives in the bloody struggle, so are Indian troops. Yet there is no end to this brutal drama. Under no circumstances will India allow a referendum in Kashmir. He knows what the outcome of the vote will be. Isn’t it about democracy – is it just imperialism?
We are happy that an honest and courageous person like Bimalananda Shasmal has come forward to unmask Hindu nationalism. The key to Indian diplomacy is to abandon the attempt to reunite a divided India into a single state. If this is abandoned, we believe that peace will return to the lives of the people of this subcontinent. An example of this is the fair value of Bimalananda Shasmal’s book.
Source: Dr. Syed Sajjad Hossain Memorial Edited by Mesbah Uddin Ahmad