Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on LinkedIn Share on Reddit Tell A Friend Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites
OpEdNews Op Eds

Could India Have Remained an Undivided Country?

By       Message Arshad M Khan       (Page 1 of 3 pages)     Permalink    (# of views)   No comments

Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; , Add Tags
Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Author 500573
- Advertisement -

It would be a silly question indeed to ask why December 25th is celebrated. On the other hand, one could ask why it is a national holiday in Pakistan, for it is not because it's Christmas. By an unusual coincidence it happens to be the birthday of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founding father of the country. Exactly how Pakistan came into being is an interesting story as it also leads to the question whether the dismemberment of the Indian subcontinent -- now three countries -- could have been averted.


Jinnah started out as a voice for Hindu-Muslim unity, although wary of majoritarianism and Hindu domination. A highly successful lawyer with patrician tastes, he was averse to mob violence and wanted constitutional independence -- the British handing over to an elected Indian government and a constitution safeguarding the rights of minorities.


- Advertisement -

The first step was to seek Dominion status in which Indians would run their own affairs although subject to control by the British government. Accordingly a London conference was convened. The Round Table Conference began in grand style on November 30, 1930 with a plenary session at the House of Lords; after which the participants retired to St. James Palace for the talks.


Hindu and Muslim members sought first to agree on a united front. His Highness The Aga Khan was leading the delegation and also spoke for the Muslims. Sir Chimanlal Setalvad, a prominent Hindu member, has written that the Aga Khan agreed to the Hindu demand for joint electorates, instead of separate Hindu and Muslim ones, but with the reservation of seats for Muslims, and he added magnanimously, "In that event you lead and we follow." Jaswant Singh describes (p. 178) what transpired in his excellent book, "Jinnah: India -- Partition, Independence." Unfortunately the Hindu members receptive to the proposal were intimidated by the others and the Hindu Mahasaba (p. 179, ibid.), the precursor of the nationalist Hindutva movement. Prime Minister Modi's Bharataya Janata Party (BJP) has a Hindu nationalist fervor which has unmasked the BJP that was in power with Jaswant Singh as Foreign Minister.

- Advertisement -


Without a united front, the Round Table Conference was doomed. The seeds of Pakistan had been sown, and as Jinnah repeatedly confronted majoritarianism devoid of any assurances for Muslims, his demands for Pakistan became more implacable.


The last chance for one India arrived in 1946 with the Cabinet Mission. Field Marshal Viscount Archibald Percival Wavell served as Viceroy of India from 1943 to early 1947. Lord Wavell hosted the Mission and served as a link to the parties i.e. Jinnah of the Muslim League and Nehru of the Congress Party. The somewhat ingenious plan devised coalesced the provinces into four groups, the western provinces (now Pakistan), the east, the center and the south. The first two were Muslim majority, the latter two Hindu. The individual provinces would elect members to a group constituent assembly which would then select representatives for the central government in Delhi. Equal Hindu and Muslim groups ensured reasonable parity in Delhi.


The interim government in Delhi that Wavell had in mind would consist of a council of twelve (p. 207, ibid.): five from the Muslim League, five from Congress, one Sikh and one Dalit. In accepting the plan and therefore less, Jinnah was putting his demand for Pakistan at risk. The gesture was unappreciated for with each letter and each communication with Congress, Wavell's original parity suffered dilution. Moreover, Nehru even rejected the Cabinet Mission's grouping plan claiming clearly falsely that, the "entire country is opposed" to it (p. 379, ibid.).

- Advertisement -


In the end there were fourteen members of the council without parity for Muslims. The plan was formally rejected by the Muslim League on July 27, 1946 (p. 382, ibid.). The era of a constitutional path to independence was over. Jinnah and the Muslim League had tired of Nehru's repeated shifts on positions critical to Muslim interests.


Next Page  1  |  2  |  3

 

- Advertisement -

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Arshad M Khan is a former Professor. Educated at King's College London, Oklahoma State University and the University of Chicago, he has a multidisciplinary background that has frequently informed his research. He was elected a Fellow of the (more...)
 

Arshad M Khan Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

a Chilling Documentary, the UN Discusses the Rohingya and an International Judges Tribunal Declares Genocide

Assad Is Not an Idiot

Oh Say Can We Really See ...

Trump Tweets Scorn As Weather Disasters Sweep World

Is the U.S. Losing Its Clout?

Trump Escape, Washington Troubles, and Clorox for Democrats

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

No comments