Congress and Partition of India: How majoritarian

ruthlessness screwed up the Muslim self

M.Abdul Fathah
The narration of past is a matter of interest to all groups as it buttress the justification for a
society and ideals they seek to construct. The congress dominant history portraying freedom
movement ,a prerogative ofcongress is a tactic in this line. Amidst this, the egalitarian efforts
of minorities, for instance of Muslims to the venture are buried and their presence is defamed
to the extent that every notion and deeds advocated by thecongress gets outright
legitimization .Discourses on partition on India were conventional wisdom go on framing
Jinnah and league underpinned by the British as the architects of partition is no exception.
To my opinion ,it make sense to argue that congress cannot be absided of responsibility, or
more clearly congress was a dominant partaker to British in the process.
As congress historians asserted, the ‘egocentric’ Jinnah was not invoking religion to mobilize
Muslims for a Muslim state. Rather there were at least some rationales behind .Nor did they
pursued a separate country, as it would mean that whole south India was senseless to back
him were none would argue that league had plans for a state. These rationales and deeper
meanings that each congress decisions have rented to Muslims is what I dwells upon.

Congress and Muslims: Accommadational problem and consolidation

Laying stones on 1888 and vaulting of a secularist party sought to represent the multi faced
plural Indian society, congress in fact resonated an undeniable disjunction between its
outlook and what constructed its very entity. Thus a pervasive hinduness was discernible.
Well renowned historians including congress historian Sitaramayya dwells on
how congress was a progeny of Hindu revivalism:
“It was not merely the political forces and the sense of political subjection that gave birth
to congress……All these movements were really so many threads in the stand of Indian
Nationalism and the national duty was to evolve…to renovate and purify the old faith, the
vedantic idealism and reconcile it with nationalism of new age.INC was destined to fulfill this
great mission.”(BP Sitaramayya, p 17-22)
Then why had the congress bore an inclusive outlook and indeed embedded some Muslims
within? .Verily, the agenda of AO Hume, the founder of congress, himself a British Hindu
centered around binding the whole people of India into a single nationalist framework, the
parameters of which was espoused by congressmen’s practice since then.
Through this, I just not contend that the whole congress system were aspirants of such
nationalism till partition, but still there were bigots whose needs were reflected within.
Muslim alienation towards congress at the outset clearly barefaced this face of congress with
just two Muslim delegates attending the first meeting and subsequent meetings with meager
representation (Rafeeq Zakariyya, p 48).Muslim intelligentsia such as Sir Sayed vehemently
criticized Muslim allegiance to congress pointing to majoritarian nationalism propounded by the
party and substandard social and educational stand of musims at that time. Muslim patriarchal
society , a platform for anti congress voices was founded by him on 1888.To my opinion,
though sir sayed’s arguments really did hold ,it instigated many sunni ulamas who countered
his deformed religious views to have pro congress approach ,thus yielding whatsoever small
Muslims congress constituted .
In its course forward, a dominant factor contributed to Muslim consolidation
was congress repudiation against any kind of consideration to minorities and hesitation to
consider them as a separate segment,giving way to apprehensions among Muslims about their
prospects in the face of majoritarian ruthlessness . Till his last breath AO Hume had
lampooned any genre of special representation to minorities. Alongside ,the elite classes
within congress defended every move that casted threats on their majority by appropriating
nationalism and integration to an unscrupulous advantage .This double dealing
of congress could be vividly seen through its response to various intra national partition
surfaced during pre colonial era .1905 Bengal partition was a striking instance
where congress projected a collective defense of both communities against it. In fact being a
majority in eastern Bengal ,Muslims got a chance to escape from down trodden life and root
their influence there. Congress stiff opposition was really a maneuver to eschew minority
from reaping social and economic benefits including govt. benefits out of civil service.Dr
ambedkar too maintains that such a bias constructed from fear of losing political power
constituted congress opposition against partition of Sindh in 1929.However as a
paradox, congress never found hesitation in propping up Bengal and Punjab partition during
1947,which was yet another boon to Hindu elite classes who would otherwise be reduced to a
minority in the new country. These dominant impulses were driving force behind
consolidation tendencies among Muslims more or less culminating in the formation of
Muslim league in 1906.
Congress and League: A tale of majoritarianism
Since congress inception, there were loose Muslim organizational setups and individual
ventures keen to cut loose from shackles of congress through instrumental means. After a
successful simla deputation led by Muhsinul Mulk, muslim leaders become aware of
mobilizing Muslim populace ,thus paving way to formation of league. This doesn’t suggest
that league founders never attempted to redefine congress policies to their advantage.
“Aga Khan did his best to prevent the breach being widened by remonstrating with his old
friend Sir Ferozshah Mehta and begging him to use his influence and make congress realize
how important it was to gain Muslim confidence. But not avail...”(Aziz, K.K.,p 62)

As congress articulated, it was not separatist or communalist tendencies that led Muslim
league .Rather, Among the three foundational agendas of league, the third insisted on sparing
no efforts to avoid hostility toward others. It was as a lieu to league that congress brought a
parallel organization of national Muslims led by Azad.Still haunting minority
self, congress hesitated to accept leagues authenticity even after leagues unprecedented
victory during 1946 .However we couldn’t overlook considerable amount of cooperation
between two parties probably at its first phase, facilitated by liberal elements in the party.
Many Muslim stalwarts including Jinnah represented both parties. Forging of Lucknow pact,
thus legitimizing leagues very needs ,a federal system, Muslim reservation and leagues
authority, was in fact the peak of such an amiability. However such a fruitful interlude was
short lived as congress yet again espoused its communal character with extremists tightening
their hold. Congress soon deceived Muslim league through Nehru report which engendered a
unitary govt. instead and discarded the authority of league.
Congress approach to Muslims and Muslim league during its two year rule from 1937 to
1939 had once more irreparably impaired confidence within muslims.At first
place, congress tormented the very essence of India act, which insisted minority
representation in the elected government .Though Muslim league won more Muslim seats
than other things and the congress itself, independent representatives were installed
as minority representatives in the Hindu dominant assembly. At a moment ,Nehru even
declared:
“In the final analysis there are only two forces in India today-British imperialism and the Congress representing Indian
nationalism” (Ram Gopal, p 251)
Muslim arguments for a separate state was an implication of congress lopsided ruling during
this period. Step mother attitude towards Udru, subsiding Muslims from govt. jobs and
textbooks that gave tacit admission to anti- Muslim elements were all well pronounced during
this regime. As prof. Coupland points out, the greatest mistake congress committed was to
belittle the power of Muslim nationalism. The atmosphere couldn’t have been so charged
if congress had at least admitted league’s authencity.1937 Manifesto of league had requests
for cooperation. But intoxicated by electoral win, congress out rightly denied it.
Muslim League and call for Pakistan
As the conventional wisdom go on showcasing league and Jinnah as framers of two nation
theory, it seems worth dealing on theirs stand in the issue.Verily, till 940s neither did central
committee of league took partition into serious concern nor did it occupy their minds.
Ideology of carving out a Muslim state was first bought into leagues’ table by Iqbal as a sole
solution to mutual antagonism between the communities and resultant crisis.
“He opinioned a Muslim state in the North West during his presidential address to 1930
Allahabad assembly. However as many defined, he did no intend two distinct nations, rather
it was a federation of Muslim states under British India. Nor was he the father of India’s
partition”(Husain.Dr.K., p 341)
However, even such a solution was unbearable to Muslim league leaders. Among them was
Jinnah who pilloried the word partition itself and countered it as an imagination of poet. Then
what necessitated league leaders for a separate state? As it is unambiguously penned before,
Muslim leaders have begun to believe that present India was not conductive to Muslim
interests and prospects. But still there were considerable gulf between two nation theory as
league espoused during its Lahore sittings and what congress articulated. Leagues’ quest for
two state was anchored in peaceful co-existence of two states, embellished with ample
protection for minorities where each communities preserved there culture independently. To
my opinion ,I would suggest two state theory rather than two nation theory. The word Nation
as seen Jinnah’s 1940 essay titled “Time and Tide”, the first one to show green flag to
partition did really demarcate “society with distinct culture”. Sir Sayed,Savarkar and Lala
Lajpat rai too termed the nation in the same meaning.1940 Lahore resolution too not
propound two nations, nor was it a Pakistan Project.Khaliquzzaman ,for instance ,responding
to Mahershdayal’s ignorance on resolution firmly stood on these:
Muslim League’s Lahore resolution engendered two states within the geographical boundary
of india.However what you intend is to create a distinct state outside india.We aspire for
Administrative partition of India.Rather, What you aim is geographical partition which I
won’t admit in any terms.
In fact the origin of a distinct two nation theory could be bestowed upon Chaudhari Rahmat
Ali,a research scholar at Cambridge university, who was proclaimed as the founder of
Pakistan national movement in 1930 itself. Leaving no doubt, he repudiated both Iqbal’s
theory as posited in Allahabad assembly and theory of separate state which held stake after
1940s within league, thus bare facing the gulf between his argument and these theories.
Meanwhile, what was the stand of other community leaders in the issue? At a time league
stood on federal govt,many employed cultural nationalist elements for a single Hindu
state.Niether did they projected a secular state nor did they tolerated a Muslim state outside.
And when the necessities of Pakistan culminated they considered two friendly states a
debunked idea.
Quest for power and course towards partition
From what implicit in accounts so far, it makes clear that congress necessitated the partition
.Moreover, it would not in any manner an exaggeration to declare that congress did really
hoped it. Azad unambiguously expressed how Patel advocated the Pakistan. In his opinion
there should be no staggering in regarding him as the founder of the same .What encoded in
such a mindset was none other than to get rid of league and the problematic minority ,thus
rendering congress with unquestionable and undeniable political power in the divided India
.Congress was thus ready to employ any tactics to politically frustrate Muslim
league. Congressresponse towards Cabinet mission which could have been a great leap to
avoid partition was a striking instance. In fact missions recipes were in conjunction with
leagues very needs till 1940 i.e. a federal system.Unfortunately, league which even tolerated
to sacrifice its two nation theory to get it promulgated was deceived when Nehru irreparably
corroded its very entity declaring that congress has sufficient freedom to amend the mission
project. Nehru perhaps dodged out from what was accepted at Bombay congress meeting.
With Mountbatten’s much lauded depart to India, we were nearing the irreparable partition by
leaps and bounds. No historians could overlook congress nasty hands in replacing the
pestering lord Wavell and installing Mountbatten. Freedom at Midnight reveals it as follows:
“Although Mountbatten didn’t know it, the idea of sending him to India had been suggested
to Attlee by the man at the PM’s side…Sir Stanford Cripps. It had come up at a secret
conversation between Cripps and Krishna Menon,intimate of the congress leader Jawaharlal
Nehru.Menon had suggested to Cripps and Nehru that congress saw little hope of progress in
India so long Wavell as viceroy”.( Larry Collins and Dominique lapierre, p 9)
Congress went no despair, by propping up congress in its persuit,he did really show his
allegiance to congress,. As Mountbatten took throne, Gandhiji has advanced before him a
national govt. with Jinnah’s support, yet aspiring for a federal india.But not ready to change
heart ,congress threw these gospels aside, propounding itself a partition of the country by
dividing Punjab and Bengal. Meanwhile, Gandhi was a worn out tool forcongress. He was
still an iconic mass puller, but was too far away from power structures. Later a plan tailored
by VP Menon , a crony to Nehru and mountbatten,fully devoid of leagues interests was
presented before Jinnah after getting outright support of congress and approval from England.
This lopsided order itself gives foretaste of what the plan truly intended. Jinnah has
descended the project at first, but was threatened to accept by batten asserting that lest he
would lose this truncated Pakistan itself.Verily,with that node, a saga of efforts have come to
a sharp end. There were no alternatives before this ailing man, other than a bystanders’
position in the process.
Verily, couple of leaders who failed to gauge the pulses of country had led us to the greatest
geographical cut in the history, the aftermath of which was an unprecedented outburst of
communal riots. The resultant crisis didn’t confine to that period, the communal charge and
stigma on minorities still haunt the country. In the present political sphere, the unflinching
minority support base the congress enjoyed since independence is fast diminishing. Since the
perpetuation of personal power during emergency ,disillusionment with congress has given
birth to various developments ,more so from dalits and muslims.The traumatic destruction of
Babari ,a symbol of secularism and appealing to Hindu sentiments dictated by compulsions of
electoral politics were dominant impulses. The soft hinduthwa approach it employed had
retaliated itself against congress. Mushrooming spectra of hinduthwa politics is a
consequence of this so called centrist approach of congress which was not genuine. The
socialist and secularist approach congress stalwarts espoused remained as a mirage and mere
slogan. As lord Curzon have prophesied before a century, it appears that it is tottering
towards its end. There is no way before congress than to part away from its past and start new
to win hearts.Atleast lets have political pragmatism rather than opportunism and expediency,
if not ideological politics.
References
1) Ambedhkar, Dr., Pakistan or Partition of India, Bombay 1948
2) Sita Ramayya, Pattabhi, The history of the Indian National Congress, Bombay 1947
3) Rafiq Zakariyya, Rise of Muslims in Indian Politics, Bombay 1971
4) Larry Collins and Dominique lapierre, Freedom at Midnight, 2009
5) Ram Gopal, Indian Muslims: Apolitical history ,Bombay 1964
6) Khaliquzzaman, The Pathway to Pakistan, Lahore 1961
7) Husain, Dr.K., Freedom in Partition, VolI&II, Poomkavanam , Kozhikode, 2007
8) Coupland, Sir R., Report on the Constitutional Problems in India,1943
9)Aziz,K.K., Britain and Muslim India, London ,1963

M Abdul Fathah is a research intern at Madeenathunnoor college of Islamic science, Calicut, Kerala. His
areas of interest includes Indian Muslims, political terrorism, subaltern studies, Muslim cultural studies
etc.