A merit of the book is that it contains observations made by Muslim league leaders which completely expose the hypocrisy of Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, say Prafull Goradia and KR Phanda
Another merit of the book is that it treats the subject of Pakistan or the division of India in terms of religious equations. Books so far published have largely treated it as a political phenomenon. Walter Bennett Evans, at the outset, attributes the establishment of Pakistan as entirely the outcome of religio-cultural differences between Hindus and Muslims. Once this is recognised, the demand for creation of Pakistan would be considered a logical outcome. In the words of the author: “The main purpose of this study is to trace the course of Hindu-Muslim relations from the lucknow Pact of 1916 to the demand for Pakistan made by the All-India Muslim league in 1940.” He goes on to say that when British entered India they found two cultures — Hindus and Muslims. They were diverse in many respects. As Indian nationalism evolved during the British rule, so did ‘particularism’ or communalism. On the eve of the second session of the Round Table Conference in london in 1931, Mohammed Ali Jinnah asked: “What is representative governmentIJ Does it mean that the 70 million Muslims should be tied hand and foot in a Constitution where a particular class of Hindus can possibly tyrannise over and deal with them as they likeIJ Is that representative governmentIJ Is that democracyIJ Certainly not.”
liaquat Ali Khan, the first Prime Minister of Pakistan, while addressing the US Senate in 1950 observed: “Pakistan was founded by the indomitable will of a hundred million Muslims who felt that they were a nation. They believed that thus alone would the vast multitudes of Muslims be uninhibited in the development of their culture and free to follow their own way of life.”
Before Partition, eminent Muslim leaders who had even presided over the annual sessions of the Indian National Congress had asserted that Muslims were a different community in many respects from Hindus. Hindu leaders of the early decades of the 20th century had recognised this fact. They had accordingly voiced their concern that cooperation and co-existence with Muslims was not possible. In this context, Evans quotes from a letter written around 1925 by lala lajpat Rai to CR Das. It reads: “There is one point more which has been troubling me very much of late and one which I want you to think carefully and that is the question of Hindu-Mohammadan unity. I have devoted most of my time during the last six months to the study of Muslim history and Muslim law, and I am inclined to think it is neither possible nor practicable. Assuming and admitting the sincerity of Mohammadan leaders in the non-cooperation, I think their religion provides an effective bar to anything of the kind.”
With the passing away of lal, Bal and Pal, Gandhi became the sole leader of the Congress. He had little knowledge of Islam and Muslim history. In order to get the cooperation of the league, he adopted a policy of complete surrender to Muslim demands. Both Gandhi and Nehru tried to show to the British rulers that the Congress represented all peoples of India. However, Muslim leaders did not agree with this contention. This was reiterated by all eminent Muslims at the three sessions of the Round Table Conference, 1930-32, and later in the meetings with the Viceroys and the Cabinet Mission.
In December 1930, Mohammed Iqbal declared that to base the Constitution on the conception of a homogeneous India or apply to India the principles declared by British principles is to prepare it for a civil war. Evans, therefore, reluctantly asserts that during the thousand years and more that Hindus and Muslims lived side by side in the country, two diametrically opposed forces were at play. One force represented by the nationalists (Hindus) moved in the direction of unity and cooperation, while the other forces represented by Muslims moved in the direction of ‘particularism’ or communalism. The lahore Resolution of 1940 marked the triumph of the latter.
Because of the sharp cultural differences between Muslims and Hindus, there were frequent communal riots. These were intense and widespread after the failure of the Khilafat led by Gandhi and Ali brothers. Evans asks: “Why was the communal problem more involved in India than it was in other countries possessed of plural societiesIJ Was it because the British followed a policy of divide et imperaIJ Or, was it because Hindus and Muslims were so different that they could not be brought togetherIJ Evans answers it thus: “The British found India divided and they were to leave India divided. They can scarcely be blamed, therefore, in creating the communal problem.”
It’s a must-read book if you want to understand the India-Pakistan issue in its true sense.
The reviewers are political commentators