Blog – Page 8 – Anurupa Cinar

Kapur Commission, Part II

Posted on by Anurupa

Category: Gandhi-Murder Case

“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”

– Carl Sagan

Hi, Everyone! In all fairness I have to say Justice Kapur has given all the evidence of the Government’s and the police’s failure to prevent the murder of the Mahatma in his report. His bias lies in the way he has presented it.

I shall first give you the salient facts of the case.

On January 20, 1948, a bomb exploded 150 yards away from Gandhi’s prayer meeting. The police apprehended a Madanlal Pahwa red-handed. The police brutality being what it was, by January 24^th they had information that his co-conspirators were editors of the Hindurashtra. They didn’t have the names.

· I ask you: why could they not find out the names in the 6 days they had in hand before Gandhi’s murder?

Surely one phone call to the Hindu Mahasabha office, one issue of the magazine, and so many other perfectly easy ways were there to find this out? If not there was always the option of torturing people to get information—that was a standard police practice, after all.

On the other side, In Mumbai, Madanlal’s friend Dr. Jain actually had information on the conspiracy. He could name Nathuram as one involved. He met Morarji Desai and told him all.

· Whythen did Morarji, the Home Minister of Bombay Presidency not take any action?

Sardar Patel put one man in charge of the investigation to coordinate the Bombay and Delhi police only after Gandhi’s death. Why not before?

Refugees in Delhi were clamoring “Let Gandhi die” outside Birla House where Gandhi was staying. Surely, there should have been stringent, very stringent, security after the bomb blast at the hands of Madanla Pahwa, a refugee?

· Whywas the Mahatma’s life not considered worthy of this basic protection?

To say that the Mahatma did not wish it is not a convincing argument. The Mahatma could not possibly say otherwise, for it would mean an out and out contradiction of his principle of nonviolence. But throughout his career the Mahatma took very good care to be surrounded by armed guards. He even took refuge behind them at the slightest sign of provocation.

The British had taken very, very good care to protect the Mahatma’s life, why did the Government of India not do the same?

· A simple frisking of each person entering the prayer ground would have been enough to prevent this tragedy. But even that was not done.

Why?

Kapur instead of seeing the seriousness of all these Government and police omissions which led directly to the murder of the Mahatma, brushes it all under the carpet as mere “incompetence.”

· If it were mere “incompetence” surely some heads would have rolled? Someone would have been held accountable by the Government?

· Whydid no one resign?

Kapur also remains utterly silent on the number of people—20,000—thrown in jail by the Government after the murder of Gandhi. Nor does he make a peep re the fact that so many of them were tortured. Is there any value in court to any evidence that is tortured out of a man? Surely, many a man will say whatever the police want them to, just for the torture to stop?

Point to note:

Despite all of this, all the (non)evidence the Government could concoct against Savarkar was a hearsay evidence from Badge, one of the co-conspirators.

With the whole battery of the Government’s vicious, horrendous tactics unleashed upon the Hindus, and with the Reign of Terror that followed, there was still no evidence against Savarkar.

For there was no evidence to find!

The fact that none of this is in Kapur’s report, the fact that he does not hold the Government of India culpable in any way, is a sure indication of his bias in its favor.

Tomorrow I shall write on what possible reason the Government of India had to look the other way rather than prevent Gandhi’s death.

Anurupa

Kapur Commission, Part I

Posted on by Anurupa

“His reputation is what men say he is. That can be damaged; but reputation is for time, character is for eternity.”

– John B. Gough

Without beginning nor end am I, Inviolable am I.

Vanquish me? In this world no such enemy is born!

– V. D. Savarkar, Atmabal

Hi, Everyone! The Kapur Commission, the Commission of Inquiry into the Conspiracy to Murder Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, was set up in 1966 as a one-man commission. Justice Jivanlal Kapur was the one man who was in charge of this commission. It took three years to complete the inquiry.

The Commission chased down a plethora of witnesses and has recorded some minute details which throw light on the events that happened those fateful days around the end of January, 1948.

· But for all that there are some crucial findings the Commission did not look into, particularly with respect to Savarkar.

· Also, there is a grave evidence of bias—a bias against Savarkar and a bias in favor of the Government of India.

I shall come to these points soon, but let me comment on the limitations of this Commission first.

· A Commission that was to look into an event of such a magnitude should never have been a one-man show. To preclude all possibility of bias there should have been a panel of judges.

· There were three aspects to consider in the death of Gandhi:

a) There was an initial conspiracy and then the second act of killing.

b) There was the question of the police investigation which for some inexplicable reason was not able to prevent the assassination of the Mahatma.

c) There was the aftermath of Government reprisal. The aftermath of brutality of the police investigation.

These aspects should have been on the Commission’s agenda.

The Kapur Commission was not setup to deliver unbiased justice, so one is not surprised that it didn’t!

Bias of Kapur Commission against Savarkar:

While researching my novel, I was able find evidence of Savarkar’s state of mind, his opinions, and the position he held re India. I was able to find the evidence of his relationship with Nathuram Godse and the point at which they differed in their beliefs. I could do that with my limited resources.

· Why was Kapur unable to discover it?

Why did he not discover that Savarkar’s clear position was to not create friction with the Government of free India? When there was threat to the country from without, it is particularly inopportune to create a threat from within. Country first was Savarkar’s abiding principle. He had said publicly that the tri-color flag of India was to be respected and had even hoisted it on the Independence Day against the resolution of the Hindu Mahasabha.

Also, Nathuram has stated his differences with Savarkar in his statement.

So why did Kapur disregard all of that? When neither Savarkar nor Nathuram were living to speak for themselves, their own writings and actions should have been considered. Surely there were witnesses who could have testified to this too? Why was it not done?

Kapur has also rehashed the so-called evidence dished out by Prosecutors trying Savarkar and which the Court subsequently dismissed as not being proof of Savarkar’s involvement.

· So why is Kapur using that to point fingers at Savarkar?

Then there are the statements of Gajanan Damle and Appa Kasar both of whom now mention that Savarkar met Nathuram at some point.

· Neither had any evidence of what was said in those meetings—if they actually took place.

Surely a Supreme Court Judge does not consider this as evidence?

Throughout the Commission’s findings Kapur refers to Nathurman and Apte as “Savarkarites” or failing that “Savarkar and his group.”

· Is “Savarkarite” a term that should appear in this legal document? This is a highly prejudicial term to use; it implies Savarkar’s involvement without there being any basis for it.

· Nor is there any reason to use the term “Savarkar and his group.” There is no foundation laid to justify the use of this term in connection with Gandhi’s murder.

· Savarkar staunchly stood for the rights of the Hindus; he advocated that Hindus defend themselves when the Government so obviously would and could not. That is a completely separate issue from conspiring to Murder Gandhi.

This particularly confusion of ideas is evident in the minds of many, but it is unacceptable in a Supreme Court Judge, especially upon whom rests the onus of the truth.

Kapur also makes a statement that “all these facts taken together were destructive of any theory other than the conspiracy to murder by Savarkar and his group”.

· Again I ask, why call them “Savarkar and his group”? The others charged were convicted. There was no need to theorize about them. So who does he mean by saying “Savarkar and his group”?

· Nor is he right by saying there is no other theory for why the murder of Gandhi took place.

Even I, without any legal training can vouchsafe a theory that is more than enough to raise reasonable doubt.

No, the facts are not destructive of “any other theory.” That I shall be writing on in the following posts.

But by writing so, Kapur has fostered the prejudices of the people and allowed writers of A. G. Noorani’s ilk to perpetrate the idea of Savarkar’s involvement in Gandhi’s murder.

The voices flinging mud against Savarkar rise loud and clear, year after year—and again this year too!

But the voices in support of Savarkar are silent. I too was just such a silent voice. For the last four years I have writhed in silent pain at the injustice of it all. But no more; I have decided that come what may, I must speak out.

Anurupa

A Diabolical Masterstroke . . . !

Posted on by Anurupa

“A reputation once broken may possibly be repaired, but the world will always keep their eyes on the spot where the crack was.”

– Joseph Hall

Hi, Everyone! In the last so many posts we have seen the lengths that Gandhi-Nehru-led Congress went to in getting rid of their “bête noire”—as they saw him—Jinnah.

Nehru has even written in his jail diary on December 28, 1943:

“Instinctively I think it is better to have Pakistan or almost nothing if only to keep Jinnah far away and not allow his muddled and arrogant head from (sic) interfering continually in India’s progress” (Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru; First Series; Vol.13; page 324).

For them partition of the Indian motherland was not too big a price to pay in their quest for power . . . !

Savarkar was another whom the Congress High Command considered a thorn in their flesh. They must have wished dearly that he too could be got rid of; for though in failing health and retired from politics, Savarkar was still a force to be reckoned with. He had been exposing the Congress’s harmful intent toward India—how they must have gnashed their teeth over it!—and there was every chance that the Hindu Mahasabha could be a formidable opponent in the next elections.

How to neutralize both must have been a thought that occupied Jawaharlal Nehru’s mind after independence.

And then an ideal opportunity fell into his lap. With a diabolical masterstroke, Nehru (as the Prime Minister of India he can certainly be held responsible for it) entangled Savarkar by charging him as a co-conspirator in the Mahatma’s assassination. And he simultaneously unleashed such a Reign of Terror against all the Hindutva-minded people, that people were forced to dust their hands of Savarkar just to save their own skins.

So much mud was flung at Savarkar, his name, his reputation that even an acquittal from the Special Court of India was not enough to wash away the mud.

Even today, Congress and its mouthpieces continue to fling mud at him. This was one of the first things I realized when I began researching on Savarkar four years ago. This injustice is what has driven me to write my novel Burning for Freedom. And now drives me to expose Gandhi and the Congress Culpability in the partition of India.

In India, at least as far as Savarkar is concerned, never mind the concept of “Innocent until proven guilty”—even the concept of “Innocent when proven innocent by the Court” is not accepted!!

I have come across many people—and not just Congress-followers, but people who claim to be “Savarkarites” and others too—who imply that Savakar was involved in the conspiracy of Gandhi’s assassination just because he was closely associated with Nathuram Godse.

Today, Savarkar and his name and reputation are victims of Congress Savarkar-bashing, brainwashing of the Indians, and an apparent inability of many to grasp the legalities along with no respect for the Indian Judiciary system that acquitted Savarkar.

Unfortunately, it is clearly a case of “too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”[1]

It is extraordinary that Indians are as one in turning a blind eye toward the numerous and horrific dodgy doings of their Mahatma—and yet they are unable to take a suspicious eye off Savarkar for things he did not do!

In the next five posts I am going to write on some details of the Gandhi-Murder Case and the Kapur Commission which (aided and abetted by Frontline and A. G. Noorani) has quite a large hand in maintaining the fiction of Savarkar’s involvement in Gandhi’s assassination.

Anurupa

[1] John F. Kennedy

Treasured Memories . . .

Posted on by Anurupa

“When someone you love becomes a memory, the memory becomes a treasure.”

– Unknown

I met Dr. Godbole only one more time, for he lived in Mumbai, and I in the U.S. But we communicated regularly by e-mail. He was not in favor of phone calls or “chat,” either. But once in a while when I saw him in my contacts, I couldn’t resist sending him a “hi,” though he never replied!

Dr. Godbole was most certainly a man of few—very, very few—words. But quality and not quantity in what is said tells you that someone cares.

In 2009 the Swine flu was rampant. I was going to Pune. With just a one meeting acquaintance he called me, greatly concerned, and tried to talk me out of going there. He also called to let me know when the movie “Savarkar” was playing on TV. I thought it was so sweet and caring of him.

When I got back to the U.S. we continued to correspond via email. Soon we were comfortable enough for him to give me health tips and weight-loss tips. For a while, though, that went along the lines of the segment mentioned in the last post!

He told me I must walk everywhere (for errands etc.) and use the steps instead of the elevator. Oh dear, I thought to myself. Really, I almost never come across any staircases here. Everywhere I go (and they are not too many places) is on the ground level. And I could, possibly, see myself walking to the grocery store, but who would carry all the groceries on the way back? So that wasn’t going to work.

But, I told him brightly, I shall dance for exercise. I don’t know what he thought of that, but he said it was important that I wear shoes. It was another “oh dear” moment. First thing I do when I begin dancing is to kick off my shoes. The feeling that he was going to think I was an odd one was creeping up on me again.

His next advice threw me right off my stride! “Don’t,” he wrote, “start smoking and drinking in excess!”

Eek! I thought, is that what he thinks of me?!! I laugh to myself when I remember this.

I read my novel over and over and over in the editing phase. And every time I read it I had bitter-sweet moments when I came across the memories of Dr. Godbole captured in it. There were so many scenes where I had reached out to him for help. Savarkar’s conversation with the political prisoners getting amnesty in the Cellular Jail could never have been written had he not given me the historical background and a perspective of the reasoning Savarkar had used. Unfortunately, Savarkar himself has not given the details, so I had really been in a bind. When I was about to write the scene of Keshu’s concussion, I came up with a blank. How were the hospitals in 1921? How did they treat the patients? How were the nurses? Again it was Dr. Godbole who helped me out. Even if I didn’t actually use what I learned in the writing of the scene, it was essential for me to picture the scene in its totality.

When the whole of the Part II was written, I was so emotional that I couldn’t judge it. Dr. Godbole was not doing well at the time. But when I called him and told him of my worries, he asked me to send it over and he would check it for me.

And he did.

It must have been very, very taxing for him. I truly appreciated what he did for me. He gave a very detailed feedback and I was able to polish my novel with it. One point he made was very funny:

I am saying everywhere that I have written true incidents, and have really tried to be authentic. But in some incidents I have given myself some freedom. One such scene was Savarkar and the kids in Savarkar Sadan. While it is true that Savarkar did spend time with his family in the garden, the actual scene is from my imagination. I really enjoyed writing that scene. It was cute, I thought. I threw in a mango tree (using my grandmother’s garden as inspiration.)

Well, in Dr. Godbole’s comments he wrote, “Did Savarkar Sadan have a mango tree?” He really did want me to be authentic!!

I hadn’t any way of knowing what trees were planted there (though I knew from Vishwasrao’s writings there were fruit trees.) Perhaps a mango tree was too much, I thought. So I have now changed it to a peru tree—much easier for a little boy to climb.

Dr. Godbole was not very effusive in his compliments. Sometimes he said “very good,” often though it was just “quite good.” But that was worth so much more to me than fulsome flattery from others. And there are two things he has said to me which are my treasured memories.

He once wrote to me, quite early on, “You belong to the Savarkar family.” I was so very touched. I felt cloaked in a warm envelop of caring. Since my childhood, I have never felt I belonged anywhere—like the “dhobi ka kutta” I always felt “na ghar ka na ghat ka”—always the odd one out. I cried all day that day.

And once he wrote to me, “Oh, so that’s what makes you so unusual.” I really, really treasure that one too. No one had ever said that to me (and only one other, my doctor, since.) I have, of course, had people tell me I am “different,” and “not normal.” No one has, quite, said I am “odd” or “peculiar,” but they have looked it. And so many look at me as if I am an alien being from another planet!

So you see why I hug that one to myself so dearly!

It was Dr. Godbole who always encouraged me to keep writing and working on my novel. In 2010, I went through a very rough patch supporting a friend through her crisis. It was very difficult to focus on the novel then. I turned more and more to translating Savarkar’s poems and doing research for him. Dr. Godbole was the only one who kept me on my toes re the novel through that time.

In 2010 January (23^rd or 24^th, I think) something in my correspondence with Dr. Godbole touched my nerve. I reacted like a wounded animal—very upset. Dr. Godbole took the trouble to comfort me and console me. He didn’t get upset with me, nor did he say or feel why I was being such a so-and-so. It was a week before he wrote to me next. It was a single-liner saying: he had had a serious operation; he had not told me as he knew I would be upset, but he was now back home recuperating.

I had to read that many times before it sunk in. I had been giving him a headache almost up to the time he went into surgery . . . ! He had been giving me solace and comfort at just a grave juncture in his life, and he was worried about bothering me. I cannot even begin to describe all that I felt then, so I won’t try.

But you do see what a special person he was?

I have come across a Hebrew proverb:

“Say not in grief ‘he is no more,’ but live in thankfulness that he was.”

And I do indeed try to follow that, for I am certainly most thankful that my path did cross that of Dr. Godbole’s. He holds a very special place in my heart.

Anurupa

I miss you, Dr. Godbole . . .

Posted on by Anurupa

“How do I deal with my grief, immeasurable beyond belief?”

– Unknown

Sometimes in our lives—if we are lucky enough—we meet someone special who just by being themselves, just by being there, however fleetingly, enrich our lives.

For me that special someone was Dr. Arvind Godbole.

November 1, 2011, was the very dark day when Dr. Godbole passed away. It wasn’t totally unexpected; I had been dreading that news for months. And yet I wasn’t prepared to hear it—one never is.

“No . . .!” my brain had screeched then and is perhaps still screeching it. But there is none more relentless than death. Sometimes I remember him with a smile or a laugh, other times tears roll down my cheeks before I know it . . .

“If tears could build a stairway

And memories a lane,
I’d walk right up to Heaven

And bring you home again.”

Last year I wanted to pour my heart out and write just what he meant to me and couldn’t. It was too painful. But today I can walk down that memory lane—yes, most definitely today I can do it.

It was in August of 2009 that I met Dr. Godbole for the first time. The plan to meet was made months before, but still I had been dithering nervously and not making the appointment. I just so hate making phone calls, especially to people I don’t know! Or perhaps I was nervous because he had been Savarkar’s physician? Anyway, at this point Shreerang (Dr. Godbole’s son whom I have mentioned in previous posts and to whom my novel is dedicated) lost patience with me. With his “stop indulging in irrational fears” ringing in my years, I found myself outside Dr. Godbole’s door on a Sunday morning at 9 a.m. Out here in the U.S. one wouldn’t dream of disturbing anyone at that hour!

I took to Dr. Godbole right away, at first sight. He had this aura of sweetness and gentleness about him—so soft-spoken, so genteel. I felt very loud, bold, and brash by comparison. He was so very, very knowledgeable too. He had so many Savarkar anecdotes to tell, and he could quote passages from books off the top of his head. And here I was—a very, very raw writer (who hadn’t yet reached the stage of calling herself an author,) one who had as yet barely grasped the basics of efficient research, but one who was proudly clutching a very much incomplete manuscript (written as a continuous narration till halfway through the Andaman incidents; no chapters as yet, but I was quite confident all would fall into place by and by.)

I can’t remember the details of our conversation, but one segment went like this:

“So, do you take notes of research?” Dr. Godbole asked.

“No, Dr. Godbole.”

“Have you decided on your chapters?”

“No, Dr. Godbole.”

“Have you written anything else, articles and such?”

“No, Dr. Godbole.”

Mentally I began to wonder how many more times I would be saying “No, Dr. Godbole”! If it wasn’t obvious before, it was now very much evident how really heavily the odds were stacked against my writing and publishing this novel.

Fortunately, I am quite irrepressible when on a roll and almost impossible to embarrass. Plus my sense of humor came to the rescue. And so I was still holding my own, laughing and brimming with confidence of succeeding in my oh-so-impossible dream of writing and publishing my novel.

What, I did wonder though, must he think of me? Normally I don’t much care what people think of me, but what Dr. Godbole thought of me was rather important. Fortunately—since I couldn’t actually ask him outright. That was beyond even my gumption!—I was put out of my suspense very soon.

At the same time as I was dashing off an email to Shreerang (upon reaching my parents’ home) telling him how wonderful I thought his dad was, Dr. Godbole was telling him he was favorably impressed with me! He even said (from the quick scan he had done of my manuscript) I wrote well . . . !! I quite shudder to think about that manuscript now, but at the time I was soooo thrilled.

Such was the beginning of our acquaintance.

Anurupa

“History is not history unless it is the truth”

Posted on by Anurupa

– Carl Sagan

Hi, Everyone! This is the last post in this series. And so I am going to recap in words of other authors all that I have documented in the posts of the last couple of weeks.

“Lord Linlithgow, who was in favour of the unity of India, once said that ‘the Hindus have made the mistake of taking Jinnah seriously about Pakistan and as a result have given substance to the shadow.’”

“In the last week of September 1945, at a meeting of the All-India Congress Committee in Bombay, Sardar Patel even demonstratively chastised a Muslim member, one Mr. Mians, in these words: ‘If you say that the Muslim League is a nationalist organization, why are you to be found in the Congress at all? Ever since the Congress abandoned unadulterated nationalism the mischief had grown. That was when the Congress accepted separate communal electorates. There have since been a series of mistakes. From minority representation we travelled to the fifty-fifty parity principle.”[1]

“It has been pointed out more than once in the three volumes of this work that there were fundamental differences between the Hindus and Muslims of India which stood in the way of their fusing into one nation, as this term is generally understood.

This was emphasized by the separate electorate, originally devised by Minto, but later accepted by the Congress. Since then the Congress had, in practice if not in theory, recognized the two-nation theory. . . .

As far back as 1934 the Congress pledged itself to reject any scheme of solving communal problem vis-à-vis Indian Constitution which was not agreed to by the Muslims.”[2]

“In 1937 his [Nehru’s] outright rejection of Jinnah’s offer of Congress-League Coalition Ministry ruined the last chance of a Hindu-Muslim agreement.”[3]

In 1942 Gandhi wrote in Harijan that if the vast majority of Muslims want to partition India they must have the partition; and in 1944 he actually carried on negotiations with Jinnah on this basis.

In 1945 the Congress Working Committee passed a resolution that it could not think ‘of compelling the people in any territorial unit to remain in an Indian union against their declared and established will.’

The eminent Hindu leader Rajagopalachari actually suggested the idea of Pakistan as the only basis for a peaceful settlement of the Hindu-Muslim problem and

Even Nehru conceded the possibility of Pakistan in January, 1946.

Early in March, the Working Committee of the Congress itself suggested the partition of the Punjab, and (therefore also of) Bengal, on communal basis.”[4]

“In 1937 his [Nehru’s] outright rejection of Jinnah’s offer of Congress-League Coalition Ministry ruined the last chance of a Hindu-Muslim agreement. His observance in 1946 destroyed the last chance—though a remote one—of a free united India.”[5]

Anurupa

[1]Veer Savarkar, Keer, page 368.

[2]HFMI, vol III, page 801.

[3]Ibid, page 770.

[4]Ibid, page 801.

[5]Ibid, page 770.

Mother India Hacked!

Posted on by Anurupa

“When one with honeyed words but evil mind persuades the mob, great woes befall the state.”

– Euripides, Orestes

Hi, Everyone! With the entry of Lord Mountbatten on India’s political scene, the final hour of reckoning was here. India was buried in a bloodbath, the leaders of the various parties and the Princes were not coming to any agreement, and Britain’s need to get out of India was urgent.

Already, in March 1947, the Working Committee of Congress had suggested the partitioning of Punjab and Bengal.

Under these circumstances, it was not surprising that Mountbatten’s solution to the problem was partitioning India.

Yet, there was perhaps one last chance to save India.

“Savarkar knew that the last moment to be or not to be had come. On May 29, 1947, in a fervent and forlorn appeal to the Congressite, Savarkar urged them not to betray the electorates and India by agreeing to a scheme involving vivisection of the Motherland. He reminded them that they had not been elected to the legislatures on the issue of partition and their Constituent Assembly had also no right ab initio even to consider such a proposal. Hence he urged upon them to resign their seats and posts and to seek re-election on the clear-cut issue of Pakistan or a United India, if they were for the partition of India. Savarkar further suggested to the Congress leaders that they might demand a plebiscite to decide such a momentous issue involving the life and death of the nation and the destiny of future generations.”[1]

But “when the wordy Congress democrats were reeling in the drunken joy of party and personal power”[2]were they going to heed these words? When the power they had so assiduously chased at the cost of India’s integrity, at the cost of the lives of so many Indians, was now within their grasp, were they going to give it up?

No.

“The Congress leaders were now well prepared for their final consent to the onslaught on the unity of India. In a written message read out after the usual daily prayer-meeting in Delhi, Gandhi declared on June 9, 1947, that he was not opposing the Congress acceptance of the new British plan.

But who got the Congress committed to that resolution? History would record that all these Congress brand nationalist leaders were as one in coercing the Hindus to accept Pakistan. . . .

Sardar Patel’s support to the partition of India was a complete transfer scene from sword to surrender. . . .

Gandhi put an ultimatum before the A.I.C.C. He threatened them either to accept the resolution conceding Pakistan or to replace the old tried Congress leaders. He advised them to accept the plan of Pakistan and added that it was their duty to stand by their leaders. . . .

To the Congress leaders their prestige was more important than the destinies of the nation and the fate of the millions. That was an unfortunate characteristic of the Congress leadership.

“What other country has witnessed such a betrayal?”[3]

And Mother India was hacked into pieces. Pakistan was born.

Anurupa

[1]Veer Savarkar, Keer, page 381.

[2] Ibid, page 382

[3] Ibid, page 382-384.

Plucking the fruit of the Pakistan Plant

Posted on by Anurupa

– Carl Sagan

Hi, Everyone! With the Muslim League taking the Pakistan scheme off the table, though with reservations, the saving of India was a great possibility.

It was a very, very delicate juncture in Indian history, a very critical moment. It was time to tread with great caution.

So who upset this applecart?

On July 6, 1946, Nehru gave a speech before the Congress Working Committee. Read what R. C. Majumdar has to say about it in his HFMI, Vol III (pages 770-774).

“In winding up the proceedings of the Committee, Nehru made a long speech explaining the position of the Congress vis-à-visthe Cabinet Mission plan. He said ‘that as far as he could see, it was not a question of the Congress accepting any plan, long or short. It was merely a question of their agreeing to enter the Constituent Assembly, and nothing more than that. They would remain in that Assembly so long as they thought it was for India’s good and they would come out when they thought it was injuring their cause. ‘We are not bound by a single thing except that we have decided for the moment to go to the Constituent Assembly.’

Later, speaking at a press conference on 10 July, Nehru qualified his statement. He admitted that the Congress was bound by the procedure set down for election of members to the Constituent Assembly. But then he added: ‘What we do there we are entirely and absolutely free to determine.’ . . .

If Nehru were determined to scare away Jinnah he could not have devised a better or more ingenious plan.

In view of the importance of Nehru’s statement and its tragic consequences of putting ‘Hindus and Muslims back in two fuming and suspicious camps,’ it would not be improper to refer to the views of two Englishmen, both intimate friends of Nehru, and one of whom was the author of what Nehru regarded as his best biography. Leonard Mosley says:

‘Did Nehru realize what he was saying? He was telling the world that once in power, the Congress would use its strength at the Centre to alter the Cabinet Mission Plan as it thought fit. . . . In the circumstances, Nehru’s remarks were a direct act of sabotage.’”

“In 1937 his [Nehru’s] outright rejection of Jinnah’s offer of Congress-League Coalition Ministry ruined the last chance of a Hindu-Muslim agreement. His observations in 1946 destroyed the last chance—though a remote one—of a free united India.”[1]

When everything was set for a happy ending for India, Nehru chose to ruin India’s chances of unity. For years the Congress had been trying to get Jinnah out of their hair. And now when it appeared they would be stuck with him, for in the final reckoning he had put aside his Pakistan demand, they chose to incite him into demanding it again.

There is a very good word to describe this action of Nehru’s: “stabotage,”[2]—a deliberate stab in the back sabotage of India’s chance of unity.

· This is the action that dropped the gavel on go-ahead of the Pakistan scheme.

· This is the action that led directly to Jinnah’s calling out for Direct Action.

· This is the action that led to the horrendous killing, raping, and looting of Hindus.

· This is the action that led to the civil war in India, the wholesale violence particularly in the Punjab and Bengal.

India paid a very heavy price, indeed, for the aspirations of the Congress High Command.

Anurupa

[1]HFMI, vol III, page 770.

[2]This is a word coined by author Dr. Judith Briles.

The Pakistan Plant Blossoms, Part II

Posted on by Anurupa

“A deed without a name . . .”

Hi, Everyone! After the WWII, Britain was left in such dire straits that it was imperative for her to find some solution to the Indian problem and get out of India.

Prime Minister Atlee sent a delegation of Ministers to find a solution to the problem of India. After studying the situation well, the delegation came to one, and only one, conclusion.

“The delegation were therefore unable therefore unable to advise the British Government to transfer power in India to two entirely separate sovereign States.”[1]

There was hope for a united India yet! I have put the Cabinet Mission Plan proposal in a nutshell in my novel.

“An agreement being impossible, the Cabinet Mission announced a plan: formation of a Union of India, embracing all the provinces and Princely States, which would deal with the foreign affairs, defense, and communications along with the power to raise the finances required for them; provinces to be divided into three sections—effectively representing what could be West Pakistan, Hindustan, and East Pakistan; a provincial autonomy to be established by vesting all other subjects and residuary powers in the provinces; a Constituent Assembly to be formed to map out the constitution of free India; and an Interim Government to be formed immediately for the day-to-day running of the country in the transition period, while a permanent deal was negotiated with Britain.”[2]

The delegation left, and it was up to Wavell now to get the Congress and the Muslim League to agree to the Cabinet Mission Plan.

This was, of course, easier said than done! But after much argument and putting forth of reservations, both the Congress and the League decided to accept the Cabinet Mission Plan in spirit (though with reservations.)

“Jinnah proposed to hold out his hand of ‘co-operation’ to the Congress. The Congress, too, accepted the plan of May 16 as it stood, and declared its willingness to join the Constituent Assembly with a view to framing the constitution of a free, united and democratic India.”[3]

“The Congress and the Muslim League had indeed accepted the long-term plan . . . hereafter it was not to be so much a struggle to wrest power from the British, as a dispute as to how that power, once inherited, should be shared by the parties concerned.”[4]

Pakistan scheme was off the table . . . ! For the first time in the last ten years, the dreaded vivisection of India was shelved, at least for the moment.

In 1946, the scene was all set to save India from being hacked!

· Why then did India get partitioned?

· Why was there practically a civil war in India?

· Why did rivers of blood flow in India?

· At whose door can we lay this responsibility?

Read on tomorrow.

Anurupa

[1] Transfer of Power, V. P. Menon, page 264.

[2] Burning for Freedom, Anurupa Cinar, page 280.

[3]Mahatma Gandhi, Keer, page 746.

[4]Transfer of Power, V. P. Menon, page 279.

The Pakistan Plant Blossoms . . .

Posted on by Anurupa

“A deed without a name . . .”

Hi, Everyone! I am not going to give a detailed description of the trickery and dastardly acts that Congress committed to win the elections. It is very well covered in my novel Burning for Freedom. I shall just mention it in bullet points.

The Congress High Command was quick to realize that a curtain would have to be dropped on their Pakistan ambition. Indians did notwant their country to be hacked to pieces. The industrialists supporting the Congress poured money into their coffers for the election campaign. It was in their interest that Congress win the election too. They had already invested a lot of money in the Congress, if the power went to the Hindu Mahasabha, their investment would go down the drain!

The Congress adopted these tactics:

· They made passionate avowals of rooting for a united India. Pakistan would be accepted only over their dead body.

· They went all out to support the Indian National Army soldiers, and they defended them at their trials. The Indians loved the Congress for this!

But up until the election the Congress was calling these patriots traitors. Now it suited them to champion their cause.

· They bribed, threatened, or sabotaged the Hindu Mahasabha candidates. Their schemes got the Hindu Mahasabha president to withdraw himself from the elections.

Savarkar was completely incapacitated by ill health and could do nothing to campaign for Hindu Mahasabha in the elections.

So this Congress foul play was entirely successful!

Result was that Congress won the Hindu seats in a landslide, and the Muslim seats went to the Muslim League.

Now the fate of India was in the hands of these two and there was not much anyone else could do prevent them hurting India.

Anurupa