Now seven decades after the tragedy on one hand we see the plight of Pakistan, sliding down on the scale of democracy, social wellbeing and progress. India which began well and strove on the path of pluralism and development is seeing the resurgence of the ‘Two Nation theory’ in the form of strengthening the communal forces which are sharpening their politics to achieve Hindu Nation. Ambedkar in his book on Partition warned that formation of Pakistan will be the worst tragedy as it may pave the way for Hindu Raj. How true was he! The attempts of Gandhi, Maulana Azad and Congress to prevent the tragedy failed to counter the British Policy of ‘Divide and rule’ greatly assisted by the ideology and politics of Communal forces of that time, Muslim League on one hand and Hindu Mahasabha-RSS on the other.

The Partition debate, the underlying two nation theory keeps surfacing time and over again in both the countries. Sectarian Nationalisms, Muslim and Hindu both, keep blaming each other for this tragedy. They undermine the deep roots of tragedy in the declining sections of society, the feudal forces, assisted by the clergy on both sides. As both these sectarian streams were on the forefront of spreading Hate, against the ‘other’ community, the communal violence went on intensifying and the figures like Gandhi, Maulana Azad could not prevent the ghastly events which followed.

While each communal stream, Hindu and Muslim have their own versions of this event, the holistic picture can be unearthed by seeing the picture through the movement and ideology of emerging Indian Nationalism and its opposition by the declining sections of Landlords and clergy on both sides.

This debate has once again come to the surface with Pakistan’s General Aim Munir. While addressing the Overseas Pakistani Convention in Islamabad, in presence of the top political leaders of the country, he eulogized the “two Nation theory”. He went on to pay tributes to the people who worked for the formation of Pakistan. Seeing one side of the picture he stated, “Our religion is different, our customs are different, our traditions are different, our thoughts are different, our ambitions are different — that’s where the foundation of the two-nation theory was laid. We are two nations; we are not one nation,”

This in contrast to the understanding particularly of Gandhi and Nehru who saw the two major communities and other smaller religious communities as interacting with each other and creating a unique syncretic culture where each component has contributed to the emergence of celebratory Indian culture. Common celebration of festivals at social level and contributions of people to all aspects of Indian culture by people of diverse religions, the unique Bhakti and Sufi traditions being the highest form of these interactions. Gandhi summed it up in his unique, Ishwar Allah Tero Naam, and Nehru articulating it as Ganga Jamuni Tehjeeb.

Two Nation theory was not a sudden articulation. As the National movement started emerging from amongst the sections of society associated with Modern Education, industries, and communication, Indian Nationalism towered over all other fissiparous ideologies. As pointed out, the other sections not associating with it and hanging on the feudal and pre-modern values threw up Muslim league on one side and Hindu Mahasabha on the other. They were exclusionist and veered round propagating the caste and gender hierarchy, standing opposed to education for Dalits and women.

The British subtly supported these trends as these were helpful for them in suppressing the National movement. One talked of Islamic Nation and the other of the Hindu Nation. Immediately after the formation of Indian National Congress the opposition to this came up in the form of Rajas and Nawabs pledging their loyalty to British rulers. Gradually these parallel streams emerged and Muslim League was formed in 1906. This was encouraged by the British. On the other side Punjab Hindu Sabha came in 1909, Hindu Mahasabha in 1915 and RSS in 1925. Both these criticized Gandhi to the hilt. Formally Two Nation theory was articulated by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and that became the guiding light of Hindu Nationalism. Muslim nationalism started talking of Pakistan by 1930 and strongly articulated in 1940 BY Jinnah in 1940.

Today RSS ideologues (BJP leaders and RSS leader, Ram Madhav: Decoding General, IE 19 April 2025) are presenting as if ‘Two Nation theory’ was only the making of Muslims through Muslim League. They underplay the great role of Allah Baksh, Maualana Azad and Khan Abdul Gaffer Khan who were opposed to the demand of Pakistan’s. Pakistan which was formed on the ‘Two nation theory’ just after 25 years of existence broke down into Bangladesh and Pakistan. That was the grave of “Two Nation Theory” Their abysmal condition is very obvious today.

While in India Hindu Nationalism was quietly being nurtured in the silent manner, its first dangerous manifestation came when RSS trained Godse put three bullets in the bare chest of Father of the nation. Its further starkly visible form came up the decade of 1980 with the most divisive campaign for demolishing Babri Masjid.

A Pakistani poet Fahmida Riyaz at this point wrote Arre Tum bhi Hum Jaise Nikle, Ab tak Kahan chhupe the bhai. (Oh you have turned out to be like us, where were you hiding so far!). After this the attacks on the concept of secularism, inclusive politics and values of Indian Constitution were intensified and now the emotive issues have taken the centre state. The product of “Two Nation theory” Pakistan, is in the grip of Mullahs-army and has been servile to America. The other component of “Two Nation Theory”, Hindu Nation has also more or less occupied the centre stage in India. Values and outcome of Nationalism on both sides of the divide are same, only form is different. The Criticism of ‘two Nation theory’ and attributing it only to Muslims and Muslims is half the truth!

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author’s personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sabrangindia.

Also Read:

Standing Truth on its Head: Ambedkar and BJP agenda

Striving to Promote Democracy: Values of the Constitution

The post Composite Indian Nationalism or ‘Two Nation Theory’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

We shall make an attempt to debunk the more “popular myths” associated with Bose through his own writings and correspondence. The three primary myths to be debunked are about one, Nehru and Bose’s relations, two, Bose and Patel’s relations and three, why and how Bose’s appropriation by the majoritarian communal forces reflects a greatest irony.

‘The rift between Nehru and Bose’

It is one of the most favourite pastimes of various right wing organizations to pit Bose against Nehru in their attempt to show how they were antagonistic to each other. However, the reality is contrary to what is being portrayed. Subhash Chandra Bose had been deferential to CR Das and Motilal Nehru since his inception in politics. With the passage of time, Subhash and Jawaharlal came to be seen in a similar light, both representing the left wing within the Congress. Both of them surged ahead as icons and the favourite leaders of youth. Their popularity could be gauged from the fact that the charismatic youth leader of the time, Bhagat Singh, himself wrote an article on the two titled, ‘New Leaders and their Different Ideologies’ in Kirti magazine in 1928. The two had opposed the dominion status of the Nehru Report and had been adamant to amend this clause at the Calcutta session of the Congress in 1928. The All India Congress Committee passed Gandhi’s resolution that, if the British did not accede to their demand for Dominion status within two years, then a call for complete independence should be given, by 118 votes. Subhash got 45 votes in his favour.

A meeting of the left wing within the Congress had taken place in Lucknow in 1928 attended by both Nehru and Bose. After the meeting both of them began organising branches of the Independence League all over the country. (Subhash Chandra Bose, An Indian Pilgrim: The Indian Struggle, 1935, pp.136-137) The first All Bengal Conference of Students was held in August 1928 at Calcutta presided by Jawaharlal Nehru. (Bose, 1935, p.137) The Independence League was formally inaugurated at Delhi in November and according to Bose it attained the importance that it did largely because of Nehru’s association with it. (Bose, 1935, p.152)

At the time when the Gandhi-Irwin pact was about to be signed, Bose hoped that Nehru would be successful in getting Gandhi to agree to more favourable terms for the nation. He wrote that there was no one with sufficient personality to force their views on Gandhi except Jawaharlal Nehru. (Bose, 1935, p.181)

The difference between Bose and Nehru regarding Gandhi was that while both were deferential to him, Nehru was not ready to break with him, unlike Subhash. We shall see this more vividly as we move forward. The relations between Nehru and Bose were extremely friendly during this time and as argued by Rudrangshu Mukherjee in his Nehru and Bose: Parallel Lives (2014), Bose had started to think of Nehru as an elder brother and mentor but Nehru was perhaps unaware about the change. Bose took great care of Kamla Nehru during her treatment in Europe and regularly kept himself updated regarding her health despite his peripatetic nature of stay. (Letter from Bose to Nehru dated October 4, 1935, p.121, Bunch Of Old Letters). He was also with Nehru in his hour of bereavement and wrote a letter to him to that effect on 4th March 1936 (Bunch Of Old Letters, p.166).

On his return to India, Bose was detained and shortly imprisoned. This did not go down well with the youth of the nation and their admiration for Bose was given expression by Nehru who declared the day, May 10, to be celebrated as Subhash Day. (Rudgranshu Mukherjee, Nehru And Bose: Parallel Lives, 2014, p. 213)

In Bose’s letter to Nehru dated June 30, 1936 he expressed his concern for Nehru’s health and went on to advise him a couple of things regarding his priorities as Congress President.(Bunch Of Old Letters, p.195) The two had grown e quite close and spoke in almost one voice over all matters of the Congress. When the infamous Tripuri incident took place and he saw no cooperation forthcoming from his Working Committee, Bose resigned. At the time, he wrote a letter to his nephew. This letter which is quoted by almost all the accusers as “evidence of Nehru’s malice towards Bose” should be read in context and in entirety. Though the letter says, no one had done more harm to me than Nehru in my cause, this comment was meant in the context to the Tripuri incident. This emerges from the fact that Bose despite his admiration for Gandhi was ready to part ways with him which Nehru was not. Rudrangshu Mukherjee points out that at this time Bose even invited Nehru to discuss the situation (Rudrangshu Mukherjee, Nehru and Bose: Parallel Lives, 2014, p.243)

We must also not forget that Nehru was made the chairman of the Planning Committee during Bose’s tenure as Congress President and Nehru makes it a point to mention this. (Nehru, Discovery Of India, Classic Reprint, 2010, p.412)  When the news of Bose’s death reached Nehru, he was moved to tears, one of the very few occasions when he cried in public. He even donned the lawyer’s coat after 25 years to defend the INA prisoners alongside Bhulabhai Desai. Nehru contrasts Bose’s heroic resistance from Japan with the lethargic attitude of a few Congressmen. (Nehru, Discovery of India, Classic Reprint, 2010, p.521). Bose on his part named one of the battalions of his army after Nehru. They had their differences but those were probably very few and their mutual respect and admiration was tremendous. As Rudrangshu Mukherjee highlights, it is their friendship, the partnership they had, which has been overlooked by historians.

‘Patel and Bose did not see eye to eye’

There can hardly be any misconception as great as this, for which, often, historians have been responsible. Bose and Patel had their differences and often quite sharp ones but they greatly admired each other. When Patel had become the ‘Sardar Patel of India’ after the Kheda satyagraha, Bose referred to his achievement at Kheda as a “glorious victory.”(Rajmohan Gandhi, Patel: A Life, 1991, p.168). While Bose was closer to Nehru, when Nehru was made the president of Congress in 1929, Bose wrote in his Indian Pilgrim that the general feeling in Congress circles was that the honour should go to Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. (p.169) The Karachi session, apart from vital interjection/inclusion of the section/chapter on fundamental rights, was notable for the unity displayed by Gandhi, Patel, Nehru and Bose. (Rajmohan Gandhi, 1991, p. 204)

Rajmohan Gandhi also narrates an incident which displays Patel’s curiosity to learn from Bose as well as a competitiveness between the two through Mahadev Desai’s diary. Mahadev Desai notes in his diary on May 29, 1932 that Patel asked him a question which he found interesting, even amazing. He asked who was Vivekananda?  Mahadev Desai thought that this thought might have risen because of Bose claiming Vivekananda his inspiration in an article in Leader. He suggested Romain Rolland’s books on Vivekanand and Ramkrishna Paramhans. While the latter part is correct, it appears to have transpired in June and not on May 29. Also, Mahadev Desai himself offers this suggestion to Patel and not on any particular query raised by Patel. If this fact, what was said is true, then Rajmohan Gandhi might have used a different version of Mahadev Desai’s diary –one which may be in physical existence —as against the one accessible on the Internet.

Vithalbhai Patel (Sardar’s brother) was in Austria where he met Bose. Vithalbhai’s health had been on a decline and in September 1933 it reached a position where he had to be attended by doctors most of the time, aound the clock. As his last but not insignificant political act, Vithalbhai Patel along with Subhash Chandra Bose signed a joint statement against Gandhi’s passive resistance stating that he had failed as a leader and India now needed new methods for its independence. (GI Patel, Vithalbhai Patel: Life And Times, Volume 2, 1950, pp.1217-1218) Vallabhbhai Patel was in prison at this time but he was deeply attached to his brother despite a few bitter memories which marred Vithalbhai’s move to Europe. Vallabhai rote multiple letters to Vithalbhai. It was probably the close monitoring (surveillance) by the the British that ensured these letters never reached Vithalbhai who thought that his brother had probably neglected him. (GI Patel, Vithalbhai Patel: Life And Times, Volume 2, 1950, p.1226) Bose who had this remarkable gift of nursing and doting on the ill, looked after him extremely well. Gandhi remarked on this aspect; observing that Bose had outdone himself in his care of Vithalbhai.

Vithalbhai made his Will at the Clinique de Linegeure, Gland in which he wrote that three fourth of his estates were to be used by Subhash for India’s political upliftment and publicity work on behalf of India’s freedom struggle. He appointed Dr. P.T. Patel and G.I. Patel as executors of the Will.(G.I. Patel, Vithalbhai Patel: Life And Times, Volume 2, pp.1250-1251) GI Patel further mentions that though he asked Bose for the original Will several times, he could only muster a copy of the Will that he sent to GI Patel. GI Patel met Vallabhbhai in Nashik prison and showed him the Will. Vallabhbhai subjected the Will to cross examination enquiring why Vithalbhai’s signature was not attested by a medical person when he was in failing health. Since he would not have been able to dictate the Will in one go because of his illness, why was the original handwritten copy not produced? He was also suspicious as to why all three men who attested Vithalbhai’s signature were Bengalis and two of them merely students when eminent people like Bhulabhai Desai and others were present nearby.

Despite this fact we must keep in mind that Gordhanbhai Patel and not Vallabhbhai Patel moved the Bombay High Court in January 1939. Bhulabhai Desai, Chimnalal Setalvad and Motilal Setalvad represented GI Patel and others whereas PR Das (CR Das’s brother) and Manekshaw represented Bose. Justice B.J Wadia held that the reference in the Will to objects on which Subhash was to spend Vithalbhai’s money was vague and thus invalid. Vallabhbhai Patel announced that the money would go to Vithalbhai Memorial Trust. Subhash Chandra Bose appealed against the judgement but Justice Sir John Baumont and Justice Kania reaffirmed Justice Wadia’s ruling. (Rajmohan Gandhi, Patel:A Life, 1991, p.237)

Now studying the relation between the two, Rajmohan Gandhi tells us about the Haripura session of the Congress at which the relation between Patel and Bose seemed free of friction and consensus marked the session’s decisions (Patel: A Life, 1991, p.265). When Khare had accused Patel of malicious intent towards him in side-lining him, Bose had defended Patel in this episode. Similarly, when the Muslim League headed coalition government fell in Assam, Patel backed Subhash who said Congress should make a bid to power as against Azad and Prasad’s opinion on the matter.(Rajmohan Gandhi, Patel: A Life, 1991, p.277) When life was made difficult for Bose as president at the Tripuri session Sarat Bose (Subhash Chandra Bose’s brother) wrote to Gandhi that Patel had a hand in the mean, malicious and vindictive propaganda against Bose.( Patel: A Life, p.281) While Patel was apprehensive of Bose’s candidature for President at Haripura, at Tripuri, Patel and others were simply toeing the line of Gandhi.

When Subhash was leading the INA, Vallabhbhai claimed Subhash as a colleague and fellow-fighter and was willing to help the personnel and dependents of the INA. He also headed the Congress Committee set up to assist relatives of those in a members killed by the Allies. (Patel: A Life, p.348)

Thus, we find that despite all their differences Bose and Patel had immense respect for each other and assisted each other for the attainment of the goal of Indian independence.

‘Bose was closer to Hindu communalists’

This myth emanates from the fact that Bose had gone on a hunger strike in support of the Durga Puja celebration in Burmese jail. The entire episode is reproduced in Bose’s own book An Indian Pilgrim’s chapter 7, “In Burmese Prisons.” Bose wrote that “in October 1925, our national religious festival — the Durga Pujah …falling …, we applied to the Superintendent for permission and for funds to perform the ceremony. Since similar facilities were given to Christian prisoners in Indian prisons, the Superintendent gave us the necessary facilities, in anticipation of Government sanction.” (An Indian Pilgrim, pp.123-124) The Government, however, refrained from giving sanction and censured the Superintendent, Major Findlay, for acting on his own steam. Thereupon, Bose was forced to commence a hunger-strike in February 1926. Three days after the hunger-strike began, the Calcutta paper, Forward, published the news of the hunger-strike and also the ultimatum Bose had sent to the Government. Bose further wrote that, “about the same time Forward published extracts from the report of the Indian Jail Committee of 1919-21. Before this Committee a high official of the Prison Department, Lieutenant Colonel Mulvany, had given evidence to say that he had been forced by his superior officer, the Inspector-General of Prisons of Bengal, to withdraw the health reports he had sent of some state-prisoners in his jail and to send in false reports instead.”(An Indian Pilgrim, p.124) T.C. Goswami, a Swarajit member of the Legislature, moved an adjournment motion in the house over the hunger strike in Mandalay jail. This alongside the disclosures of the report and Lieutenant Colonel Mulvany’s evidence ensured that after 15 days of hunger strike Subhash Chandra Bose carried the day. This clearly shows, he was rooting for fundamental rights of freedom and appealing to reason as he gave the example of the cultural rights enjoyed by Christian prisoners.

Like Gandhi and Nehru, he too was a staunch believer of Hindu-Muslim unity and believed in the shared cultural heritage of India. His appeal for the demolition of the Holwell monument and celebration of July 3, 1940 as Sirajuddaula Day was not just a tactical move to gain Muslim League support but came from a deep conviction in Hindu -Muslim unity that he firmly believed in. He named one of the battalions of the INA after Maulana Azad. He accorded a place of honour to General Shahnawaz in the INA and adopted as the slogan of the army, Jai Hind, a secular slogan praised by Mahatma Gandhi himself. The man had no bigoted bone in his body.

Conclusion

Bose was a charismatic leader of the national movement who gave his all for the freedom of the nation. He might have had differences with people but was not an enemy with anyone. None of the leaders of the national movement acted with malicious intent against one another. They were all fellows in arms often with different views but with a common aim. These facts need to be reiterated frequently and often in the public domain so that myths regarding the national movement and the a-historicity of those myths can be countered.

(The authors are both PhD candidates at the department of history, Aligarh Muslim University-AMU)

Related:

Second killing of Bhagat Singh & Subhash Chandra Bose by the Hindutva Gang

India’s Post Truth Era in ICHR’s Book on Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose

PM Modi to attend Subhas Chandra Bose’s 125th birth anniversary celebrations in Kolkata

The post Debunking “Popular Myths” through a study of Bose appeared first on SabrangIndia.

PM Modi in the eyes of Hindutva bigots represents the resurgent Hinduism and defender of Hindu nationalism against its enemies. The pre-Independence Muslim League led by MA Jinnah is a favourite punching bag for him which also helps him in spreading hatred against Indian Muslims. In any election PM takes the form of a relentless warrior against Muslim separatism. Reacting to the release of Indian National Congress’ manifesto for the forthcoming parliamentary elections in an election rally in Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh (which has a substantial population of Muslims and history of religious polarization) he declared that “The manifesto of the Congress, released yesterday [April 5, 2024], shows that it cannot fulfil the aspirations of the country. The Congress manifesto has the imprint of the policies of the Muslim League before Independence”.

‘Congress manifesto reflects policies of Muslim League before Independence: PM Narendra Modi’, The Indian Express, Delhi April 7, 2024.

https://www.telegraphindia.com/elections/lok-sabha-election-2024/congress-manifesto-reflects-policies-of-muslim-league-before-independence-pm-narendra-modi/cid/2011716

Modi as a leader and ideologue of Hindutva can be forgiven for indulging in blatant lies (RSS is the biggest Gurukul or university in the world which trains manufacturing-speaking lies) but not as PM of India. In any accountable democracy he would have been charged for perjury and forced to step down. But in the present scenario when the regulator of Indian elections, Election Commission of India is more an appendage of the ruling party only people of India can teach a lesson to such a lies.

Let us get familiar with the Hindutva archives to know, who the real pals of the Muslim League were in pre-Independent India.

SAVARKAR AS THE ORIGINATOR OF TWO-NATION THEORY

Savarkar, one of the originators of the politics of Hindutva was the Hindu nationalist who developed the most elaborate Two-nation theory. The fact should not be missed that Muslim League passed its Pakistan resolution in March 1940 only but Savarkar, the great philosopher and guide of RSS, propagated the Two-nation theory long before it. While delivering the presidential address to the 19th session Hindu Mahasabha at Ahmedabad in 1937, Savarkar declared unequivocally,

“As it is, there are two antagonistic nations living side by side in India. Several infantile politicians commit the serious mistake in supposing that India is already welded into a harmonious nation, or that it could be welded thus for the mere wish to do so. These our well-meaning but unthinking friends take their dreams for realities. That is why they are impatient of communal tangles and attribute them to communal organizations…Let us bravely face unpleasant facts as they are. India cannot be assumed today to be a Unitarian and homogenous nation, but on the contrary there are two nations in the main: the Hindus and the Moslems, in India.”

[Savarkar, VD., Samagar Savarkar Wangmaya (Collected Works of Savarkar), vol. 6, Hindu Mahasabha, Poona, 1963, p.296.]

RSS AS PRACTITIONER OF TWO-NATION THEORY

The RSS, following into the footsteps of Savarkar, rejected out rightly the idea that Hindus and Muslims together constituted a nation. The English organ of the RSS, Organiser, on the very eve of Independence (August 14, 1947) editorially chalked out its concept of nation in the following words:

“Let us no longer allow ourselves to be influenced by false notions of nationhood. Much of the mental confusion and the present and future troubles can be removed by the ready recognition of the simple fact that in Hindusthan only the Hindus form the nation and the national structure must be built on that safe and sound foundation…the nation itself must be built up of Hindus, on Hindu traditions, culture, ideas and aspirations.”

AMBEDKAR ON HINDU MAHASABHA AND MUSLIM LEAGUE COLLUSION

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, a keen researcher of the communal politics in pre-independence India, while underlying the affinity and camaraderie between Hindu Mahasabha and Muslim League on the issue of the Two-nation theory wrote:

“Strange it may appear, Mr. Savarkar and Mr. Jinnah instead of being opposed to each other on the one nation versus two nations issue are in complete agreement about it. Both agree, not only agree but insist that there are two nations in India—one the Muslim nation and the other Hindu nation.”

R. Ambedkar, Pakistan or the Partition of India, Govt. of Maharashtra, Bombay, 1990 [Reprint of 1940 edition], p. 142.

HINDU MAHASABHA LED BY SAVARKAR RAN COALITION GOVERNMENTS WITH MUSLIM LEAGUE

The children of Hindu nationalist, Savarkar ruling India presently are oblivious of the shocking fact that Hindu Mahasabha led by Savarkar entered into alliances with the Muslim League in order to break the united freedom struggle, specially, the 1942 Quit India Movement against the British rulers. While delivering Presidential address to the 24th session of Hindu Mahasabha at Cawnpore (Kanpur) in 1942, he defended hobnobbing with the Muslim League in the following words,

“In practical politics also the Mahasabha knows that we must advance through reasonable compromises. Witness the fact that only recently in Sind, the Sind-Hindu-Sabha on invitation had taken the responsibility of joining hands with the League itself in running coalition Government. The case of Bengal is well known. Wild Leaguers whom even the Congress with all its submissiveness could not placate grew quite reasonably compromising and socialable as soon as they came in contact with the Hindu Mahasabha and the Coalition Government, under the premiership of Mr. Fazlul Huq and the able lead of our esteemed Mahasabha leader Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerji, functioned successfully for a year or so to the benefit of both the communities. Moreover further events also proved demonstratively that the Hindu Mahasabhaits endeavoured to capture the centres of political power only in the public interests and not for the leaves and fishes of the office.” Hindu Mahasabha and Muslim League also ran coalition governments in Sind and North-Western Frontier Province.

[Savarkar, VD. Samagar Savarkar Wangmaya (Collected Works of Savarkar), vol. 6, Hindu Mahasabha, Poona, 1963, pp.479-480.]

It is tragedy of this nation that a person occupying Prime Minister’s office resorts to brazen lies learnt in RSS shakhas and boudhik shivirs (ideological training camps) which even Hindutva archives does not corroborate. He is betraying the honour, prestige and decorum of the office. The nation must request PM Modi that if he wants to act as a cadre of RSS he should resign from the office and take a seat in the hierarchy of RSS.

The post Dear PM Modi! It was Hindutva Organisations, not the Congress that colluded with the Muslim League in Pre-Independence India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Today, while celebrating the 126th birth anniversary of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, one recalls the lesser-known fact that he, before leaving India for Europe incognito in 1941 to launch a war against the British regime in India for the freedom of our country, met several leaders. They included Mahatma Gandhi, Mohammed Ali Jinnah and VD Savarkar. He gave an account of those meetings in his book Indian Struggle: 1920-1942, first published in 1997, and that account is of contemporary significance.

MEETING BETWEEN BOSE AND GANDHI IN 1941

During his meeting with Gandhi, Bose stated that the Forward Bloc had launched a Civil Disobedience Movement, and many of the leaders of the Bloc were in prison. He also gave his assessment of the British Empire’s predicament to Gandhi and believed that the Empire would be overthrown. He then requested Gandhi to start passive resistance and allow India to play her part in the second World War. Gandhi said that people were not prepared for a fight and that any step to aggravate and hasten it would be counterproductive.

Bose said his interaction with Gandhi lasted for a long time, and the talks were hearty. He wrote in the aforesaid book that Gandhi wished him success in his “passionate endeavour” to free India from British rule. In the event of India attaining liberation on account of Bose’s struggle, he would be the first to receive a telegram of congratulation from Gandhi.

BOSE’S MEETINGS WITH JINNAH AND SAVARKAR WERE DISAPPOINTING

While Bose’s talks with Gandhi concerning India’s independence were hearty and cordial, his meeting with Jinnah, President of the Indian Muslim League, and Savarkar, President of Hindu Mahasabha, was disappointing. He made a passionate appeal to Jinnah to join the united struggle of people for the independence of India. He told him he would be the first Prime Minister after the country’s liberation.

So far, we only knew that Gandhi persuaded Congress leaders to make Jinnah the Prime Minister of India to avoid the country’s partition. But a peep into the book reveals that in his quest for making India free and keeping it undivided, he made relentless efforts to dissuade those whose actions polarised the freedom struggle and aimed at partitioning the country. Therefore, while his meeting with Gandhi was centred around the idea of making India free through a struggle of people regardless of their faith, his meetings with Jinnah and Savarkar were primarily to keep the country united by persuading them to join the common struggle for freedom and independence.

Despite his fervent pleas to Jinnah that he would become the first Prime Minister of free India, the latter remained hell-bent on his
demand for the creation of Pakistan by dividing India based on religion.

Bose wrote: “Jinnah was then thinking only of how to realise his plan of Pakistan (a division of India) with the help of the British.”

About Savarkar, he wrote: “Savarkar seemed to be oblivious of the international situation and was only thinking how Hindus could secure military training by entering Britain’s army in India.”

He concluded that “…nothing could be expected from either the Muslim League or the Hindu Mahasabha.”

PM MODI SHOULD READ BOSE’S VIEWS ON SAVARKAR

Bose’s writings in the book show that he was unsparing of any communalism, be it of the Muslim League or Hindu Mahasabha headed by Savarkar. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who is the only Prime Minister of our country to have invoked the name of Savarkar along with Gandhi, Bose and Nehru on more than one occasion in his addresses to the nation from the ramparts of the Red Fort on the occasion of Independence day, should be mindful of Bose’s articulations that Savarkar was only persuading Hindus to join the British army.

Bose’s leadership and the role the Indian National Army played in its war against the British Army for the liberation of our country upheld our secular ethos as it united people of all faiths for the cause of India and set an example of harmony and reconciliation, which is being demolished by the distortion of history and polarisation process unleashed by divisive narratives of the ruling leaders of the Union government.

BOSE’S SECULAR OUTLOOK DETERMINED HIS UNDERSTANDING OF HISTORY

In this context, Bose’s understanding of Indian history by eschewing a religious approach to understanding our past is of immense and contemporary significance. In his book, An Indian Pilgrim, he outlined the composite culture of both communities who shared a common destiny for thousands of years and shaped their future together in the face of all sorts of challenges. In the book, he described the Battle of Plassey as a joint Hindu-Muslim endeavour to confront an adversary which had caused an existential crisis.

“History will bear me out when I say that it is a misnomer to talk of Muslim rule when describing the political order in India before the advent of the British. Whether we talk of the Moghul Emperors at Delhi, or of the Muslim Kings of Bengal, we shall find that in either case, the administration was run by Hindus and Muslims together, many of the prominent Cabinet Ministers and Generals being Hindus. Further, the consolidation of the Moghul Empire in India was affected by the help of Hindu commanders-in-chief. The Commander-in-chief of Nawab Sirajudowla, whom the British fought at Plassey in 1757 and defeated, was a Hindu and the rebellion of 1857 against the British, in which Hindus and Muslims were found side by side, was fought under the flag of a Muslim, Bahadur Shah.”

Such an understanding of our history, free from communal bias, is the need of the hour. It constitutes an antidote to RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) chief Mohan Bhagwat’s reiteration of his predecessor Golwalkar’s manufactured formulation that Hindus are at war with both an external and internal enemy for a thousand years.

It is of immense significance to recall Bose’s secular outlook and correct understanding and interpretation of our past and defeat the communal interpretation of our history reminiscent of James Mill’s two-nation theory – the Hindu nation and Muslim Nation. Historian Romila Thapar, in her recent lecture, “Our History, Your History, Whose History,” stated that such an approach to history based on religion reduced every cause to a single one –religious difference– and ignored and minimised other causes.

Bose’s approach to history discarded the religious approach; therefore, when India is witnessing the replay of the colonial approach to history writing, it is important to revisit Bose’s worldview rooted in our shared heritage and composite culture. In doing so, we would serve the cause of the idea of India and pay fitting tribute to Bose.

SN Sahu served as Officer on Special Duty to the late President of India, KR Narayanan. The views are personal.

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post Netaji’s Secular Outlook, and Why He was Disappointed With Jinnah, Savarkar appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The 101-year-old Jallianwala Bagh tragedy is familiar to every Indian. To some, it is just a page in our History books, to other, it is a deep scar remaining not just in the physical form of bullet holes on the Bagh’s walls, but also as an emotionally charged memory. The story of Jallianwala Bagh is also about fighting for democracy and the right to protest. In many ways, it was the precursor to the inclusion of rights of dissent and protest ensconced in the Indian Constitution. 

During World War I (1914–18) the Britishers implemented a series of repressive emergency powers to keep Indians in check while they focused on their military efforts in the war. This led to widespread discontent among the populace. Funds were collected from unwilling Indians for the war. There were forced recruitments to the British Army with Punjab contributing over 3,55,000 combatants, who were sent back to India after the Armistice of November 11, 1918 which ended World War I in Europe.

The soldiers upon returning were plunged into unemployment and instead of easing the war time restrictions, the British intended to extend the repressive measures in the form of the Rowlatt Acts in early 1919, even though the British Parliament had recommended implementing limited local self-Government in India in 1918.The discontent among the people of Punjab was further complicated by a crop failure that year which led to food shortages and spike in prices of essential goods.

India’s freedom fighters called for nationwide protests against the Rowlatt Act which would continue the practice of trying Political cases in court without juries and detaining of suspects without trial. Mahatma Gandhi called for a national strike, which led to a complete Hartal (general strike) in Punjab on March 30, 1919 and then again on April 6, 1919. The Hindu-Muslim-Sikh solidarity stunned the British administration as people came out in large numbers on the occasion of Ram Navmi on April 9, 1919.

The British were rattled. Brigadier General Reginald Dyer was sent to Amritsarand asked to take a tough stand. He banned public gatheringsand assembly of more than 4 people. According to British Historian Kim Wagner, “…as the British were panicking and feeling overrun. He (General Dyer) was not a crazy guy who did things on his own. There was concern about unrest. Indian nationalists were protesting British policies and were seen as seditious, so two leaders were arrested.”The two leaders in question were Saifuddin Kitchlew and SatyaPal, who were arrested on April 10, 1919. Mahatma Gandhi was banned from entering Punjab.

A large number of people (estimated5000-20000) gathered at Jallianwala Bagh, Amritsar, on the day of Baisakhi, April 13, 1919 answering the call for protest against the Rowlatt Act and against the arrest of Kitchlew and SatyaPal. Many people had also arrived in Amritsar from surrounding villages for the festival of Baisakhi and were unaware of the ban on public gatherings. There was only one narrow route to enter and exit the Bagh. As the Jallianwala Bagh meeting was in progress, the exit of the Bagh was blocked by General Dyer and his 50 soldiers armed with rifles, knives and khukris. Without warning, his team fired 1,650 rounds in about 10 minutes, stopping only when they ran out of ammunition. He made no effort to provide medical aid to the wounded, saying it was not his duty and left the scene of devastation.

While the official British documents reported the number of lives lost as 1,526, the actual figures were much higher. There were heart-breaking reports of over 2000 people dead and 1000-11000 injured (by various estimates), including the ones who jumped into the solitary well at the centre of the Bagh to avoid being shot.

The initial praise that Dyer received from House of Lords in Britain angered many Indians including Nobel Laureate Rabindranath Tagore, who denounced his Knighthood, writing a scathing letter to the British Viceroy, “The accounts of insults and sufferings undergone by our brothers in the Punjab have trickled through the gagged silence, reaching every corner of India and the universal agony of indignation roused in the hearts of our people has been ignored by our rulers,-possibly congratulating themselves for what they imagine as salutary lessons….the very least that I can do for my country is to take all consequences upon myself in giving voice to the protest of the millions of my countrymen, surprised into a dumb anguish of terror. The time has come when the badges of honour make our shame glaring in their incongruous context of humiliation, and I for my part wish to stand shorn of all special distinctions, by the side of those of my countrymen, who, for their so called insignificance, are liable to suffer a degradation not fit for human beings….”.

The widespread anger from the Jallianwala Bagh massacre prompted Mahatma Gandhi to launch his Non-Cooperation Movement of 1920-22. The Jallianwala Bagh incident and its aftermath became a turning point in India’s fight for independence. It is said that a 12 year old Bhagat Singh entered Jallianwala Bagh, mere hours after the massacre, and vowed to avenge the bloodshed. This was the catalyst to his journey of becoming one of the most revered freedom fighters of India- “Shaheed Bhagat Singh”.

On the 100th anniversary of the massacre in 2019, while addressing the British Parliament, British Prime Minister Theresa May said, “We deeply regret what happened and the suffering caused”, even as the opposition leaders insisted on a better “full, clear and unequivocal apology”. The apology never came, and may never come.

There are numerous parallels that can be drawn between the events that are conspiring in contemporary India and the story of Jallianwala Bagh. British historians’ records anointed Mahatma Gandhi, Saifuddin Kitchlew, and SatyaPal, and other freedom fighters as seditious elements, while we know them as our greatest patriots. Yet, we retain the same draconian law that was utilized to arrest these leaders, passed down to us from our colonisers in the form of the Sedition Law (IPC Section 124A). Dissent and protest are valuable rights our freedom fighters have sacrificed their lives to earn. This freedom, this democracy, can never be taken for granted.

Today, we fight an unprecedented battle with a virus that renders all our weapons and missiles futile, a virus that makes us realize that all the worries about climate change are real and that our health systems need to be our biggest priority. All protests on ground against CAA/NRC have had to be suspended in the interest of public health. Edward Snowden is warning the world that, “Governments may use Coronavirus to build ‘The Architecture of Oppression’.” We are grappling with a physical as well as mental health emergency while economically disadvantaged citizens are bearing the brunt of the double whammy of poverty and risk of illness.

Dissent, and questioning the powers that be, can never be locked down. We have worked too hard and sacrificed too much to ensure these rights as Indians. We have earned the right to protest peacefully without the fear of lathis, bullets, and tear gas, of lynching and unlawful arrest. These rights have been infringed upon countless times in the last 6 months. When we emerge from the siege of COVID-19 pandemic, the battle for our rights will rage on. Meanwhile, we pay tribute to those martyred on the day of Baisakhi April 13, 1919 in Jallianwala Bagh, while practicing social distancing. We pray from home, we protest from home, we keep hope and freedom alive from home. Jai Hind.

Related articles:

Bloodbath on Baisakhi: The Jallianwala Bagh Massacre, April 13, 1919
Memories of Colonial Brutality: Irfan Habib on the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre
Why do we protest? Mumbai citizens speak on the lockdown in Kashmir, Article 370
Shaheen Bagh: You can’t evict an idea

The post 101 years since Jallianwala Bagh: Hard earned Democracy appeared first on SabrangIndia.