REFLECTIONS ON PARTITION OF INDIA Lt. Col. Partap Singh

Many years ago occurred a saga of triumph and tragedy, a unique combination the like of which had rarely been witnessed in the history of mankind. The triumph lay in India casting off its yoke of slavery, in one form or another, after centuries, through, in a large measure, peaceful and passive means. The tragedy of inestimable magnitude was in the fact of partition of the country, of the largest ever migration of millions of people under the most horrible conditions, resulting in the massacre of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, abduction of thousands of women and children, complete dislocation of life, rendering most immigrants destitute. In terms of loss of life and property, the Partition ranks third, after World War I and II, in this century. What is far worse, the victims of this tragedy were not in the least responsible for their fate. That honour must be reserved for the leaders - Indian and the British. But before analysing their role and share in the diabolic drama, let us pause for a moment and pay homage to the dead, sacrificed by incompetent leaders who had been earlier categorised by Winston Churchill as “ rascals and free booters .... these men of straw.”

The stage for the fiendish drama was the entire undivided Punjab; the actors belonged to all the three major communities. They played their parts as if seized by the devil. Almost the entire population of Muslims from the East Punjab and Hindus and Sikhs from the West Punjab had to upstick and abandon their hearths and homes with little or no notice. They were hounded, waylaid, massacred and plundered enroute to their unknown destinations. Whole train-loads of passengers were put to the sword, by the Sikhs and Hindus on this side of the border; by the Muslims on theirs. Temporary camps set up in places of worship and elsewhere, and “guarded" by the police were as unsafe as the convoys comprising of bullock carts, animals and the men who trudged along. As told by the then City Magistrate of Amritsar, P.S. Multani, over 150 Muslim women who had taken refuge in a mosque were hacked to pieces by Sikh and Hindus hooligans.

On March 13, 1947 in village Thoa Khalsa, near Rawalpindi, nearly 200 Sikh women and children jumped into the deep wells

to save their honour when their camp was raided by Muslim fanatics. Such stories could be multiplied ad nauseum. But there were some noble exceptions. Some brave Muslims risked their lives by sheltering their Hindu and Sikh friends against their marauding co-religionists just as the latter did for their Muslim friends and neighbours. These few exceptions aside, the rest - one and all - had in the twinkling of  an eye forgot the teachings of their prophets; love and compassion towards fellow beings, and gave themselves up to the worst form of bestiality, hate and cruelty.

As a community, the Sikhs suffered the most. Nearly 50 percent of their population had to give up their fertile lands and lucrative businesses in the West Pakistan and resettle themselves in the semi-arid East Punjab. That they turned this deficit area into the granary of India, contributing nearly 70 percent of its food reserves, is another story. This miracle has been achieved not because of  - but despite - the government. It is a tribute to the hardy and progressive farmers of Punjab.

In this painful episode there is one glorious chapter which should serve as Summum bonum for the future. When the Moghul governor of Sirhind, Nawab Wazir Khan, decreed in 1704 that the two younger sons of Guru Gobind Singh be bricked alive, the Nawab of Malerkotla pleaded that the lives of the Sahibzadas, aged 7 and 9, who had committed no offence should be spared. Although overruled, the Sikhs never forgot the Malerkotla Chief’s gesture. Consequently, no Muslim who crossed the boundary In Punjab nearly 250 years after the event was molested.

Let us now turn to the architects of Partition and those responsible for the consequential holocaust.

Disgusted with the condition of his people, Allama Iqbal (the author of that inspiring poem, “Sare Jahan se achha Hindustan Hamara") was the first prominent person to articulate the need for an independent Muslim homeland called Pakistan. This slogan was later adopted as the political goal by the Muslim League. Under the enlightened leadership of Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the bulk of the India’s Muslim population, particularly the U.P.-based intellectuals and fundamentalists, were convinced that their salvation lay in the creation of Pakistan. Yet, when the Cabinet Mission Plan was accepted by the Indian National Congress, the

League had no alternative but to  follow suit. Under that plan, the provinces would have had full autonomy in a truly federal structure with residual powers in respect of just three subjects - Defence, Foreign Affairs and Currency - delegated to the Centre.

The Congress Working Committee resolution accepting the Cabinet Mission Plan was adopted at its general session subsequently. However, when the newly installed party president, Jawahar Lal Nehru was asked by journalists if the constituent assembly would be bound to go by the resolution, he retorted that  the members would enter the assembly completely unfettered and that every decision, including the sharing of powers between the Centre and the States, would be taken by majority vote.

Knowing that the Muslim members would never be able to muster enough votes to ensure implementation of the Plan, the League also retraced its steps. Jinnah declared that if the Congress could go back on its promise when the British were still here, what guarantee was there that it would stick to its resolution when the former had departed. As a sequel, the League too resiled from its commitment to the Plan and redoubled its efforts to achieve independence.

In his book, “India Wins Freedom", Maulana Abul Kalam Azad vividly narrates this episode and laments that the biggest mistake of his political career was his sponsoring of Jawahar Lal Nehru to succeed him as president of the Indian National Congress.

We can , therefore, safely conclude that the one person most responsible for the partition of the country was Pt. Nehru. Others in the Congress who contributed their bit were Vallabh-bhai Patel and C. Rajagopalachari.

Gandhi had repeatedly declared, “Pakistan over my deadbody". But when the chips were down, he reconciled to the vivisection of his motherland. His other weakness was his attachment to his political heir, Jawahar Lal Nehru. A compromise was devised to save India from the trauma of partition by giving greater weightage to the Muslims in the Parliament than their numbers warranted, and by making Jinnah the first prime minister of free

India. Gandhi accepted it as a workable proposition, but Nehru would have none of it. And the doting Mahatma gave in.

Motilal Nehru, who had  headed the Committee deputed to present the Congress case before Simon commission in 1928 was not averse to India’s bifurcation into parts; the Hindu India and the Muslim India. It attracted strong protest from Prof. Puran Singh who said that in the Hindu India non Hindus would be persecuted and in the Muslim India non Muslims would meet the same fate. He prophesied that in that event the Sikhs may also opt for an independent Sikh Homeland. but Moti Lal had sown the seeds of partition which came to fruition 19 years later.

In sum, there was pervasive failure of the pre-Independence leadership in (a) being party to the partition of the country and (b) despite being aware of its consequences, doiing nothing to arrange peaceful transfer of population. It was a monumental sin against humanity.

There is, however, yet another and more prominent character in the sordid tale, i.e., Lord Louis Mountbatten, His Majesty’s Viceroy who had the mandate to grant freedom to India by June 1948. A man with an imposing physical bearing, keen intellect, an impressive orator, Mountbatten was a great leader of men. He was only a Naval Captain when, at the beginning of the Second World War, he was made the Supreme Commander of the South East Asia Command. There were admirals, generals, and air marshals, some with twice his service, under his command. After the war he was reverted to the Royal Navy in the rank of real admiral which he would have attained in the normal course.

He replaced Field Marshal Wavell who had known India for many years. Veteran of many wars, Wavell was a versatile writer, one of the best Britain has produced, a consummate soldier, statesman, upright, principled and an excellent judge of men. It is my belief that had Wavell been at the helm of affairs he would have averted the stupendous loss of life, dislocation and destruction that took place in the wake of Partition.

Despite his ability and charm of manner, flamboyant Mountbatten was impatient. He wanted to beat the deadline for the transfer of power. For reasons unknown, he decided on August 15, 1947, over 10 months before the mandatory deadline. He should have

forseen the shape of things to come as there were many communal incidents as far back as 1946 and in the first half of 1947. I have narrated above the Toha Khalsa tragedy. With a two-lakh-strong army and central and state police units, the “steel frame" of India still in tact, an orderly exchange of population could have been achieved. If necessary, martial law should have been proclaimed to ensure safety and security of the citizen. The primary task of any government worth its salt is the welfare and protection of the people. The British Indian government totally failed to live upto this sacred obligation. Mountbatten grievously let down both India and his government back home.

After Nehru had sabotaged the Cabinet Mission Plan, the working of the mind of the Congress became evident. If it could go back on solemn commitments made a few months prior to the Partition, where was the guarantee that it would honour those made years earlier? All the decisions taken during the decades of the freedom struggle about the Federal character of the constitution, with built-in safe guards for the minorities, were thrown to the winds. The minorities as well as the states, are suffering from the effects of a virtually unitary Constitution evolved by the constituent assembly. Its ugly manifestations are the situation now obtaining in the Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir and the Eastern states. Other states and ethnic groups will, in due course, become its victims and give impetus to the forces of disintegration.

Has the present leadership the wisdom to comprehend the dimensions of the crises India is passing through, and the courage to undo the wrongs of the post-1947 era? Suppression of peoples’ democratic, fundamental rights through enactment of draconian legislation and by adding over two million armed personnel to the Defence forces, Paramilitary and State Police since Independence, with unbridled power but no accountability, is no solution. There is no substitute for good management and for fulfilment of the aspiration of those segments of the people who have been deprived of their legitimate rights.