The Indian freedom movement was sweeping in its scope. From the tribesmen of the Andhra hills led by Alluri Ramachandra Raju to the broad streets of Mumbai, from the Raja of Darbhanga to the revolutionaries of Punjab, all Indians were united in the belief that the oppressive British empire had to be defeated at all costs. But here Congress leader M.K. Gandhi differed from most Indians, including his colleague Muhammad Ali Jinnah.
When Gandhi returned from South Africa, he was in favour of continued British rule in India. In 1907 he wrote, "Should the British be thrown out of India? Can it be done, even if we wish to do so? To these two questions we can reply that we stand to lose by ending British rule and that, even if we want, India is not in a position to end it." These are the words of a man who was literally thrown out a train for sitting in a whites only coach.
Indeed, Gandhi the votary of non-violence and peace urged all Indians to enlist in the British Army, which had been brutalising India for nearly two centuries. This was the time when Jinnah intensified his most vocal criticism of Britain's intensified recruiting drive in India. According to historian Prakash Almeida, Jinnah insisted that, "Indians should be put on the same footing as the European British subjects before being asked to fight".
Once during a Congress session (called for increasing recruitment for WWI), Willingdon, the governor of Bombay, humiliated Bal Gangadhar Tilak by asking him to leave the meeting. An infuriated Jinnah rose and demanded an explanation from the governor general. On another occasion Jinnah, still wanting to pay back Willingdon for insulting Tilak, disrupted a meeting and had to be dragged away by the commissioner of police.
So imagine Jinnah's shock when Gandhi wrote him a letter urging him to make an emphatic declaration regarding recruitment saying, "seek ye first the recruitment office and everything will be added unto you". Here Gandhi exhibits not only amazing flippancy but is also a patronizing attitude.
Like Subhas Bose, Jinnah was frustrated by the tardiness shown by the Congress brass in demanding full freedom. Gandhi's non-violence exasperated these leaders because it shielded the British from the wrath of the people. After the Jallianwallah Bagh massacre of 2000 unarmed men, women and children by General Reginald Dyer in a public park in 1919, Indian anger had reached critical mass, but Congress leaders failed to capitalise on it.
Next, the Caliphate Movement, which Gandhi backed to the hilt. "In laying down my life for the Caliphate, I ensure the safety of the cow from the Mussalman's knife, that is my religion," he said. Former foreign minister Jaswant Singh writes in his controversial new book Jinnah: India-Partition-Independence, "In 1915 Gandhi told a group of students that politics should never be divorced from religion…The signal was picked by Muslims planning to marry politics with religion."
Jinnah had nothing but contempt for the Caliphate Movement. For the staunchly secular nationalist it was Indian nationhood alone that mattered, not an obscure European rivalry involving Britain and Turkey. Where Jinnah displayed farsightedness, wisdom and patriotism, Gandhi exhibited an opportunistic streak. Gandhi pigeonholed minority interests as separate from the larger national interest. Jinnah told Gandhi that the ‘Mahatma’ had ruined politics in India by "dragging up a lot of unwholesome elements" and giving them "political prominence", "that it was a crime to mix up politics and religion the way he had done".
Sanjeev Nayyar, current affairs analyst and founder of www.esamskriti.com says, "Gandhi by his action in respect of the Caliphate Movement endorsed the view of Muslim leaders that they were Muslims first and Indians afterwards, that their interests were more bound up with the fate of the Muslim world outside India than that of India herself. What else but Pakistan could anyone expect?"
Jinnah’s aversion for the Caliphate was vindicated when the Moplahs of Kerala massacred thousands of Hindu men, women and children. A chastened Gandhi soon gave up his support for the movement.
Finally, it came down to a game of numbers. When Jinnah drafted his Lucknow Pact he wanted the following percentages of Muslim members in each of the legislative councils: 33% at the centre and in Bombay, 50% in Punjab, 40% in Bengal, 30% in the United Provinces, 25% in Bihar and Orissa, 15% in the Central Provinces and in Madras.
In hindsight, rejecting the Pact was a colossal blunder. Proportional representation would have assuaged Muslim fears. Jinnah’s mentor Gokhale, a true blue Hindu, had always been inclusive, giving Muslims adequate representation in governing councils. Though Gokhale was a key player in the Hindu revivalist movement, Muslims instinctively trusted him.
When Jinnah walked out of the Congress, it was not a walk toward Pakistan. Jaswant Singh says: "It could not be, for almost every Muslim was with Gandhi when Jinnah left the Congress."
Indeed, Jinnah had few options. His mentors Gokhale and Tilak were dead. Ever since Gandhi’s arrival from South Africa, Gandhi had tried to paint him as a "Mohammedan". Had Gokhale been alive, Jinnah would have been at the helm of the freedom movement. He himself aspired to be a Muslim-Gokhale, but now he was frustrated by the machinations of Gandhi and the wealthy Congress patron Motilal Nehru.
In fact, Motilal was at one point willing to postpone independence by a couple of decades. Why? Perhaps because he didn't want freedom at a juncture when Jinnah was a towering figure, and Motilal's son Jawaharlal hadn't quite become a national figure. To Jinnah it meant only one thing – Gandhi wanted the stage all to himself and later for his protégé Jawaharlal Nehru.
Upon joining the Muslim League, Jinnah made it clear to its leaders that he would not compromise on the question of India’s unity, that he would not attempt to break the union, that the League had to work with the Congress for India’s freedom. He reminded them that the enemy was Britain not Gandhi.
Things, however, did not work out the way Jinnah intended in the League. Perhaps he did not have the patience of Sardar Patel (who like him was saddled with a role subservient to Nehru), so he decided he would create a new secular country of his dreams – Pakistan. The British – eager for a parting shot at the Indians – were only too happy to oblige. Of coure, Pakistan ended up becoming an Islamic state.
It's high time Indians stopped blaming Jinnah for Partition. When 90% Muslim Kashmir finds it impossible to secede from India, how could Muslims who comprised only 24% of undivided India have demanded Pakistan? The demand for Pakistan was made by fringe elements that Gandhi encouraged and Jinnah initially kept away from. The responsibility for India’s vivisection lies with the Congress and British, not with Jinnah.
It has taken a Hindu nationalist, Jaswant Singh, to defend the Muslim Jinnah. Now will a member of the so-called secular brigade do their bit to set right history? India’s scholars and leaders have turned history into hagiography, but facts rather than mythmaking should be the basis of history. As Jaswant Singh says in his book, "Facts are humbling. They prevent you from jumping to conclusions."
(Rakesh Krishnan is a features writer with Fairfax New Zealand. He has previously worked with Businessworld, India Today and Hindustan Times, and was news editor with the Financial Express.)