From: Vavarkar Vinayak < >
Subject: How Pakistan was created in 1947 time
How Nehru – Gandhi played part in creation of Pakistan.
A long read, it is a historical write up. Please read…
==
Unveiling the Freedom Movement
(of India)
By Anurupa Cinar, 30 Jan 2013
Some sensitive and difficult-to-believe facts of the freedom movement merit our attention, particularly how the Congress, Mohandas Gandhi, and Jawaharlal Nehru planted and nurtured the seed of Pakistan. They did this by actively promoting the Pakistan scheme; and by passively taking several wrong political decisions in their quest for total power in free India. Certainly the demand for Pakistan came from Jinnah and the Muslim League. But Congress gave the Pakistan demand body and shape in the politics of India, while espousing Hindu-Muslim unity. And having come to power, they have orchestrated one of the most successful cover-ups in world history.
The writer believes there are two major landmarks on the pathway to partition, the Khilafat Movement of 1921 which introduced a religious divide into politics; and the Communal Award of 1931 when Gandhi appointed himself as sole delegate to the Round Table Conference (in lieu of 16 delegates); Congress made no effort to oppose the Communal Award and religious divide now entered the Constitution of India. Hindus could only vote for Hindus, Muslims for Muslims and so on. Now, to gain a clear majority in elections, Congress needed to woo Muslims and Muslim appeasement reached new heights from here onwards.
Jinnah pitted his considerable political skills against the Gandhi-Nehru-led Congress, whose thirst for total power was no match for one of the most brilliant politicians of his day. Once Jinnah left the Congress, he had no option but to build a strong Muslim party. In so doing he compromised his secular and nationalist principles. He sacrificed India.
In 1937, Jinnah was extremely suspicious of Gandhi and Nehru, both of whom were riding high as Congress was the only national party of substance and had the support of the Hindu majority. It was bound to be the ruling party in free India. But Gandhi and Nehru always sought absolute power; within Congress itself they brooked no opposition they sought to extend this control over the whole of India. Of course, the communal constitution of India aggravated the Hindu-Muslim struggle. As Penderel Moon, ICS, said, “In essence the struggle [Hindu-Muslim communal struggle] is one for posts and political power between two communities distinguished by religion and culture” (Strangers in India, p 101).
How was power distributed in India in 1937? Congress was the only national Indian party of substance; Jinnah and the Muslim League had yet to develop clout; Savarkar had only just been released from bondage in 1937 and not really back in the political field. This was the moment for the Congress to embrace the Federation plan of the British and bind the whole country, including the Princely States, into one unified force. Viceroy Linlithgow pressed for this, but Congress decided otherwise.
In 1937, the Congress believed both Hindus and Muslims would help it get total control in governing India. But, as RC Majumdar observed, the 1937 elections belied the claims of both the Congress and the Muslim League. Congress was shown to have no contact or influence with the Muslim masses and could not advance any reasonable claim to represent Muslims. Curiously, the Muslim League had a “specially bad record of election success in those Provinces like Bengal, the Punjab, Sindh and North-West Frontier Province where the Muslims formed the majority community, and fared much better in the Provinces which had a strong Hindu majority with a significant and vocal minority.” (History of the Freedom Movement in India, Vol. III, p. 551-52)
What is noteworthy is that the Muslims of the very provinces that were hived off to create Pakistan in 1947 had voted for nationalist Muslim parties in 1937. Clearly, a central federation, if created at this time, would have kept India united. The reason, Majumdar notes, is that the Muslim League had no programme distinct from that of other parties and no local influence in any province. Its platform of serving “as a bulwark of defense against Hindu attack” had no appeal in provinces with a Muslim majority. It was only when the Muslim masses learnt to look upon the problem from an all-India perspective that the Muslim League emerged as the most powerful Muslim organization. Jinnah succeeded in developing this political consciousness among Muslims within an incredibly short time.
Congress intransigence, its insistence that Congress represented the whole of India, helped the League. Majumdar believes Jawaharlal Nehru is especially guilty for refusing to come to terms with the Muslim League till the League had by dint of Congress folly attained a position where it could dictate its own terms: “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.”
The years 1937 and 1938 were crucial in Indian history. Congress’ ambitions to acquire total power in India became crystal clear, not to the masses, but to Viceroy Linlithgow, Jinnah, and Savarkar. From this time onwards, the Congress’ chances of total control were on a downward spiral, which increased its desperation; Jinnah set himself against the Congress by wielding Islam as a very formidable weapon; and Savarkar swooped upon the political field to rouse Hindus to save their motherland. This led to Congress indulging in more scheming, creating a vicious circle.
RC Majumdar notes (p. 561) that it was taken for granted in the Report of the Simon Commission and the discussions at the Round Table Conference that the main communities, especially the Muslims, ought to and would be represented in the Provincial Ministries. Having accepted the Communal Award without a protest, it was incumbent upon Congress to accept its dictates. But the Congress High Command was used to ruling Congress like a dictatorship and sought to govern the Provinces in the same manner. So when the Congress decided to accept office it determined that in the Congress Provinces the Ministers should be selected solely from the Congress Party, and offered to include members of the Muslim League on conditions which practically meant its dissolution and merger with the Congress.
No wise statesman could seriously believe the Muslim League would give up its separate identity. The Congress mass contact movement for Muslims also had the approach that Congress alone could dispense patronage. But Jinnah out-maneuvered the Congress High Command and by 1938, Jinnah asserted that the pre-condition for negotiations was recognition that the Congress and the League were the only representative bodies respectively of Indian Hindus and Muslims. Jinnah also made it clear in a letter to Subhash Bose (2 August 1938) that the Congress committee to discuss Hindu-Muslim questions should not include Muslims, something Congress could not accept without stultifying its history as a national organization of Indians of all faith and communities.
Jinnah thus reduced Congress to a Hindu party. In the years that followed, Gandhi and Nehru sought to be rid of him through partition. Nehru wrote in his diary on December 28, 1943: “Instinctively I think it is better to have Pakistan or almost nothing if only to keep Jinnah far away and not allow his muddled and arrogant head from (sic) interfering continually in India’s progress”. How was this seed of Pakistan planted?
The Government of India Act of 1935 called for the formation of a Central Federation. But Congress set itself against the Federation and resisted Viceroy Linlithgow in the endeavour to unite all the Provinces and Princely States, which incidentally would have nipped any thought of partition in the bud. Birla, Gandhi’s mouthpiece, put an unbelievable proposal before the Viceroy: “Birla said that the communal position in India was getting rapidly worse. Congress was aware of it and its leaders were deeply anxious. He then suggested that the best course might be to let the Muslims have their Federation of the North-West. This astonished Linlithgow, who thought at first that Birla was teasing him. When he saw that the suggestion was serious he asked Birla whether he envisaged the perpetuation of British military power to keep peace between Muslim and Hindu Federation…. This was a most interesting conversation. It showed clearly Linlithgow’s dread of partition and therefore his shock at encouragement for it coming from a Hindu.” (The Viceroy at Bay, John Glendevon, p 88)
This conversation took place in 1938. A Muslim Federation of the North-West is nothing but another name for Pakistan. Jinnah’s Pakistan Resolution came in 1940.
In 1939, with the Second World War under way, Linlithgow tried to keep all parties of India happy. He met 52 leaders of various parties to hear a cross-section of opinion and thought of an all-party meeting to make the Central Federation work and get cooperation for the war. He first met the Congress leaders, one by one, as Congress controlled eight out of the eleven provinces. The Congress High Command angled for total control at the center and threatened resigning from the ministries and boycotting of the all-party meeting as a way of twisting the Viceroy’s arm. Gandhi asked the Viceroy for a declaration of British intent and power-sharing with the Congress at the Centre (The Viceroy at Bay, John Glendevon, p 142)
The Viceroy could not do so as the army, critical to the war effort, comprised largely of Muslims, a point Congress never grasped as it continued to oppose the Central Federation. Congress also opposed an All-Party meeting holding that only Congress should be considered in Indian politics. Jinnah felt that a declaration would only increase communal tension. He saw no chance of unity unless Congress gave up the claim to speak on behalf of all parties and recognized the Muslim League as spokesman for the Muslims.
By 1939, Viceroy Linlithgow was in an unenviable position as he had to keep both Congress and the League happy. Walking a tightrope, his attitude toward Jinnah changed, which the latter astutely perceived. Congress was also in a strong position with the Viceroy but lack of political acumen cost it dearly. Congress demanded that India be declared an independent nation, but the British were not going to plan to leave India when they were in deathly combat with Hitler. VP Menon observed that if Congress had only discussed reconstitution of the Executive council, the Viceroy may have gone more than halfway meet it. But in wartime there was no question of converting the Executive Council into a national government. Had Congress joined the Viceroy’s Executive Council at this time, and with Congress ministries coming back into power in the provinces, the political situation would have changed to the advantage of the Congress. Once Congress rejected the offer the Viceroy was in no mood to continue parleys with it. (Transfer of Power, p 97)
On 17 October 1939, the Viceroy issued a statement reiterating that Dominion Status was the goal of British policy, but for the present the Act of 1935 would hold. The Congress Working Committee called this ‘an unequivocal reiteration of the imperialist policy’ and called upon the Congress Ministers to resign, which they subsequently did. Secretary of State Sir Samuel Hoare and the Viceroy offered more powers to Indians in the administration, but Congress was adamant and removed itself from the scene. The Viceroy canvassed the support of the Muslim League, which grew in strength and was joined by the waverers among the Muslims. In March 1940, the League at its Lahore session formally demand for a separate Muslim State.
Even within the Congress, the decision to resign was widely regretted, as it only weakened the bargaining power of the Congress. Henceforth, Jinnah had a veto on further constitutional progress.
*
By resigning from the Provincial Ministries in 1939, the Congress had put itself outside the political pale. Jinnah now emerged strong and powerful, in the Viceroy’s good books. In March 1940 the Muslim League formally demanded Pakistan. And no sooner than it did so, than the Congress began to push the Pakistan scheme, subtly, but surely.
While researching Gandhi, one noticed his talent for expressing two opposing ideas and making them seem reasonable. For instance: “As a man of nonviolence, I cannot forcibly resist the proposed partition if the Muslims of India really insist upon it.” This is followed by: “But I can never be a willing party to the vivisection. . . .” (Mahatma Gandhi, Dhananjay Keer, p 682)
The Pakistan plan was now insidiously launched. This is what Gandhi said to an Englishman (openly published in his Harijan, May 4, 1940): ‘I would any day prefer Muslim rule to British rule… The partition proposal had altered the face of Hindu-Muslim problem…’ He granted that, “Pakistan cannot be worse than foreign domination.”
By 1942, Congress was done with these oblique references to accepting Pakistan. Jinnah and the Muslim League were becoming a big hindrance in their path. The Congress High Command now made a drastic, treacherous move. “The Working Committee of the Indian National Congress proclaimed emphatically by a resolution at Delhi in April 1942, ‘that the Congress could not think in terms of compelling the people of any territorial unit to join the Indian Union against their declared and established will.’ This historic resolution brought into bold relief the fact that Congress favoured the right of self-determination or secession, i.e., ‘Pakistan.’
Dealing with Congress resolution four years later, Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya admitted: ‘It is evident that the passage concedes the division of India into more than one State and gives the go-by to the Unity and integrity of India’. (Keer, p 307) So the Pakistan resolution was passed by the Congress Working Committee in April 1942, five years before Partition and independence. But the All-India Congress Committee was clueless about this treacherous resolution, so the party High Command had to ensure that the AICC also accepted the Pakistan resolution.
Rajagopalachari set to work. On 23April 1942, Rajaji managed to get two resolutions passed by the Congress members in the Madras legislature. The first recommended to the AICC (which was about to meet in Allahabad) that Congressmen should acknowledge the Muslim League’s claim for separation should they persist at the time of framing the constitution of India. This resolution urged that ‘to sacrifice the chances of the formation of a national government for the doubtful advantage of maintaining a controversy over the unity of India is the most unwise policy’ and it had become necessary to choose the lesser evil.
But the AICC opposed this sellout on 29 April and adopted a counter-resolution that ‘any proposal to disintegrate India by giving liberty to any component State or territorial unit to secede from the Indian Union or Federation will be detrimental to the best interests of the people of the different States and provinces and the country as a whole and the Congress, therefore, cannot agree to any such proposal.’ (Transfer of Power, VP Menon, p 139)
The Congress High Command however, was adept in getting its way. Dr. Sayyid Abdul Latif of Hyderabad asked Maulana Azad to clarify the status and was told by Azad in his letter of August 6, 1942: ‘No part of the Delhi resolution to which you refer has in any way been affected or modified by any subsequent resolution of the AICC.’ Nehru assured Dr Latif that Babu Jagat Narayan’s ‘resolution does not in any way override the Delhi Working Committee resolution’. (Keer, p 700) Interestingly, all the Muslim members of the AICC opposed the Akhand Hindustan (united India) resolution of the AICC – like the Congress high command.
Two days later, on August 8, 1942, Congress launched the Quit India Movement. The same day, Gandhi wrote to Jinnah and to a Muslim businessman in Bombay that he had no objection to Britain handing over power to the Muslim League subject to certain provisos (Keer, p 708). At the same time, his mouthpiece, Rajagopalachari, was encouraging the idea of accepting Pakistan among the people.
As for the “Quit India” challenge to the Raj, Britain was being asked to go but leave behind her army! Was it independence that Indians run the civil government and some form of British military rule continue? (Keer, p 704). It was left to Rajaji to explain to Gandhi the folly of this stand.
By 1943, the provinces that Jinnah claimed for Pakistan, namely Assam, Sind, Bengal, and the North-West Frontier Province came under League ministries; he already controlled Punjab. Jinnah and the Muslim League were in a very strong position with the British and the Muslims in India. As an aside one may mention that Savarkar, too, had against all odds developed the Hindu Mahasabha into a party of some standing.
The Congress was not in a sound position and Nehru was indiscreet enough to record his frustrations in his jail diary (December 28, 1943): “Instinctively I think it is better to have Pakistan or almost nothing if only to keep Jinnah far away and not allow his muddled and arrogant head from (sic) interfering continually in India’s progress”. (Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru; First Series; Vol. 13; p 324)
Rajaji was actively promoting the Pakistan scheme everywhere. He met Gandhi in the Aga Khan palace and Gandhi blessed Rajaji’s scheme, after which Rajaji offered it to Jinnah in April 1943, but Jinnah did not pay much attention at this stage. Both Rajagopalachari and Gandhi kept this secret (Keer, p 716). By 1944, the whole ugly story spilled out in public, with statements from all the main actors. Rajaji issued a statement on July 16, 1944, from Panchgani: ‘It is now two years since I started work, even though I had secured Gandhi’s unqualified support to the scheme and it conceded all that the Muslim League had ever demanded in its resolution of 1940.’ Though shocked when the scheme became public, Congressmen kept culpably quiet and allowed Gandhi to vivisect the motherland. Gandhi’s personal genuflection before Jinnah makes sad reading, but Dhananjay Keer has done a sterling service in this regard.
When Wavell became the Viceroy, he convened a conference at Simla based mainly on the Bhulabhai Desai-Liaquat Ali pact of 1945, and kept the Hindu Mahasabha out. The Hindu Mahasabha made massive protests against the unjust Simla Conference all over India and even in Simla itself; the conference ended in failure.
Wavell then announced that elections would be held by end of December 1945 at the Central and later on at Provincial level to decide which parties would play a part in governing free India. The winners would negotiate the final deal of independence with the British. This was not a good time for Congress as Savarkar’s Hindu Mahasabha stood a good chance of capturing the Hindu seats while the League would get the Muslim seats.
But High Command found a way out of this bind, which we shall sum up briefly. Realising that Indians hated the idea of partition, Congress claimed to stand for a united India; it went out of its way to support the Indian National Army soldiers and defend them at their trials (after having called them ‘traitors’). They used dirty tricks to sabotage the Hindu Mahasabha, to the extent that the Hindu Mahasabha president withdrew from the elections! Savarkar being completely incapacitated by ill health could do nothing to campaign for the party and so the Congress foul play succeeded. In the end, Congress won the Hindu seats and the Muslim seats went to the Muslim League.
The Cabinet Mission plan for a Union of India embracing all the provinces and Princely States was the last chance for the united India. Formally accepted by both parties, it was gently sabotaged by Nehru suggesting to the CWC on 6 July 1946 that Congress could alter the plan using its strength at the Centre. Many objective historians concluded that Nehru had destroyed India’s last change of remaining united (RC Majumdar, Vol III, p 770). It was this that led to Jinnah calling for Direct Action and all the tragedy that subsequently unfolded…
Savarkar issued a fervent appeal to Congress leaders on May 29, 1947, urging them not to accept partition and to demand a plebiscite to decide such a momentous issue involving the life and death of the nation and the destiny of future generations (Keer, Veer Savarkar, p 381).
Anurupa Cinar is author of a historical novel, Burning for Freedom, Trafford Publishing, USA, 2012; she lives in Massachusetts and writes and researches for www.savarkar.org. She blogs at www.anurupacinar.blogspot.com and www.anurupacinar.com
===
User Comments Posted Comments:
Muslim league of 1906, then Hindu Mahasabha’s, demand for Hindu nation, and the Khilafat Movement of 1921 were the part of British policy to divide India.
Hindus could only vote for Hindus, Muslims for Muslims.
The division of India was only a compromise to rule over India on the name of so called Hindu religion with illusory fear of conversion.
It is history which you have accepted about Muslim arrival and conversion, and the origin of Islam in Arabian country. In this reference it is important to note that invaders were against idol worship and came for looting India and to spread Islam. Accordingly they have converted the weaker sections in large and destroyed temples. India was not united; hence they got the opportunity to rule over India. Most of the invaders turned back leaving their representative as rulers and converted followers. Their sacrifice, administration reforms and wars were confined to their interest of ruling. They have failed to convert Indians at large in masses, due to indigenous caste system and Dharma-duty; they have called indigenous Indians to Hindu and India as Hindustan. In the mean time the converted Muslims were absorbed as a caste in the Indian caste system and both the so called Hindu and Muslim cooperated with the Moughal rulers to rule over India, up to 1857, which we call as slavery of India. and Muslim rule. Without the cooperation of converted Muslim and so called indigenous Hindu it was not possible to rule over India for such a long period for Moughal kings.
India was not having any organized religion under caste system, and spiritual freedom, the invaders have considered it as polytheistic Hindu religion as compared to their monotheistic religion. It has been grasped by Akbar, and he has started “Din A Elahi” and Dara has written ‘Allopnishad’ to establish cooperation among indigenous Indians and converted Muslims.
When Aurangzeb faced the difficulty in ruling over India,’ he has imposed ‘Jajiya kar’ on Hindu and created the conflict of Krishna Janmbhumi and implemented divide and rule policy. Up to 1857 nobody was successful in creating rift between Hindu and Muslim at a large, both were fighting for the kings simultaneously.
With the arrival of East India Company and British rule over India, the Britishers have imposed Christianity and missionary churches to convert Indians into Christian faith. They have observed the cultural integrity among Indians, and faced the revolution of 1857 as Muslim and Hindu to gather. To break this unity, they have created the conflict of Ram Janm Bhumi and Babri Masjid first time, otherwise so called Hindu and Muslim were going there for worship and Namaz simultaneously as per their faith.
As per their organized religion they have demarcated indigenous Indians as Hindu religion and Muslim religion to promote Christianity with divide and rule policy. The Britishers have established Muslim League in 1906, and later on supported Hindu Mahasabha as two political parties to fight elections with limited democratic setup in India. It has created conflict and chaos in society. To oppose it the congress has adopted secularism to oppose religious fundamentalism, which was used during French revolution to oppose the authority of church in Europe.
The discovery of scientifically developed Indus Valley and its unknown script by Sir John Marshal has given further clues for divide and rule policy with shrewd politics, and they have imposed Aryan invasion theory to justify their arrival in India. and Muslim rule over India.
With shrewd cunning politics the British ruler has imposed that Hindu and Muslim are two races, which cannot leave together, and ultimately divided India and Indians forever on the name of the so called Hindu religion. With communal riots to rule over India on the name of religion, We have ourselves proved that we cannot leave together, and independent India has adopted the same parliamentary democracy, which enhance the communal conflict and chaos in the society.
The History written by the European scholars and the British Encyclopedia are motivated by British emperor, The British History of India is also the same.
no body was in a position to challenge their concept of Hindu religion and Aryan invasion theory, all were bound to accept the same. It was opposed and grasped by Sri Aurobindo, Netaji Subhash, and Moulana Abdul Kalam Azad only. They have given reaction in their own way, but were not successful in a scenario of lust to rule over the country.
The freedom at midnight of 15th August 1947 was a compromise with British Government to rule over the India and Pakistan on the name of so called religious superstition. To safeguard the interests of the converted Christians and Muslims, they have prepared the constitution in 1935, it was accepted by the Indian Government with few modifications.
Now we are free to fight with each other and to blame each other for brutality or to impose the brutality on the Government. The motto of the politicians is only to rule over the country with divide and rule policy, we are only the soldiers. They have nothing to with country’s glory. For them everything pertaining to India is Hindu religion, and to safeguard the interests of Christians and Muslim on the name of minority is their inherited duty from their British lord.
Our foundation of freedom is on the false fake ground of Hindu religion and Aryan invasion. The Indian subcontinent is original home land of Vedic Indians ,and Aryan means well cultured, it is not a race or culture, it has enlightened the world in past and India was World leader – Guru once in the history, to devalue the Indian Glory of past, the Britisher have given Aryan invasion and Hindu religion.
They were well acquainted with the past glory of India, by which the Vedic culture was all over the world and the scientifically developed Indus Valley cities were its testimony and confirmation. The concept of Zero, Dharma and Creator God have spread from India, it came back to India with the concept of one God and religious superstition.
The original concept of the creator was a scientific invention of India, and not a illusion or hallucination with the discovery of DNA in ancient era has given the concept of rebirth and death in the nature. It has been accepted as reincarnation or Kayamat in the religious scriptures.
The British emperor has divided Indian subcontinent and Indians to glorify the Britain and leaved Indians to fight forever. The Indian leaders have compromised with a lust to rule over India.
After the violence of 1947 with independence, the British Gov’t, has instructed to the president Jinnah and pt, Nehru to check the communal riots, and to follow the instructions they have given assurance to public for safety to check the migration of Muslim from India, and Hindu from Pakistan.
But the platform on which Hindu and Muslim are standing on the same ground is religious superstition, and fundamentalism forever. As a slave of British ruler, we were having no answer and not in a position to give answer. and now as a mental slave with lust of desire to rule over each other, we are unable to think and give answer to our British Lord, and suffering from ego of freedom.
With regards
Dr.C.P.Trivedi
Dr.C.P.Trivedi
January 30, 2013
Report Abuse
Gandhi was not sure about dividing India on the grounds of religious separatism as he believed himself as secular and irreligious. The majority Hindus’ perception of Gandhi had overwhelmed on many occasions whenever he wanted to bring the conflict to an amicable settlement. His dream of united India remained as dream despite his calculated efforts and concerns over the future of people of both the religions. More specifically, he was worried much about the frequent postponement of declaration of independent status to India and a possibly astute denial of freedom by the British.
At one point of time, on 17th July, 1944 that Gandhi wrote to Jinnah: “I have not written to you since my release. Today my heart says that I should write to you. We will meet whenever you choose. Do not disappoint me.”
Personally, Gandhi had a sort of aspiration and self-confidence in bringing some form of self-determination for Muslims within a united India, although it remained as just his personal desire. Forfeiting his personal judgment, he was adamant on implementing the Rajagopalachari formula as his political agenda.
Jinnah was adamant on his “two nations” theory based on the fact that Hindus and Muslims, however scattered all over the country, are entirely foreign to each other. And, this was the thematic resolution of the Muslim League’s Lahore Resolution of March 1940.
Gandhi held talks 14 times with Jinnah in Bombay in 1944, about a united front. And, it was all back-to-back talks between these two highly respected leaders and when it finally ended without agreement in a meeting held in September 1944.
While negotiating with Jinnah, a highly resolute point of stance was taken by Gandhi when he suggested that he should be allowed to meet the Muslim League Council to make them see the reasonableness of his proposals. “…Give me an opportunity of addressing them. If they feel like rejecting it I would like you to advise the Council to put it before the open session of the League… If you will accept my advice and permit me I would attend the open session and address it’.” That idea did not work as expected as the council rejected his proposal. It was at this point of time, did Gandhi truly realize Jinnah’s stronghold and the ground realities of the divided populace which is actually driving the partition issue. With the conflict deepens to its core, Gandhi felt a sense of democratic upheaval which necessitated him to suggest an alternative way of putting the issue to arbitration.
“Is it irrelevant or inadmissible to supplement our efforts to convince each other with outside help, guidance, advice or even arbitration?” he asked Jinnah.
And finally, during the meeting of the Viceroy with the Indian leaders on 3rd June, 1947, Gandhi was just a mere spectator. Much of his views were delivered by Patel and Kripalani and the resolution of Partition of India was passed.
– Balamurali Balaji
Founder, BB systems (CIT-GPNP)
Administrator: http://www.Gandhitopia.org
Balamurali Balaji
February 01, 2013
Source: http://www.vijayvaani.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?aid=2662
ॐ Hinduu Nation ॐ 