On Nehru Report!

This blog entry is a reply to Mr Yasser Latif Hamdani's insightful piece on Nehru Report named ''Jinnah, M C Chagla and Nehru Report''.

You can access the article at:
http://pakteahouse.net/2011/10/25/jinnah-m-c-chagla-and-the-nehru-report/

First of all I would like to say that it is always a pleasure reading Mr Hamdani's articles focusing particularly on the surrounding events leading to partition. Even when I disagree with his conclusions, I still admire his zeal for the subject of history which is often ignored in our part of the world. The point of writing this reply is not to dispute his analysis on Nehru Report but rather to complement his insightful take on it. I share his conclusion that it was actually Nehru Report that led to parting of ways between Jinnah and Congress leadership rather than later events. However, I have something to add to this debate. Therefore, the point is to add a further dimension to this debate.

By no means I adhere to a reductionist account of history presented mostly by Indian historians that focuses too much on divide and rule policy of the Britishers but still there is one particular incident that needed to be mentioned in the context of this historical episode. In February 1928, Lord Birkenhead wrote a letter to Viceroy Lord Irwin:

''I should advise Simon to see at all stages important people who are not boycotting the Commission, particularly Muslims and depressed classes. I should widely advertise all his interviews with representative Muslims. The whole policy is now obvious. It is to testify the immense Hindu population by the apprehension that the Commission having been got hold of the Muslims, may present report altogether destructive of Hindu position, thereby securing a solid Muslim support and leaving Jinnah high and dry.''

[Source: Frederick Edwin Earl of Birkenhead: The Last Phase , by The Second Earl of Birkenhead, published by Thornton Butterworth page 258]

How can we explain this letter? Here was an opportunity for Congress to negotiate and come to terms with Muslim League and Jinnah but by exploiting the fears of Hindu Mahasabha, Congress was somehow forced to lose this golden opportunity. It was Birkenhead who wanted Jinnah to feel alienated.

Secondly, I believe at the time of Nehru Report the views of Khalafatists Muslims were in consonance to that of Jinnah. As far as my reading is concerned, despite the Khilafat fiasco, at the time of Simon Commission Muhammad Ali Jauhar and Shaukat Ali represented no different views than Jinnah. Speaking rhetorically Shuakat Ali remarked about Nehru Report:

''As a young man I was a keen observer of greyhounds, but I have never seen greyhounds deal with a hare as the Hindus proposed to deal with the Muslimms''.

As for Muhammad Ali Johar, he has this to say about it in 1930. Speaking in an aggressive tone he denounced Gandhi and Congress in these words:

''Gandhi is working under the influence of communalist Hindu Mahasaba. He is working for the supremacy of Hinduism and submergence of Muslims''.

Having said that, there were some Khilafatists leaders such as Maulana Azad who endorsed Nehru Report.

I was glad to see a Co-Pakistani admiring Motilal Nehru. The truth of the matter is that Motilal Nehru was cornered by a belligerent propaganda run by Lala-Malaviya Gang who were bitterly opposed to his non-communal politics. In my view, CR Das and Motilal Nehru were probably the two most liberal and non communal Congressmen during 1920s.

Finally, I would like Mr. Hammdani to shed more light on the roles of two muslim delegates of Nehru Report Committe named Ali Imam and Shoaib Qureshi. I think it is unjustified to put all the blame on young Chagla. All these circumstances must be taken into account.

Once again I would thank Mr. Hamdani for persistent work on Jinnah and subcontinental history which seriously needs objective consideration on our part. So, keep on writing Mr Yasser. :-)