It is of course possible to take the position that the Congress made Partition possible through its many mistakes: the poorly timed Quit India movement itself, Nehru’s ill-considered comments at a critical juncture, the alienation caused by the failure to share power in Uttar Pradesh with the Muslim League, and so on. But it is hard to argue that a Jinnah who insisted that only the Muslim League and no one else could represent the Muslims, who launched the violent Direct Action Day in 1946, and who was a cat’s paw for the British throughout, can be absolved of primary responsibility for the partition of the country which, as Jaswant Singh observes, solved nothing.
Jaswant Singh’s book will provoke controversy not necessarily because of what he has said, but more likely because of who is saying it. Like LK Advani before him, Mr Singh may find it tempting to hang the responsibility of Partition round the Congress’ neck, and blame in particular that ultimate secularist Jawaharlal Nehru, but in the process Mr Singh adopts some strange positions. He told Karan Thapar, in a TV interview whose transcript this newspaper printed, that Jinnah merely wanted “certain provinces to be with the Muslim League. He wanted a certain percentage (of seats) in the Central legislature. If he had that, there would not have been a partition.” Even if that that were true, it is amazing that Mr Singh should find such reservation along religious lines acceptable. Indeed, having found it acceptable, he goes on to pan the very reservation he feels it was all right for Jinnah to champion. To quote from his interview: “The problem started with the 1906 reservation. What does the Sachar committee report say? Reserve for the Muslim. … I think this reservation for the Muslims is a disastrous path.” Taking a fresh look at history is fine, but is it too much to ask for consistency in the positions taken?
-Agencies