‘
If ever there was clear-cut evidence of some Indians not having accepted Pakistan as an independent sovereign country, one has only to look at the views unambiguously expressed by Justice (retd) Markandey Katju, who heads the Press Council of India. He is on record in his speech delivered in New Delhi in early February and in the article published in TheNation of March 2, 2013, as well as in his letters addressed to the publisher/editor of TheNation and Mr Shamshad Ahmad, a former Foreign Secretary of Pakistan, that inter alia:

n “I do not believe that there are two nations; there is one nation and that is India…....

n “Pakistan is a fake and artificial country created by the British and their agents in pursuance of the wicked British policy of divide and rule and the bogus Two Nation Theory. In reality, there is no such thing as Pakistan.......

n “Pakistan is, in fact, a part of India and we will be reunited, may be, in 20 years or so.”

Katju’s article as published in TheNation bears the caption “The Truth About Pakistan”.

What, indeed, is the truth about the creation of Pakistan?

The best answer (and the most convincing) to this question is provided by another Indian legal luminary, Mr H. M. Seervai, who was honoured with one of India’s high awards, Padma Vibhushan, and who has been recognised by the International Bar Association as a ‘Living Legend of Law’.

In his famous book, “Partition of India: Legend and Reality”, published in 1989, Seervai quotes chapter and verse from authentic published British and Indian records elucidating how the Indian National Congress decided to opt for Pakistan and how it came into existence.

He establishes, to the hilt, how virtually the Congress top leadership, in particular Patel, Nehru and Gandhi, decided to reject the Cabinet Plan of 1946, while Jinnah even at that late stage had expressed the Muslim Leagues’ willingness to preserve the unity of India by accepting the Plan proposals.
This is what Seervai says about Maulana Abul Kalam Azad’s book, “India Wins Freedom”, published in 1988 (30 years after the first edition in which a number of pages were not included): “The publication of “India Wins Freedom”, in ‘a complete version’, in November 1988 has provoked much controversy and public discussion. This is not surprising for the 1988 edition, fixes the responsibility for the partition of India, at one place on Jawaharlal Nehru and at another place on Vallabhbhai Patel by observing that ‘it would not, perhaps, be unfair to say that Patel was the founder of India’s partition’.” Page 201 reads: “I was surprised that Patel was now an even greater supporter of the Two Nation Theory than Jinnah. Jinnah may have raised the flag of partition, but now the real flag-bearer was Patel.” One may, here, recall that Azad was for many years President of the All India Congress Party during the period of negotiations with the Cabinet Mission.
The Cabinet Plan was the last serious effort made by the British government to keep India a united country.

Seervai in a remarkably succinct paragraph sums up the reality of the role of the League, Jinnah and the Congress leaders in the making of Pakistan: “In considering whether Jinnah and the League were responsible for the partition of India by raising the cry of Pakistan, it is necessary to ask, and answer, two questions: First, were the fears of the Muslim community that it would be permanently dominated by a ‘Hindu Raj’ genuine? If so, was the community entitled to effective and not mere paper safeguards against such permanent domination? That the fears of the Muslim community were genuine is beyond dispute. The Desai-Liaquat Pact, Sapru Committee Report, Azad’s letter to Gandhi, as well as his interview with the Cabinet Mission and the interview of Nationalist Muslims with members of the Mission, all recognised that those fears were genuine. But the Sapru Committee, Azad, the Nationalist Muslims and the Cabinet Mission whilst recognising those fears, nevertheless, rejected Pakistan as a solution for removing them. All the witnesses before the Cabinet Mission, except the Muslim League, had supported a constitution for a united India. Equally, most of them had recognised that the fears of being dominated by a ‘Hindu Raj’ required effective safeguards, and ‘parity’, or near ‘parity’.
“The Cabinet Mission Plan, if worked in the spirit of goodwill, supplied effective safeguards, and Jinnah recognised this when he accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan. However, the Hindu Mahasabha, and leaders like Gandhi, Nehru and Patel (disregarding the views of Sapru, Azad and the Nationalist Muslims) considered parity as ‘undemocratic’. They forgot that if, as they firmly held, the unity of India was the paramount object to be achieved in framing a new constitution, theory would have to yield to the need to provide effective safeguards for a community of nine crores. It is reasonably clear that it was the Congress, which wanted partition. It was Jinnah, who was against partition, but accepted it as the second best.”

Seervai also deals with the evolution of Jinnah’s views about Hindu-Muslim political relations. How come, the “ambassador of goodwill”, hailed as such by both Congress and Muslim League, switched over to the role of a formidable adversary championing the cause of the Muslims?

The watershed came in 1937 when the provincial elections were held. There was then a tacit understanding in UP (to be extended to other provinces) that a coalition ministry would be formed. To quote Seervai: “After Nehru’s resounding victory in the 1937 elections.......the Congress adopted an imperious attitude and ‘the League’s offer of cooperation was treated with disdain’.......But even after the 1937 elections, Jinnah did not demand partition. He appealed to Gandhi for a Nationalist solution of the Hindu-Muslim problem. It was only when that appeal failed that he braced himself to organise the political power of the Muslim League.”

Thereafter, it did not take long for Jinnah to demand independence for Muslim majority areas. The year 1940 saw the adoption of the Lahore Revolution. By early 1946, Muslim League had attained the status of a representative of the overwhelming majority of the Muslims, having secured 30 out of 30 Muslim seats, by polling 86 percent of the total votes cast in Muslim constituencies. Gandhi and Nehru, in writing, accepted the claim that Muslim League was the “authoritative representative of the overwhelming majority of the Muslims of India” and “alone” had the “unquestionable” right to represent them.

Seervai’s well researched book written after the release of 12 volumes of Transfer of Power by the British government demolishes the half-baked notions trotted out by Justice (retd) Katju. One wonders how the honourable ex-Judge could stoop so low as to use the kind of language he chose in writing about one of the most upright leaders of the subcontinent who was universally respected and admired for his impeccable integrity and unblemished record of adherence to the rule of law, even by his adversaries.

As for Pakistan (a nuclear power and a country of 180 million people) being dubbed “a part of India” is, indeed, preposterous. Even the BJP Prime Minister of India after visiting the Minar-i-Pakistan, formally acknowledged Pakistan as a manifest reality. It is sheer wishful thinking and day-dreaming on the part of Mr Katju to assume that Pakistan will, during the next few years, merge into India. It is best to resist the temptation of indulging in such wonky fantasies.

The writer is an ex-federal secretary and ambassador, and a freelance political and international relations analyst.
Email: pacade@brain.net.pk

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-ne...inions/columns