Jinnah and his defence of Bhagat Singh

Jinnah and his defence of Bhagat Singh
19/01/2008 at 3:09 pm (Uncategorized)
Jinnah and his defence of Bhagat Singh
Chaman Lal
Storm created by BJP President L.K. Advani,s comments made about Jinnah, while laying wreath on his mausoleum in Karachi, is being tried to be buried now by making some excuses in the name of resolution. However this controversy has again brought into centre-focus the role of different political personalities during Indian freedom struggle. Though historians of modern India and journalists continuously keep on commenting upon or evaluating the role of political characters of national freedom struggle , yet the need remains that this debate should not be based on sensation created by a statement of a political leader, rather it should be based on facts and events and it should be objectively analyzed in a complete dispassionate manner. It should not take the shape of ‘A storm in a Tea-cup’.
In this context, first and foremost fact is that most leaders of Indian freedom struggle had contradictions in their personality, whether it was Mahatma Gandhi , Netaji Subhash Bose or Mohammad Ali Jinnah or some other leaders.Political leaders of free India are no less free from contradictions including LK Advani, who, at one time , to create communal tension, takes on Rathyatra, expresses joy at his volunteer’s demolition of Babri Mosque on 6th December’ 92 and at another time describes 6th December 92 as ‘the saddest day of my life’.Even the so-called secular Congress has no less contradictions, which has a big vision of Gujrat massacre of Muslims in 2002 as fascist specter, but which conveniently does not look at the thousands of Sikhs crushed under the weight of ‘A Big Tree’s Fall’ in 1984.
Mahatma Gandhi used to say that ‘ Pakistan will be built on my dead body’ Creation of Pakistan did not cause his death, but the extreme form of Hindutva took with life, ironically Gandhi was trying to resolve the caste and religions contradiction of Indian society within the frame work of a ‘tolerant and liberal Hinduism; Neta Ji Subhash Chander Bose got stuck in them whirlwind of world politics, where on one side were British imperialists, from whom he wanted to liberate India, but on the other side were Fascist Hitler/ Mussolini/Tojo, on whom he was depending for help, ultimately leading to his tragic end. Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, who was once ideal of Madan Lal Dhingra like revolutionary nationalists, because of his book in 1857 revolt, turned out to be spokesman of extreme Hindutva and apologizer to British imperialists. He also became an accused in Gandhi murder case, though acquitted by the court, his image did not get acquitted of communal personality. In fact his extreme Hindutva ideology had led to the counter extreme Muslim separatist ideology of Jinnah.
After all what is the root cause of all these contradictions? For any political personality, to gain political power is the ultimate reality and the highest ambition of his life. This reality is not limited to India or Asia, this is true for any country of the world. That is why seeing the occasion of gaining political power in 1947, when British imperialist power has declared its intention to transfer power by June 1948, neither Gandhi-Nehru-Patel nor Jinnah could resist the temptation of gaining early power, whereas the one year period was meant for an orderly and bloodless transition, in view of the high tensions of communal divide among Hindu and Muslim community. Without making any administrative and political preparation, power was transferred in great hurry in Aug. 1947, the worst rainy season for population exchange; resulting in massacre of six lakh innocent lives, displacement of more than one crore people and subjection of lakhs of women to worst crime of rape and maiming of limbs. Had this whole operation been planned in a patient and orderly manner, it would have exposed the incurable disease of Jinnah and may be by the passage of little more time, the division of country could have been avoided. But British imperialism in order to weaken the newly independent nations and for creating a permanent tension in the area, conspired to divide the country through an early operation of power transfer. Under the circumstances, Nehru’s address to Central Assembly on 14th Aug. night-‘ Tryst with Destiny’ became ‘historic’ for India and Jinnah’s address quoted by Advani became ‘historic’ for Pakistan.
Facts have rightly been brought to light about Jinnah’s personal conduct, which was never of a communal of fundamentalist Muslim or Mullah. Coming from a upper middle class family, as a successful Barrister, Jinnah was sufficiently liberal in thought and gentle in behaviour. He was never committed to ‘Namaz’, took ‘drinks’, was sensitive towards literature-culture. That is why poetess Sarojini Naidu called him ‘apostle of Hindu Muslim unity’. Birender Kumar Barnwal in his recently published book in Hindi ‘Jinnah: a Relook’ has narrated in detail, Jinnah’s love for Parsi girl Rattan Bai, who left her family to marry Jinnah and who was truly devoted to him. In fact her death in 1929 and Savarkar’s Hindutva turn made Jinnah a broken and bitter man and in later thirties he took turn towards Muslim separatist politics. But one should be aware of interesting facets of Jinnah’s personality, prior to this turn. Jinnah was close to Bal Ganga Dhar Tilak brand of politics before his turn around.
On 12th and 14th Septeber 1929, in Central Assembly, Jinnah made a long speech in context of Bhagat Singh and his comrade’s hunger strike and British imperialist design to hang these patriots with the sham of a trial ‘in absence of the accused’. It was the time, when even many Congressmen in assembly had condemned Bhagat Singh and B.K. Dutt for throwing bombs in assembly on 8th April 1929, for which they were ‘transported for life’, within one month in May 1929. When they went on hunger strike in jail in protest against misbehavior with them by jail staff and to demand status of political prisoner and human behavior with them in jail, British came with an amendment in criminal procedure code waiving the condition of presence of accused or their pleader in the court, thus by a sham trial convicting them in hurried manner.
The Tribune’s special correspondent for Shimla reported that while participating in the debate in central assembly on British bill, on 12th Sept. 1929, Jinnah said, The man who goes on hunger strike has a soul. He is moved by the soul and he believes in the justice of his cause’. The Tribune report mentioned, ‘Mr. Jinnah created a profound impression by the excellent form in which he argued the case. xxx Mr. Jinnah was proceeding in this strain winning applause after applause from the spellbound house’. (Quoted by A.G. Noorani in his book ‘The Trial of Bhagat Singh’) The Tribune on 14th July 1929, published the full statement of Bhagat Singh and Batukeshwar Dutt as red out by Diwan Chaman Lall in the house.
Jinnah referred to Punjab in his speech by saying that’ the Punjab seems to be a terrible place…..’. He questioned the British Government, while discussing the amendment proposed by Home member James Crerar, ‘Do you wish to prosecute them or persecute them?
Crerar not only damned Bhagat Singh and Dutt, he condemned 1915-17 first Lahore conspiracy case and 1925 Kakori case prisoners as well.
Jinnah challenged law member of the assembly to starve himself a little to know the impact of hunger strike on human body by saying-‘ it is not everybody who can go on starving himself to death. Try it for a little while and you will see’.
To Mr. Crerar, he rebutted by giving an example of Mr. Cosgrave, Prime Minister of Ireland, who was under sentence of death, a fortnight prior to getting invitation to form Government. Jinnah said in so many countries, not only youth, but even grey bearded persons have committed serious offenses, moved by patriotic impulses.
Jinnah asked British Government that after all what these youth were demanding from government, by going on hunger strike-‘Do they want spring mattresses? Do they want dressing tables? Do they want a set of toile requisites? No, Sir, they asked for bare necessities and a little better treatment. I ask you in all decency, why cannot you concede this small thing?’
Jinnah’s speech began on 12 Sept. and was concluded on 14th Sept. He put the British Government on mat by his brilliant exposure of British design-‘ Don’t you think that, instead of trying to proceed with an iron hand and pursuing a policy of repression against your own subjects, It would be better if you realized the root cause of the resentment and of the struggle, that the people are carrying on?’
Jinnah even warned the government in this context-‘ Money of the tax payer will (must) not be wasted in prosecuting men, nay citizens, who are fighting and struggling for the freedom of their country.’ According to A.G. Noorani, Jinnah had high esteem for Bhagat Singh and his comrades. Jinnah also said that if this amendment was passed then the trial would be just ‘ a travesty of justice’.
Jinnah was supported my Moti Lal Nehru, Jaykar, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai etc. Amendment was carried through by 55 votes against 47. Jinnah had voted against. Even in February 1929 speech in assembly, Jinnah had condoled the death of Lala Lajpat Rai, with whom he had cordial relations. Also he pleaded for the release of Sikh leaders gaoled in connection with Sikh Gurdwara Act and opposed the detention of many nationalists like Vallabh Bhai Patel, Anne Besant, Ali Brothers, Hasrat Mohani etc.
Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev were tried under the amended act and after a sham trial, were hanged on 23 March 1931, ‘ A travesty of justice’, in the words of Jinnah.
The question arises after looking through the fiery nationalist role of Jinnah prior to 1930, that having such rational (and national) views, why Jinnah played a fundamentalist communal separatist politics?
To search the answer, look at some examples from modern world politics- Mao- ‘Political power grows out of barrel of a gun’, Deng- ‘It hardly matters whether a cat is black or white, it should catch mice.’ 1967 – United Front Governments in eight states comprising Jansangh, Akalis, Socialists and Communists; 1977- Janta Party Government consisting of Jansangh and Socialists, supported by CPM; 1989- V.P. Singh Government, supported by BJP on one hand and by left on the other.
Few other instances of short cut communal politics in free India- Amrinder Singh resigning from Congress and Parliament in 1984 against Blue Star Operation, then getting readied to lead Akali Government in 1986, courtesy Governor S.S. Ray, just loosing the chance in nick of time, signing Khalistani declaration submitted to U.N. Secretary General Boutres. M. Ghali along with brother in law Simranjit Singh Mann, again joining Congress and leading Punjab Government in 2002, threatening Mann of arrest for raising Khalistani demand now. Same is the case of Savarkar, Advani, Vajpayee. To garner majority Hindu vote bank, the politics of blind prejudices against minorities. By riding the Ram Rath in 1990 to power in Delhi in 1998; allowing Gujrat massacre of Muslims by Modi Government in 2002; now under American pressure, singing the song of Indo-Pak friendship and to gain political power again, to lure Muslim votes- Jinnah drama. Jinnah also did the same, but in reverse order, first liberal then fundamentalist, same was with Savarkar. But Advani, Vajpayee are first fundamentalists, then trying to be ‘liberal’. Is not repeating the history called – A Farce!!
xxx
• Writer is Professor at J.N.U. New Delhi and editor of ‘Bhagat Singh’s Complete Documents’ in Hindi.
Professor Chaman Lal
Centre of Indian Languages (SLL & CS)
J.N.U. New Delhi- 110067
Mobile-98687-74820

Hidden history unmasks …… Nehru | DRAVIDA PERAVAI

Hidden history unmasks …… Nehru | DRAVIDA PERAVAI

UNDERSTANDING B.R. AMBEDKAR
Harish K. Puri


"Understanding B.R. Ambedkar" by Dr. Harish Puri provides certain parameters for fixing Ambedkar's role in India's unity and integrity. While working with M.K. Gandhi, and J.L. Nehru, Dr. Ambedkar recorded his experiences in his writings. Readers are invited to respond to the portrayal of Baba Sahib Dr. B. R. Ambedkar's personality and contribution by Dr. Harish Puri. A retired professor of Guru Nanak Dev University Amritsar, (Punjab) Dr. Puri headed Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Chair in the Political Science Department. He has authored many books on India's freedom movement.


There is a widespread misunderstanding about B.R. Ambedkar’s ideas and role particularly with regard to the independence and unity of India. Reasons for that are well known. Ambedkar did not join the Indian National Congress-led struggle for independence. In fact he denounced the Congress and opposed the Quit India Movement. He became a member of Viceroy’s Executive Council and was, therefore, accused of loyalty to the British rulers and dubbed as a ‘traitor’. At the Round Table Conference, he pleaded for a separate electrorate and reservations of seats for the minority community of “untouchables”, as for several other minority communities. When that was conceded by the British government in the Communal Award 1932, Ambedkar was accused as an evil genius bent upon dividing the Hindus. Mahatma Gandhi’s fast unto death against the provision pitted the mainstream public opinion against him. He was held guilty of putting Gandhi’s life in danger. His support for Muslim League’s demand for Pakistan was no less galling to many Indian nationalists. The burning of a copy of the Manusmriti, his trenchant criticism of Hindu social system, rejection of Hindu religion and ultimately his conversion to Buddhism along with over a hundred thousand untouchables were regarded as affronts to the Hindu community. Many observers of the Indian political scene today believe that the policy of ‘reservation’ and special concessions to the Scheduled Castes which was later extended by the V.P. Singh government to include Other Backward Classes (OBCs), has been a cause of social divides and instability of the political system. Ambedkar was regarded as the original villain of piece. As a consequence, there has been a controversy regarding his contribution. Not many non-Dalits, cared to understand and appreciate his fundamental contributions to the enrichment of social and political thinking in India

Ambedkar’s distinct contribution to the unity of India lies in two domains. One related to the preparation and adoption of a constitutional framework which could provide for adequate safeguards for the territorial integrity and political unity of India. This was the work for which he was profusely lauded. The second related to a distinct conceptualization of good society and the “unity of the people” in this vast country of multiple diversities and entrenched inequities. Through that he laid the basis for a radical socio-economic change. This was a highly contested domain. He was not alone. He shared with Jawaharlal Nehru a new humane and just social order. But Ambedkar was more skeptical. Perhaps, no other leader was so acutely conscious of the strength and tenacity of the entrenched social forces which were ranged against the agenda of social transformation.

Ambedkar’s social location at the bottom of caste and class hierarchy provided a view of the social reality from below. Those at the higher and top levels, saw the world differently. Gandhi’s experience of social discrimination in South Africa and India shaped his anti racial anti-colonial discourse. The massacre at Jallianwala Bagh in April led him to regard the British rule as ‘satanic’. Ambedkar’s life experience as an ‘untouchable’ determined the direction of his discourse and struggle against the structure and practice of caste oppression. End of caste inequalities and guarantee of just status for minorities were to him the essential conditions of human dignity and unity, more important then political freedom. Others thought differently. However, given the strength of the hegemonic force in the Constituent Assembly, the provision for social transformation was grudgingly and partially included in the constitution. Even the limited agenda was only partially implemented. The society and the polity are apparently more fractured today. But the social and political assertiveness of the earlier downtrodden has the potential for accelerating social change. Appreciation for Ambedkar’s constribution to India’s unity in this respect remains misunderstood and divided along caste-class lines.

Let us now look to his position and what did he actually do in the two domains.Despite his vigorous struggle for separate electorates for ‘untouchables’, he had made one thing very clear to the British at the Round Table Conference: “It is only in a Swaraj Constitution that we stand any chance of getting political power into our own hands, without which we cannot bring salvation to our people”. Mahatma Gandhi told him categorically, when Ambedkar met him for the first time on 14 August, 1931: that “from the reports that have reached me of your work at the Round Table Conference, I know that you are patriot of sterling worth”. Let there be no doubt about Ambedkar’s patriotism. But he was convinced that freedom of the country does not necessarily mean freedom of the people.

As mentioned before his social location made him the only prominent leader of his time to counter-pose a view of Indian reality from below to that of the mainstream political leaders. He was opposed to the Congress conception of nationalism. Professor M.S. Gore has discussed, for example, that there was a clear opposition between Nehru’s and Ambedkar’s points of view on Indian history. Nehru’s viewpoint, as clearly laid out in his Discovery of India, was that there was a definite undercurrent of synthesis and unity in the midst of great diversity. Ambedkar’s, on the other hand, was that India’s was a deeply divided and stratified society with conflicting cultural streams. Nehru’s view reflected the ideology of the mainstream and Ambedkar’s that of ‘minority’ groups. The logic of historical evolution of nationalism points to the fact that nationalism generally reflects the ideology of the emerging ruling class. Since it represents the ideas and interests of the most advanced segment of society, it is basically sectarian. Ambedkar was very clear that blind nationalism could turn out to be dangerously anti-people. It has to be resisted and given a strong social foundation of equality.
It is understandable that during their fight against the British rulers, the “nationalist” ideology emphasized on homogeneity of the people claiming for them a national identity. So they not only de-emphasized internal differences based on class, caste, religion, region, language etc., but also regarded reference to these differences as divisive and anti-national. Ambedkar denied the commonality of interest between Hindus of all castes or Indians of all communities. So he stressed upon legal constitutional safeguards for the untouchables and other minorities. But he knew that mere legal safeguards were not enough. He therefore also advocated that the untouchables must organize and relentlessly agitate for securing their rights of equality and justice.
Whereas to the mainstream nationalist leadership the primary struggle was for political freedom, Ambedkar saw in that kind of freedom the threat of a more arrogant and unhindered domination and ‘oppression’ of the upper caste and upper class, over the lower caste/class strata socially, economically and politically. Under that kind of rule by the hegemonic forces the possibility of social reform for reducing inequity would become even more remote. Therefore, he emphasized upon the urgency of social reform, before political freedom. He became convinced by the middle of 1930s, that even for Gandhi, the first choice was a struggle for freedom rather than for eradication of untouchability. Thus, he could not become a part of the mainstream national struggle.
In his distinctly different struggle, however, he was deeply concerned about strengthening the Indian polity. When the Simon Commission came to India in 1928 to prepare recommendations for new constitutional arrangement including provincial autonomy, the Congress launched a boycott of the Commission. Ambedkar, on the other hand, appeared before it, to present his memorandum and discuss important issues. One of the clear positions he took may be stated. He argued:
While I am anxious to see that there should be established complete provincial autonomy, I am opposed to any change which will in any way weaken the central government or which will impair its national character or obscure its existence in the eyes of the people… My view is that the national government should be so placed as not to appear to stand by virtue of the provincial government.
He thought a strong central government was necessary to safeguard political unity. He then presented very clear-cut recommendations.
That all residuary powers must be with central government;
That central government must have the specific power to coerce a recalcitrant or rebellious province acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the country;
That all powers given to a provincial government in case of its non-functioning shall return to the central government;
That the election to the central legislature shall be direct, (Writings and Speeches of Dr. Ambedkar, Vol. II, p.385).
When he was given the task of drafting the constitution, one of his major objectives was safeguarding the unity of India, besides ending of “untouchability” and providing safeguards for Scheduled Castes and minorities. India had been partitioned and about 550 princely states existed with sovereign or semi-sovereign status. Holding India together was a daunting task. The threat to unity was ominous. Ambedkar brought his exceptional legal, constitutional expertise to the building of a framework for unity and pleaded with skill and passion for adoption of his proposals by the Constituent Assembly.
Nine sub-committees had been constituted by the Drafting Committee for dealing with different subjects and preparing drafts. What may appear surprising, the draft constitution by these sub-committees had left Indian princely states as more or less independent entities, having the liberty to frame their own constitution, including provision for their own armies. Dr. Ambedkar was disturbed and angry. He told the Constituent Assembly, “ I regard this as a most retrograde and harmful provision which may lead to the break-up of the unity of India and overthrow of the central government.” He saw to it that there was uniformity between the provinces and the Indian princely states in their relationship to the Centre.
Unity of India, according to him, required both a strong central government and a federal system. He was personally more inclined towards a unitary government. As he told the Constituent Assembly, “What perturbs me greatly is the fact that India has not only once before lost her independence but she lost it by the infidelity and treachery of her own people.” He cited several instances and then raised the question: “Will history repeat itself? Our independence will be put in jeopardy a second time and probably be lost for ever. We must be determined to defend our independence till the last drop of our blood.” (Keer, op.cit)

The central government had to be “a powerful stimulus in the formative period.” Articles 355, 356 and 365 of the present constitution were in essence based on such an arrangement under the Government of India Act 1935. He preferred to use the word “Union” instead of federation. But he was not innocent about the dangers of a very strong central government. “We must resist the tendency to make it stronger”, he said. “It cannot chew more than it can digest. Its strength must be commensurate with its weight. It would be a folly to make it so strong that it may fall by its own weight.” The division of powers between the centre and the states was therefore, necessary. An important central feature of the constitution was that it was made flexible. The strong defence of the parliamentary government for its mechanism of ministerial accountability and of the nominal position of the president pointed to his concern for checks on power.

He was also deeply concerned about the social conditions for political stability in a country as large and diverse as India. Three principles appeared to him to be basic for such stability: associated life; common objectives and free social interaction. Caste system, in particular, was a major obstruction to associated life and free social interaction. It was, as he wrote in his Annihilation of Caste, against the sprit of nationalism. It killed public spirit. A caste society could have no public opinion.

Deprivation of a large section of society from property and education did not only make them servile to the upper strata of society, but also deprived the country of their loyalty and great potential contribution to social and economic development. As he emphasized in the Constituent Assembly, “India as a nation is still in infant stage. We have to go long way in cementing various social forces and binding them emotionally as a nation.” That required development of the social infrastructure of national unity. The provisions in the chapters on Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy were aimed at that. These included abolition of untouchability, rights to liberty and equality for all without discrimination, special provisions of compensatory weightage through reservations of seats in the legislative bodies, for jobs, for education; for building an egalitarian economic system and protection of the rights of the minorities, etc. However, more serious work of radical socio-economic change was yet on the agenda. The obstacles were formidable. A day before the constitution was adopted; he gave a warning as follows: On the 26th of January, 1950, we are going to enter into a life of contradictions. In politics, we will have equality and in social and economic life, we will have inequality…. We must remove the contradiction at the earliest possible moment, or else those who suffer from inequality will blow up the structure of political democracy, which this Assembly has so laboriously built up.

But the social change programme outlined in the Directives to remove the contradiction did not proceed apace. Ambedkar was totally dejected when he saw that Jawaharlal Nehru, despite his tremendous stature and power, failed to ensure legislation of even a part of the Hindu Code Bill. He, therefore, resigned from the cabinet as a protest. But the continued the struggle till this death on 6 December, 1956.

In a private latter to Madhu Limaye, Ram Manohar Lohia stated: “Dr. Ambedkar was to me a great man in Indian politics, and apart from Gandhiji, as great as the greatest of caste Hindus.” His regret was that Ambedkar refused to become a leader of “non-Harijans” and that he was so “bitter and exclusive.” There is little doubt that Ambedkar remained essentially a leader of the Untouchables and his bitterness was nowhere reflected as prominently as in his attitude towards Mahatma Gandhi. Yet, paradoxically, one complemented the other. Both of them had an emanicipatory agenda.
Mahatma Gandhi was awakened to the cause of the removal of untouchability by Ambedkar’s sledge-hammer blow of claiming a minority status for the “Depressed Classes”. But to Gandhi, it was a question of social morality; of building a new moral order. He did not recognize the political nature of the caste divisions which Ambedkar underlined. His strategy was described as that of “molecular transformation and mobilisation”. Perhaps that is why he was instrumental in “tempering of articulate casteist opinion” and making it possible for Ambedkar to achieve what he did through the law of the Constitution in free India. It may be appropriate that instead of the oppositional positioning between the Dalits and Gandhi’s caste Hindu followers, they recognize the complementary contribution of the two and get down to the completion of the unfinished agenda of Ambedkar, Gandhi and Nehru.
* Edited version of Chapter III in G. S Bal (Ed.), Understanding Ambedkar, Ajanta Books International, Delhi, 2000.
** Retired Professor, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Chair, Department of Political Science, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar
Courtesy : www.ambedkartimes.org