Why did Mountbatten fix August 15 as I-Day?
By
Rajindar Sachar
In
an article in The Tribune recently, Natwar Singh had suggested that
Mahatma Gandhi approved of the Partition plan. This is factually
incorrect. Socialist leader
Ram
Manohar Lohia's book Guilty Men of India's Partition gives a factual
position. Lohia was present in the final CWC meeting in which the
Partition plan was accepted.
SOME
people have attributed the Congress acceptance of Partition of India in
1947 to “the persuasive voice of Gandhiji which made the working
committee accept the Partition and which but for Gandhiji's
intervention, the working committee might not have approved”. This is
grossly unfair and presents a wrong picture of the final efforts by made
by Gandhiji to prevent Partition up to the final stages.
It
is now well-known that when Jinnah was insistent, Gandhiji made a last
desperate attempt by asking JawaharlalNehru and Sardar Patel to step
aside and let Jinnah be the first Prime Minister of undivided India. He
should form his ministry the way he liked, including the choice to have
only Muslims league Ministers in the Central Cabinet, with the assurance
that the Congress will not object. One cannot say what Jinnah's
reactions would have been. But considering that Jinnah is on record on
insisting that his house in Mumbai / Delhi be not declared evacuee
property because he wished to have good Indo-Pak relations and would
like to spend one month every year in India, it would have been
worthwhile trying.
This
could not be concretised because both Nehru and Patel were forthright
in rejecting this proposal. So for many of us who were adults then this
reference to Gandhiji's acceptance of Partition is painful and does not
represent the factual position. A reference to socialist leader Dr Ram
Manohar Lohia's, book Guilty Men of India's Partition, gives the correct
factual position. Lohia was present in that final Congress Working
Committee meeting. Lohia, who along with Jaiprakash Narain attended that
meeting, has written: “I should like especially to bring out two points
that Gandhiji made at this meeting. He turned to Mr Nehru and Sardar
Patel in mild complaint that they had not informed him of the scheme of
Partition, before committing themselves to it. Before Gandhiji could
make out his point fully, Nehru intervened with some passion to say that
he had kept him fully informed. On Mahatma Gandhi's repeating that he
did not know of the scheme of Partition, Nehru slightly altered his
earlier observation. He said that Noakhali was so far away and that,
while he may not have described the details of the scheme he had broadly
written of the Partition to Gandhiji.......I will accept Mahatma
Gandhi's version of the case, and not Nehru's and who will not? One does
not have to dismiss Nehru as a liar. All that is at issue here is
whether Mahatma Gandhi knew of the scheme of Partition before Nehru and
Patel had committed themselves to it. It would not do for Nehru to
publish vague letters which he might have written to Mahatma Gandhi,
doling out hypothetical and insubstantial information. There was
definitely a hole-in-the-corner aspect of this business. Nehru and Patel
had obviously between themselves decided that it would be best not to
scare Gandhiji away before the deed was definitely resolved upon.
Keeping turned towards Messrs Nehru and Patel, Gandhiji made his second
point. He wanted the Congress party to honour the commitments made by
its leaders. He would, therefore, ask the Congress to accept the
principle of Partition. After accepting the principle, the Congress
should make a declaration concerning its execution. It should ask the
British government and the Viceroy to step aside, once the Congress and
the Muslim League had signified their acceptance of Partition. The
partitioning of the country should be carried out jointly by the
Congress party and the Muslim League, without the intervention of a
third party. This was, I thought so at that time and still do, a grand
tactical stroke. Much has been said about the saint having
simultaneously been a tactician, but this fine and cunning proposal has,
to my knowledge, not so far been put on record.......there was no need
for anyone else to oppose the proposal. It was not considered. I am
writing this to put the record straight”.
Gandhiji’s
anguish at the Partition of the country was so unbearable that he
refused to be in Delhi on August 15. What nobility that the greatest
fighter for India’s freedom refused to share this glory and left Delhi
to fight against the communal carnage taking place at Calcutta and to
give the assurance of safety to the minorities.
I
accept the fact that the conditions in the country had deteriorated to
such a level that it was not possible to prevent the Partition. Yet, we
have not given sufficient thought to the fact that millions of deaths,
most immeasurable destruction in the process of Partition could have
been averted if the leaders of the parties had shown statesmanship in
carrying out the process of partitioning the country. It is well-known
that Prime Minister Clement Attlee had given June, 1948 as the date by
which the British government would leave India, when Lord Mountbatten
was sent to India in March, 1947.
Had
this schedule been observed, requisite and detailed arrangements for
the safety of millions of people, on both sides, could have been made.
Undoubtedly, slaughter and mutual hatred would have been there but both
the governments could have made safe arrangements for exchange of
populations. The government machinery could have been mobilised. But
this did not happen. The reason was the unilateral announcement by Lord
Mountbatten on June 1947, that India’s Independence Day would be on
August 15, 1947. This left no time to make arrangements for an
unprecedented, massive exodus.
One
knows now why this sudden announcement was made at a press conference,
fixing August 15, 1947 as Independence. The reason was the vanity and
self-glorification of Mountbatten. He had accepted the surrender of the
Japanese navy on August 1945, as the Supreme Allied Commander,
South-East Asia Command (SEAC), of Allied powers.
Our
politicians were, unfortunately, too self-obsessed with ignorance and
vanity. As a consequence, they maintained an ominous silence, resulting
in the death of millions and the destruction of massive property. Can
history forgive them? I doubt very much.
The writer is a retired Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court
