Reality of Divide and Rule

8/13/2019 Reality of Divide and Rule

1/21


2/21

, Pakistan Journal of History and Culture, Vol.XXX, No.1, 2009

vivisection of India. This article explores different dimensions of

the divide and rule policy and its practicality in the politics ofBritish India.If it is assumed that the British had governed India through

divide and rule$ policy$ it reduces the &ongress to impotency thatit !as unable to challenge this strategy and prevent thenourishment of communalism in the ubcontinent. This articlesee"s revision from the !riters !ho believe that the British ruledover India through the policy of divide and rule in theadministrative affairs. The very principle can be practical in a

battlefield to reduce the number of the enemies or create riftamong the confronting forces but this strategy cannot be used by

the rulers !ho see" peace or la! and order in the region undertheir possession. ot unrest and communal clashes but regional peace and communal or factional harmony can better serve theaspirations of a con%ueror !ho decides to stay and rule. +nder thissituation$ the British adopted the policy to maintain harmony and

peace. They valued unity and tran%uillity in the British India. They provided several opportunities to the Indian leaders to achievecommunal harmony !ho failed to conclude any agreed settlement.Indian responsibility and agency of course %uestions the extent to!hich the burden of the failure is placed on British shoulders./lmost all the primary sources related to the colonial era have

been declassified and no document has yet been found !hichreveals evidence of a deliberate and sustained divide and rulestrategy in India. Moreover$ to adopt this understanding$ one has toignore evidence of *indu-Muslim conflict !hich predates theruling British presence. 0urthermore$ the post-colonialgovernments have been confronting communal conflict fordecades1 is there still a British push of divide and rule behindconflicts in 2ashmir$ 3ujrat$ /ssam or else!here in India4 Thesituation testifies that the British never used such a policy in Indiarather their revolutionary systemic changes and the communitarianresponse to the democratic reforms caused numerous side effects

in the region !hich$ under duress of nationalism !ere laterinterpreted as deriving from a divide and rule strategy.It is an undeniable reality that the &ongress leadership

concluded friendly dialogue !ith the imperialists !ho !ere


3/21

Reality of Di ide and Rule! in "ritis# $ndia 5

projected before the masses as exploiters and enemies of India. o

doubt$ negotiations !ere imperative as dialogical rationale but the&ongress leadership never treated the British as enemies in thediscussions. They had never been blunt in the dialogues branding6iceroys and 3overnors as the conspirators or hypocrites in thecase of communalism. They never refused to address the British!ith *is Majestys 3overnment or *is or 7our #xcellency. *ardlyany letter from the top &ongress leaders to the British 6iceroy can

be presented as evidence in !hich they had adopted a defiantattitude. They traditionally submitted to the British by addressingthe officials as *is #xcellency$ *is Majestys 3overnment$ mydear$ etc. #ven the i"h leaders used sometimes your servant inthe correspondence !ith 3overnor of the 8unjab. /lthough these!ere the recognised forms in the political correspondence but this!as an imperialistic mannerism !hich the freedom fighters 9asthey claim or the !riters present them: !ere not supposed tofollo! such a belittling mannerism. They could use other !ords ofrespect to sho! decency if they desired in the correspondence.

Mostly it is argued that the rulers !ere dividing the Indiancommunities but M. 2. 3andhi and ;a!aharlal ehru neverrefused to join the rulers in the negotiations on the plea of theBritish conspiracy to vivisect India through the divide and rule

policy. They could permanently boycott all the affairs by arguing

that they could not tal"$ share$ or eat !ith the enemies of the Indiannation. But the *indu leadership had been enjoying friendlyrelations$ banters$ dinners$ functions$ even beyond this !ith theBritishers. )o the nationalist !riters believe that the &ongressleaders could not understand the British !ho !ere trying toseparate the Muslims from the *indus through the policy ofdivide and rule in India4 If they !ere a!are of the British policythen they should have tried to ta"e the Muslim (eague intoconfidence to repudiate the British conspiracy. The &ongressleadership never pointed out this anti-Indian policy during the

parleys !ith the British officials and delegations. /ll this ramifies

that the &ongress leadership itself !as bac"ing the British inlaunching the divide and rule policy in India because despite cryfrom the *indu and Muslim exhortations to the &ongress$ they


4/21

< Pakistan Journal of History and Culture, Vol.XXX, No.1, 2009

continued ignoring the Muslim (eague leadership throughout the

British aj !hich gradually dragged them a!ay from the *indus.Many Indian historians maintain that the Muslim (eague played a pro-British role but never project the same aspect of theIndian ational &ongress. obody can negate this fact that thefounding leadership of the Indian ational &ongress in '==> andIndia after '? !as glossed over.

/llan Actavian *ume not only founded the &ongress but alsoexerted a lot to run its affairs successfully. Throughout the startingyears$ he arranged the &ongress annual sessions and for this

purpose tried to be in contact !ith different persons. *e managedthings li"e finance and reports. There !ere no *indus but only*ume !ho undertoo" all the Cpolitical !or" until 3opal 2rishna3o"hale follo!ed his example in '?D'.E ' 0ive Britons had been

invited to preside over the annual meetings from '==> to '?'=including 3eorge 7ule in '===$ illiam edderburn in '==? and'?'D$ /lfred ebb in '=?


5/21

Reality of Di ide and Rule! in "ritis# $ndia >

Britons as presidents in order to prove its loyal$ moderate and non-

racial character.E,

Membership fee !as s. ,> and according to therules$ students !ere debarred to join the party. The &ongress president !as a four-day "ing of the Indians. )uring the annualgathering$ the representatives from different areas of India !eresupposed to stay at different places according to their religion orstatus. 5 The British intention behind the foundation of the Indian

ational &ongress !as not the policy to divide the Indians andrule over the country rather they provided a training forum forthem. But if it is accepted as a British conspiracy against theIndians$ then this policy !as not secret rather open and tangible

because the British !ere adamant in furthering the cause of the&ongress. If it !as a training platform$ then all ehrus and3andhis !ere the students of the institution !hich !as initiatedand run by the British. 8erhaps$ under the same feelings$ the ehrufamily !as alleged to adopt the political gimmic" in the post-independence politics. 3urmit ingh !rites that the ehru family

being more experienced than the other &ongressites utilised the policy of divide and rule in India after the divide of '?@. )uring the freedommovement era$ they never o!ned the freedom fighters of '=>@

because it could displease the masters !ho !ere at good terms!ith all the &ongress leaders. The martyrs of this !ar !ere thenationalists but the &ongress leadership never dared to celebratetheir days. #ven 3andhi and majority of the *indu leaders neveraccepted the status of Bhagat ingh hahid$ > Babbar /"alis$ F

3hadar party @ 2u"a movement = or the anti-British communists. obody can present any document that the Babbar /"ali leaders

had addressed the 6iceroy or 3overnor or British government as*is #xcellency or *is Majestys 3overnment or your servant.The &ongress leaders concluded friendly deliberations !ith theimperialists and many i"hs and *indus can be %uoted !ho had


6/21

F Pakistan Journal of History and Culture, Vol.XXX, No.1, 2009

been !or"ing for the British in collecting information pertaining to

the political situation in different parts of India. They !ereinvolved in the activities of convincing the Indian leaders in favourof the British !ith different options.

The divide and rule policy seems absurd !hen it isimplemented in the pre and post British India or even before to it.India !as a *indu society but !ith the passage of time it !asdivided on the religious lines1 first Islam and then i"hism securedconversions. This division of the Indian society cannot beattributed to the divide and rule policy of the British. )ivision onethnic$ religious$ lingual and political basis !as a natural

phenomenon. one can believe that the *indus !ho had changed

their religion !ere bribed by any imperialist force. The *indus had*indi language but 3uru /ngad 9, nd i"h 3uru: invented3urmu"hi script !hich provided his follo!ers a separate identity1then 3uru /rjun )ev 9> th 3uru: compiled %rant# &a#i' and lastly3uru 3obind ingh dre! a clear line bet!een i"hs and others. oBritish !as there !ho could be blamed for the divide of the *indusociety. Bloody !ars too" place for the Indian throne after thedeath of #mperor /urangGeb1 the imperial court of India al!aysremained divided into groups !hich !ea"ened the Indian empire.It !as not provo"ed by the British under the divide and rule

policy. )isunity among the Indian communities helped the British

to establish their rule in the ubcontinent$ !hich does not meanthat the Indians !ere divided by the British. The *indu Mahasabha!as not founded !ith the British !ill to upset the *indu unity andto prolong their rule. urely$ the British had not been behind allthese developments rather it !as all a natural phenomenon. Indiannationalist !riters ho!ever stubbornly denied its naturalness andclaimed that it !as perpetrated by the British.

In '?D?$ the Muslims !ere given the right of separateelectorates !hich the &ongress or the Indian scholars haveattributed to the divide and rule policy of the British but their

pens seem paralysed to shed light on the same right given to the

i"hs in '?'?. as it not a divide and rule policy4 In '?'F$ the&ongress conceded the separate electorates for the Muslims$ !hichdoes not mean that the &ongress leadership had joined the Britishconspiracy under the divide and rule policy.


7/21

Reality of Di ide and Rule! in "ritis# $ndia @

To Tuteja$ !hen 3andhi in the early '?5Ds pointed out that the

i"h demands !ere communal$ Master Tara ingh responded thatcommunal politics could be dealt !ith by the communalist politics. ? The *indu leader should have stood for his idealism buthe did not object. But in eptember '?


8/21

= Pakistan Journal of History and Culture, Vol.XXX, No.1, 2009

same fervour !hen the separate electorate !as given to the

Muslims and i"hs but he never did. It creates a doubt !hether he!as follo!ing the British agenda or he considered the Muslims andi"hs as nations. *e had no clear-cut standpoint about it because

he seemed ready to concede the right of self-determination.ometimes$ he stood for territorial nationalism but at others he led

the religious movement li"e Tehri"-i-2hilafat. *e also favouredthe right of self-determination if some community demanded. Itmeans he !as going to accept the Muslims as a nation on thereligious basis. The &ongress anti-!ar character is much projectedas revolutionary !hich !as a constitutional rather than a defiantnature because a big majority of the *indus had been fighting forthe British already and even the &ongress leadership gave positivenod to co-operate practically in the !ar efforts if some of theirdemands !ere accepted by the government. It is entirely againstthe philosophy of non-violence !hich demands no physicalreaction in any favourable situation or inducement. In '?


9/21

Reality of Di ide and Rule! in "ritis# $ndia ?

the Muslim (eague status. The scholars strive their best to prove

that ir i"andar !as dictated by the British to enliven ;innahsimage among the Muslims. 3andhis position became vulnerable!hen he !as blamed by his o!n community after 3andhi-;innahtal"s. The very point needs clarification on the part of thenationalist !riters.

The &ongress constantly rebuffed the Muslim (eagues offersof cooperation. The (eague too !as a claimant to struggle for theIndian independence from the imperialist British and this similaritycould be used as a bridging element bet!een the t!o main parties

but the *indu leadership from top to the grass root level adoptedundemocratic and immoral attitude !hich could never result in any

harmony. a!abGada (ia%at /li 2han said in ovember '?5?HThe &ongress Ministries$ instead of settling communal differences$ hadintensified them greatly. *indus !ere let to believe through local &ongresscommittees that *indu aj !as established in India and they really beganto behave themselves as the real rulers. Muslims !ere variously insulted. 'F

/ll political developments on the part of the Muslim (eague !ereconsidered as dictated by the British but the major demand$ the8a"istan scheme$ !as not declared as the British move. In theopinion of Maulana /bul 2alam /Gad Cthe 8a"istan schemeaccepted by the Muslim (eague at (ahore in March does notrepresent the decision of Indian Muslims$ and he has refused toadmit the possibility of Muslims elected to a constituent assemblydemanding the vivisection of India.E '@ This assertion of /bul2alam /Gad !as a clear deviation from the &ongress taunt to theMuslim (eague. *e should not have attributed the destiny of8a"istan to the Indian Muslims rather he should have been surethat 8a"istan move !as initiated by the British under the divideand rule theory. *e should have been sure that the Muslim (eagueunder the British patronage !ould definitely succeed in achieving8a"istan !hether it o!ned massive support or not. But /bul2alam under the democratic principle seems to accept that8a"istan demand !ould be possible if it !ould be bac"ed by theIndian Muslims.

ir i"ander *ayat 2han joined the ational )efence &ouncilin '?


10/21

'D Pakistan Journal of History and Culture, Vol.XXX, No.1, 2009

ome authors !ho adhere to a divide and rule approach have

referred to the ;innah- i"ander 8act as evidence of its existence.They maintain that that i"ander *ayat !ent to (uc"no! under theBritish dictation to enliven the Muslim (eague !hich had already

been hit severely by the defeat in the elections of '?5@. 7et$i"anders !ithdra!al from the ational )efence &ouncil cannot

be proved to be due to the divide and rule policy.The British policy of barring the Muslim (eague in the case of

8unjab is an empirical evidence that from a government officer tothe 3overnor and then to the federal government opposed the(eague on the issue of 8a"istan and favoured united India. #venthe British high officials used improper language for the Muslim

(eaguers in ;uly '?


11/21

Reality of Di ide and Rule! in "ritis# $ndia ''

for this policy !as to increase !ith the later onset of the &old ar.

/s early as /ugust '?


12/21

', Pakistan Journal of History and Culture, Vol.XXX, No.1, 2009

!ith the help of the #nglish through constitutional means$ and

ultimately to attain self-government.E,5

(eadership can becategorised as follo!ingHa. 6iolent or defiant leadership

b. &onstitutionalist (eadership

Defiant Leadership:ith such leadership$ freedom fighters tried to force the

imperialists to leave their motherland !ith a violent strategy. Theyused !eapons and even attac"ed the pro-government elements!hether they !ere local or foreigners. uch attac"s !ere justifiedas a national duty. To them$ the unity among the locals could pushout the imperialists therefore the co-operation of the locals !ith theBritish meant the stability of the imperial rule. Their ultimate goal!as to !age a unified struggle against the foreign and pro-foreignruling elements. &handra Bose$ Babbar /"ali leaders$ and Bhagat

ingh hahid$ can be %uoted in this regard. Though many people provo"ed the ar of '=>@ for their personal benefits but even thenmany freedom fighters fought due to the true nature of thenationalist passion. These violent elements !ere gunned do!n$hanged$ punished$ jailed$ and banished to the /ndaman Islands. Inthe British 8unjab$ ;abru$ Malangi 9)a"oo:$ iGam (ohar andmany others are said to have adopted violent strategy to resist theforeign rule. ,< They gladly defied the British la!s and looted the

pro-government rich people. They by this strategy could notreceive respect in the society because government institutionsal!ays play decisive role in projecting personality under the state

policy. Therefore$ the state declared them dakooo 9dacoits: butafter !inning freedom$ these people !ere perceived as freedomfighters in the specific circles of the nationalists and the regionists.The government had po!ers$ institutions$ press$ la!s and theimplementing agencies$ local supporters to launch campaign andfinancial resources !hich projected the people according to thegovernment policy. +nder the nationalist spirit$ these defiant

people struggling for freedom !ith violent strategy have beenconsidered freedom fighters though today every violent strategy isconsidered tantamount to terrorism.

This type of leadership considers the rulers as enemies anduses violent strategy to push them out of the land. These defiant


13/21

Reality of Di ide and Rule! in "ritis# $ndia '5

individuals sacrifice their lives$ continue freedom struggle and

ultimately achieve the goal. In the 8unjab$ Babbar /"ali movementand struggle of Baba am ingh$ 3hadar Movement$ can be%uoted !hich had never been acceptable by the ruling British./ccording to 3urcharan ingh$ &ongress$ /"ali )al$ i"h (eagueand Babbar /"ali !ere no different as far their aims !ereconcerned but the main difference !as the means to achieve theobjectives. The CBabbar /"alis !ere determined to expel theforeigners$ "ill the traitors$ the toadies and the friends of theenemy.E ,>

Constitutional leadershipIn this category$ the leadership accepted the rulers victory

under expediency and decided to fight for the freedom remainingin the parameters given by the rulers. It !as a matter of deal or

bargaining. The local leaders conceded the rulers hold and inreturn the rulers accept the local leadership. Therefore$ the rulersallo!ed them to protest and demand their rights acceptable onmoral or other specific ground. The rulers accepted the role of thelocal leadership to placate the emotions of the people becauseforeign rule is never !elcome by the locals. Therefore$ the role ofthe local leadership through the constitutional means !as the only!ay !hich could certainly satisfy the individuals. The Indian

ational &ongress$ /ll-India Muslim (eague$ 2halsa ational

8arty$ 8unjab +nionist 8arty and hiromani /"ali )al can be%uoted as examples of such a political tendency.

Max eber tal"s of charismatic leadership !hile tephen;ohn &ovey has a strong pen on principled leadership. 3urmit

ingh !rites about three types of great leadershipHi. Born leaders

ii. (eaders by %ualities$ and

iii. (eaders$ product of specific circumstances. ,F

(eadership emerges as a result of some setbac"$ deprivation orviolation of the rights. *uman beings have been struggling to go

for better pursuits of life. truggle needs leadership1 someindividuals are endo!ed !ith the %uality of elo%uence$ responseability$ sustainable temperament$ endurance$ convincing po!er indiscussion$ impressive "no!ledge and character !hich help a


14/21

'< Pakistan Journal of History and Culture, Vol.XXX, No.1, 2009

person to be outstanding and accepted as a leader of the people

concerned. The leader adopts common interests as his agenda$collects the people and converts them as his follo!ers. ometimes$an incident produces leadership but such leadership may follo!different attitudesH

'. after solution$ the particular incident or problem$ leadershipdisappears1

,. the incident proves a base of popularity for the leadership !hichconvinces him to maintain its status by ta"ing up another issue1

5. after the incident$ leadership seems neither dead nor challengingto the existing top leadership rather it continues in a normal !ayand then re-asserts influence on the local issues. An the otherhand$ it may go up to the top !ith more po!erful struggle.

In all the forms of leadership$ a leader !or"s as a middle man or a bridging element bet!een ruled and the rulers. *e acceptsauthority of the rulers though he does not consider them the realand la!ful ruling people.

The British to their understanding and political needs may besaid to have used a balanced approach to!ards all the nationsliving in the ubcontinent. They tried to accommodate all themajority and minority communities because all of them had playedfriendly role in the difficult times li"e !ars and administrativeaffairs. They had accepted the British political authority in India

and had adopted a constitutional role for redress complaints anddemands. The locals gradually gave a tough time to the ruling

people as they had got much political and !or"ing confidence onthe lines given by the British education and !estern political

philosophies. The British al!ays tried to honour the importance$sacrifices and services of the local communities. In '?


15/21

Reality of Di ide and Rule! in "ritis# $ndia '>

I may be right in thin"ing that your present formula is an attempt to meetmy re%uirement of not upsetting the 8unjab or the /rmy. 0rom my point ofvie! this formula !ould be fatal to declaration in *indu eyes. They !ouldinterpret it as a virtual promise not merely of 8a"istan but of i"histanalso$ and as containing greater possibilities of disintegrating India thaneven ;innah claims. They !ould observe that not even a majority in a

provincial assembly !ould be needed to detach some particular regionfrom the +nion. They !ould regard it as still further empo!eringminorities to force separation on exorbitant terms by the mere refusal toagree. I do not object to giving the minorities a strong position in the futuredeliberations$ but if !e promise too much strength no! the declaration !ill

be reviled by *indus. ,@

#very nation believes itself to be the bravest and civilised. Theyalso negate other nations particularly the rival one. The strange

thing is that they feel gratification in vilifying the rival peopleother!ise in the modern age all can go ahead to find peace and progress in perspective of the historical realities. /ntagonismshould have no place in their policies. The facts !hich cause riftand irritation for others should not be pushed for!ard. Theantagonistic past should not be forgotten but ought to beoverloo"ed for the sa"e of humanity and peace of the region.+nder this$ the Indian !riters ought to accept !hat forced theMuslims to part !ith the *indus including the follies on the&ongress part. )efinitely all !as not committed deliberately to

push a!ay the Muslims from them but even then it happened

!hich displeased the Muslims. The Muslims ought to accept thatthey did the same !ith the i"hs and *indus in the politicaldomains of the 8unjab. The i"hs ought to be capacious inaccepting the !ea" part played by their leadership. ith the openmindedness and truth$ the outh /sian nations can go ahead asgood neighbours. The responsible scholars should not ta"e shelterof the slogans li"e divide and rule policy. The divide and rule ismerely a slogan to boost the national leadership to the idealisedstatus. The divide and rule !as neither true nor present in theBritish India. #ven it is not practicable in society rather it is a

phenomenon pertaining to a battlefield. The British educational

and democratic reforms influenced the Indian society and resultedin numerous gaps. The lac" of creative political traditions$ theIndian leadership could not fill these gaps. By adopting thetheories and practices of the British masters$ they achieved


16/21

'F Pakistan Journal of History and Culture, Vol.XXX, No.1, 2009

independence but could not secure integrity of the region despite

their desire. The depressed sa! their posterity in the chainstherefore they preferred separation to the eternal slavery. An theeve of the partition$ uaid-i-/Gam !arned the i"hs not to commitsuicide by joining the rude *indu majority ,= but they did. They arerepenting no! and !ill be doing the same forever for joiningunited India.

ConclusionThe main aim to propagate the divide and rule policy by the

*indus !as just to pressuriGe the British to abandon their pro-minority policies. The &ongress claimed to be a representative ofall the peoples living in the ubcontinent and !anted the supportof all minorities to establish its !rit in the Indian affairs but theBritish too needed the support of all the minorities therefore theycould never overloo" the interests of the minorities. tatus of theruling class and moral pressure of the Muslim !orld also played afavourable role to be receptive to the Muslim demands. ,?

It is a star" reality that minority politics is a politics ofcomplaints and demands but the majority community ought to becapacious to infuse confidence among minorities !hich can cope!ith any odd situation. tory of Muslim and non-Muslimcommunities revolves around the fact that the majority communitymade utmost endeavour to suppress and humiliate the minorityinstead of respecting their identity and giving them their due sharein the polity. +nder the stress of Indian nationalism$ to placate the

people and to get rid of the massive criticism$ the Indian leadershipgave t!o points namely$ Muslim (eagues villainous role anddivide and rule principle of the British nation in India. The non-Muslim leadership declared themselves innocent and ignorant as!ell because they could not get the on-going !rongs and therepercussions of the divide and rule policy 9if it existed: !hich!as pulling their sister community to!ards separation. )espitethis$ they continued the policy to segregate the Muslims andMuslim (eague leadership. They should have embraced theMuslim leadership by conceding their demands and should nothave given them an opportunity to go to the British enemies. Butthey did not come up !ith the re%uired love and fraternity to!ardsthe Muslims. +nfortunately$ they !ent beyond reasonable limits


17/21

Reality of Di ide and Rule! in "ritis# $ndia '@

!hen the Muslim (eague !as expecting very "ind response from

the &ongress in the ma"ing of the +8 government in '?5@. ocivilised political leadership of the modern !orld can presentexample of this "ind for ma"ing a coalition ministry !hatconditions the &ongress had presented to the Muslim (eague asresponse to the co-operation. #ven from the very outset of the

political a!a"ening among the *indus$ the &ongress leadershipadopted the *induised policy. /pparently the *indu leadersmaintained the secular spirit given by the #nglishmen but in factthe objectives or political creed !as planned and pursued on thereligious lines. 3andhi is said to have been claimant of theterritorial nationalism according to !hich all sections living in the

ubcontinent !ere a single nation. But his !ords and actions proved that he !as undoubtedly a religious man. To 3urmit inghH

The Muslim masses became apprehensive by the strong *indu religiousflavour of &ongress propaganda. They felt that 3andhi ji !as trying toidentify the national a!a"ening !ith revival of *induism. Theirapprehensions !ere strengthened by 3andhi jis conduct. #ven !henappealing for *indu-Muslim unity$ 3andhi ji made the appeal not as anational leader appealing to both sections$ but as a *indu leader. The*indus !ere C!eE1 the Muslims !ere CtheyE. 5D

Master undar ingh (yallpuri$ an anti-Muslim$ anti-8a"istan andanti-;innah man$ believed that the Muslims !ere forciblyconverted from *induism to Islam therefore they ought to rejoin

*induism and leave M/ ;innah alone in the political arena becausehe !ould dro!n the Muslims in the Indian ocean. Ane can see theanalysis of such a staunch anti-Muslim leader !ho !rites thatC*indus have given no e%ual social status to Muslims$ the resultthereof is ;innah and other separatists.E 5'

The cry of divide and rule policy seems a move by the!riters rather than the *indu politicians !ho rarely had projectedthis phenomenon during the negotiations !ith the Britishauthorities. ather the Indian scholars$ after '?


18/21

'= Pakistan Journal of History and Culture, Vol.XXX, No.1, 2009

as freedom fighters against the British imperialism. ;a!aharlal

ehru too" a very prudent decision !hen he rejected the &abinetMission 8lan because by accepting this plan$ India could bedivided into many independent states. )efinitely the !ea" federalsystem and prevalent po!ers to the units might induce them tosplit !hich convinced him to save the rest of India by conceding8a"istan. But to sustain this integrity$ India desperately needed to

portray the Muslim (eague as a stooge of the British. But oneshould be clear that historical realities cannot be !iped out by such

propaganda./fter the departure of the British$ the fashion to portray

themselves as enemies to the imperialists !as projected !ith more

Geal. It may be important but the ne!ly independent nations may project themselves as constitutionalist freedom fighters. +nder thisthey should have the courage to accept their submission to theruling authorities through the constitution given by the imperialistnation. In the current century$ such an understanding can helpdevelop a friendly relationship bet!een the nations of outh /sia

because violence is ta"ing root day by day that !ould be pernicious to their future and the international peace. If the nationsaccept that the imperialism !as bad but they had accepted it for thetime being$ avoided violence and struggled through theconstitutional means to achieve the freedom$ to create a positive

lin" their past !ith the present and future !ithout fear and thisstatus !ould be fruitful for the respective nations and the rest ofthe !orld.


19/21

Reality of Di ide and Rule! in "ritis# $ndia '?

Notes


20/21

' Mehrotra$ CThe #arly Indian ational &ongress$ '==>-'?'=H Ideals$ Abjectives and ArganiGation$E in By B anda$ ed.$ *ssays in +odern $ndian History 9)elhiH Axford +niversity 8ress$ '?=D:$ -K, /pril '?


21/21

,F 3urmit ingh /dvocate$ %and#i and t#e &ik#s 9 irsaH +sha Institute of eligious tudies$ '?F?:$ >.,@ (etter from the 6iceroy to the ecretary of tate for India on ? March '?=?- $ (K8AKF'Db 9i: ff '-','.,= 2apur ingh$ &a)#i &ak#i 93urmu"hi: 9/mritsarH )haram 8archar &ommittee$ 38&$ '??5:$ '

Reality of Divide and Rule

Documents

Transcript of Reality of Divide and Rule