Author, Burning for Freedom

Author, Burning for Freedom
click image for my amazon page or to buy 'Burning for Freedom'

Friday, November 9, 2012

“History is not history unless it is the truth”

“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! 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]



[1] Veer Savarkar, Keer, page 368.
[2] HFMI, vol III, page 801.
[3] Ibid, page 770.
[4] Ibid, page 801.
[5] Ibid, page 770.

No comments:

Post a Comment