[Reader-list] "India's Partition Caused By Nehru Or Jinnah?"

Rakesh Iyer rakesh.rnbdj at gmail.com
Mon Aug 31 19:00:50 IST 2009


Dear Kshamendra

I don't really know how to look at some of the formulations:

1) There is a lot of debate as to whether Jinnah wanted power or not. Let's
not forget that Gandhi too, at one point of time around 1946, actually went
to Mountbatten and told him to make Jinnah the Prime Minister of India. When
Mountbatten heard that, he felt that Gandhi had gone senile. Actually,
Jinnah then refused to be the PM of India. Assuming that Jinnah wanted
power, he would have done what our power thirsty leaders have done post
independence, assuming the post of PM and changing tacks. He didn't.

2) The second problem lies with attributing the failure of partition. In
Gandhi's belief, partition, and more importantly, the violence around this
event was his biggest failure in his entire life, political or personal. He
was so sad by all this, that he had, around the time of his death, predicted
in a sarcastic way that he would die a violent death (which he did
ultimately).

For Nehru, it was Jinnah's hate of Hindus and his obstinacy which led to
creation of Pakistan. For Patel too, this might have been the case.

For Jinnah, it may have been security factor of Muslims.

However, I believe it was as much a collective responsibility of the British
and these Indian leaders, as it was for those who existed then. It was also
the people's failure. And this is not my view alone. When Vinoba Bhave, a
famous Gandhian, was asked this question: 'Who was responsible for Gandhi's
death and India's partition?', he answered (after some thought): 'Me. You.
All of us'.

Indeed, just because some of the leaders were indulging in power hungry
tactics of starting religious fights, didn't mean we all had to succumb to
it. We did. Our forefathers did. And a disastrous price was what the people
again had to pay for it. Muslims got fooled first, then Hindus and Sikhs
joined. The tactics of all those responsible for the partition were
successful, because the people involved themselves in it, as if it was a
scheme for them. They were out to take revenge by killing those who may not
have been involved in killing their relatives in any way. Is that
justifiable?

If that is justifiable, then why should Maoism be banned, when Maoists are
fighting for a cause which I feel is more just and humane? Why should the
violence caused in the name of 'azadi' be talked of as wrong as well?

I may feel that you were not in your senses as you murdered the person,
perhaps being overcome with emotions and trauma. But never would I consider
that act as right, even if I were to do that horrendous act of murder or
rape.

Jinnah and Nehru were just few leaders, the real problem is with us. Will
the public realize it now, or will we keep on killing each other to serve
the cause of those who keep on manipulating us, for their own selfish gains?


Regards

Rakesh


More information about the reader-list mailing list