Orphaned at Freedom: A Subcontinent's Tale

By Arun Bhatnagar

In the middle of August, 1947, two nations – the Dominion of India and the Dominion of Pakistan – came into being through a Partition of the British Indian Empire.
The Princely States, which owed their existence to the British, acceded to either of the two Dominions. Jinnah, as Governor-General of Pakistan, and Nehru, as Prime Minister of
India, took the oath of office swearing allegiance to George VI, who was still the King of both the Dominions but no longer the Rex Imperator or King-Emperor.
The Dominions eventually emerged as the Republic of India in 1950 and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in 1956. Twenty-five years on, in 1972, a third country – the People’s Republic of Bangladesh – was born out of the liquidation of East Pakistan.
A United India – if it had been preserved – may have been an equal, militarily and economically, of the People’s Republic of China.
Arun Bhatnagar’s Book is an engaging and absorbing account of a Subcontinent that passed through the High Noon of Empire, saw unity dissolving into division and experienced euphoria and despair, progress and tragedy, victory and defeat. The narrative, during the years 1911-1999, traverses (by way of the life-story of an Indian member of the ICS, later a practicing Barrister and Politician) various dimensions of history, politics, economy, culture and administration.
The Afterword conveys the reader into the twenty-first century when unfriendly neighbours are in alliance to thwart New Delhi’s interests.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Blue Rose Publishers
• Release date: Oct 20, 2022
• ISBN: 9789356114777

Book preview

Foreword

Arun Bhatnagar's Book "Orphaned at Freedom: A Subcontinent's

Tale' is a Tale of three Nations.

The blunders made at Partition are said to be monumental so that they may be described in dickensian terms as being the worst of times; the age of foolishness; the epoch of incredulity and the winter of despair.

The Book is said to be a Novel. What is truly "Novel' is that it sets out historical facts leading to the Partition of India and its aftermath, as seen through the eyes of a Bengali Lawyer and Politician.

The author brings out the genius of the Subcontinent, in the cardinal value of fraternity, through quotations from such persons as Maulana Hasrat Mohani who wrote poetry expressing love for Lord Krishna, and even went to Mathura and Vrindavan to celebrate Janmashtami. He quotes the renowned poet, Iqbal, who represented the Subcontinent's composite culture through his poetry.

Interestingly, William Broome, an English-ICS, elected to continue in the Indian Judiciary after Partition and married a daughter of Sir Hari Singh Gour, a famous lawyer. The children were brought up as Hindus. Broome eventually retired in March, 1972 as the senior most Judge in the Allahabad High Court, amply demonstrating the attractiveness of the Indian way of life, even to India's conquerors.

There are many gems in this Book which are not common knowledge. One Doreswamy, who died at 103 years, was a freedom

fighter jailed both during the Quit India Movement in 1942 and also during the Emergency declared by Indira Gandhi in 1975.

Another interesting fact is that Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru narrowly missed being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1950. Despite being nominated for the Peace Prize even thereafter, the Kashmir issue, the Liberation of Goa in 1961 and deteriorating Sino - India relations saw to it that the Nobel Peace Prize continued to elude Nehru.

An interesting person who comes alive in the pages of this Book is Chief Justice A.R. Cornelius of the Pakistan Supreme Court. He was an Anglo-Indian who opted to serve in Pakistan after Partition and was instrumental in writing a Judgment in which he described some of the features of the Constitution of Pakistan as fundamental which could not be altered. This Judgment was relied upon by Justice Mudholkar in Sajjan Singh v. The State that ultimately led to the landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India in the Kesavanand Bharati case, adopting the doctrine of the "basic structure' viz. even a constitutional amendment could be substantively struck down if it violated an essential feature of the basic structure of the Constitution.

Yet another interesting fact in the Book is that Miss Fatima Jinnah, sister of Mr Mohammed Ali Jinnah, came out of retirement at the age of 71 to fight a Presidential Election against General Ayub Khan. Despite massive rigging, she won in two of Pakistan's largest cities – Karachi and Dacca (later, the capital of sovereign Bangladesh).

The readers of this Book are informed that Sheikhupura in Pakistan is named after the Mughal Emperor, Jehangir, who was called Sheikhu Baba' by his father, Akbar. The reader is told that Jamsheed Marker, a brilliant diplomat of Pakistan, once described Krishna Menon, then India's Defence Minister, as a rare evil genius'.

We also learn that Lal Bahadur Shastri resigned as the Indian Railways Minister in November, 1956 taking moral responsibility for a train accident which took place in the State of Madras – something unthinkable in today's context.

It is interesting to know that Brigadier General Reginald Dyer did have second thoughts on the Jallianwala Bagh massacre. On his death bed, he admitted that many persons had said he did wrong to shoot innocent people and that when he died, he wished to know from his Maker whether he did right or wrong in upholding the law.

The author's conclusion is that the blame for the Partition of the Subcontinent lies with all those involved "the British, the Hindus, the Muslims'.

Lord Mountbatten, the last British Viceroy, had a change of heart, several years after the Partition, stating that a United India would have been better than a Partitioned one. It is interesting to note that Sir Ardeshir Dalal, a Member of Lord Wavell's Executive Council, had felt that India should adopt a Federal Constitution which viewed the country as a single geographical, cultural and spiritual entity. He was firmly of the view that the creation of Pakistan should only be considered if no other alternative was possible.

The Book has, in conclusion, a thoughtful "Afterword' in which the economic decline and the decline in democratic values in India have been discussed.

The narrative ends with the Covid Pandemic which is perceived as a further nail in the coffin. A divided Subcontinent lumbers on, knowing not when things may stop getting out of control.

The words of Matthew Arnold (1822-1888) are apposite:-

"The East bowed low before the blast, In patient deep disdain;

She let the legions thunder past, And plunged in thought again'.

I unhesitatingly recommend this Book to a wide readership for the impressive amount of information provided to the reader, with great lucidity and clarity, by Arun Bhatnagar, a career bureaucrat, who has lived through much of the period in question.

Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman Judge, Supreme Court of India (2014-2021)

May, 2022

New Delhi

He who perceives Me everywhere and beholds everything in Me, never loses sight of Me, nor do I ever lose sight of him.

The Bhagavad Gita

VI : 30

- - -

' Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less'.

Marie Curie (1867-1934) [First woman to win a Nobel Prize, the first person and woman to win the Prize twice and the only person to win the Prize in two different scientific fields]

- - -

' A calm and modest life brings more happiness than the constant pursuit of success combined with constant restlessness'.

Albert Einstein (1879-1955) [German-born scientist, he developed the Theory of Relativity, a pillar of modern Physics, Nobel Laureate, 1921]

- - -

Introduction

This is my first novel.

Part-fiction and placed in the twentieth century –the biswin sadi– of the Indian Subcontinent, pre-and post-Independence, most of the European names are the actual ones pertaining to that period, as are many of the Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi ones.

It can be described as a fictional account inspired by events that were happening. The circumstances reflect real-life experiences.

The one hundred years in question witnessed two World Wars and global tensions and – within the Subcontinent – the supreme tragedy of Jallianwala Bagh in 1919, the premature deaths of Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Chittaranjan Das and, in March, 1943, of S. Satyamurti in Madras, the martyrdom of Lala Lajpat Rai, the executions of Bhagat Singh and his associates at the Lahore Central Jail, the hangings and torture of thousands of all communities fired by patriotic fervour, the early demise of mathematical genius, Srinivasa Ramanujam and of Munshi Premchand, a literary giant, Partition, on grounds of religion, in 1947 and the accompanying massacres, military confrontations, Operation Blue Star, the anti-Sikh riots of 1984, the terrible living conditions of the poor, drought and floods, the Bhopal gas disaster, social conflict and communal strife.

It came as a piece of good news to learn that Sir David Frederick Attenborough (born May,1926 in London), internationally acclaimed naturalist, broadcaster and writer, had been awarded the Indira Gandhi Peace Prize for 2019 by the Indira Gandhi Memorial Trust. The Prize carries a cash award of 25 lakhs rupees and a citation. A younger brother of Lord Richard Attenborough

(1923-2014), he was educated at Clare College, Cambridge (M.A, 1947).

Till he passed away in Bangalore (Bengaluru) in May, 2021 of post-Covid cardiac arrest, centenarian freedom fighter, H.S. Doreswamy (103 years), was one of the very few persons alive to be jailed both during the Quit India Movement and, three decades later, during the Emergency. What an irony!

Born in Harohalli village in princely Mysore, he was active in Vinoba Bhave's Bhoodan campaign in the 1950s, Jayaprakash Narayan's Sampoorna Kranti Movement in the 1970s and Anna Hazare's India Against Corruption stir.

Around the same time, the last surviving Member of the Constituent Assembly of India, T.M. Kalliannan Gounder, died at the age of 101 years at Thiruchengode, Tamil Nadu. He had joined the Indian National Congress when 19 years old and participated in the Quit India Movement.

In January, 2022, the innings of another veteran freedom fighter, K. Ayyappan Pillai (107 years) ended in Trivandrum (Thiruvananthapuram).

Among the novels I got to read early on was Nayantara Sahgal's This Time of Morning (1965). She needs no introduction. Her prescient writings have unique range and depth; her literary achievements have soared. She commands an enviable reputation for maintaining an independent critical sense and tone.

Like a few of my previous adventures with the pen, this book incorporates historical background, a political setting and cultural content. It attempts to negotiate the undulating terrain of the final phase of the British Indian Empire and delves into issues connected with men and matters in two (later three) successor States.

It has been argued that the Empire was larger than what most historians recognize and that it should be taken to include the Gulf Arab States, Nepal, Bhutan, Afghanistan, Ceylon and the Aden and Somaliland Protectorates.

For a novel to stand a chance of being considered ' novel' (pun intended), an aspiring novelist might often explore possible avenues of guidance, even inspiration. As for myself, I may be permitted to write about three widely-recognized writers who have contributed to a variety of subjects and topics, including the colonial presence in the Subcontinent.

First, Philip Mason who studied at Balliol College, Oxford, taking a first-class degree in Modern Greats, and joined the Indian Civil Service (ICS) in the then United Provinces in 1928. Upon returning to the United Kingdom, he authored a masterpiece in two volumes in the shape of ' The Men Who Ruled India: The Founders and The Guardians' in the 1950s under the pseudonym Philip Woodruff. They are the work of a wise man and a particularly gifted writer who is sometimes critical of the ICS which had, on the whole, he thought, justified its reputation for altruism and benevolent rule. The volumes have been called ' the collective canonization of the British in India'.

Mason, who died in 1999, later wrote other exceptional books. He was, arguably, among the ablest of the ICS in service, in the last two decades of British India.

In his second career, he was the driving force in exploring the relationship between Britain and its former colonies as Head of the Institute of Race Relations in London.

Secondly, Partha Chatterjee (born 1947), erudite historian, political scientist and anthropologist who has a large body of work to his credit. His superb depiction of the Bhawal Sanyasi case has been of particular interest to many. Partha dedicated the book to the memory of his father ' who loved to tell this story'.

Another book ' Empire and Nation: Selected Essays 1985- 2005', was published by the Columbia University Press in 2010.

Third, there are the writings, including the autobiographical, of John Masters (1914-83) who attended the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, joined the 4th Gurkhas, served with the 111th Indian Infantry Brigade, a Chindit formation, in World War-II and was awarded the Distinguished Service Order (DSO) for gallantry in the Burma campaign.

While at the Staff College in Quetta (Balochistan), Masters is known to have commenced an affair with the wife of a brother- officer. Although they later married, this was something of a scandal at the time. The former U.N. Commander in Bosnia, General Sir Michael Rose, who retired as Adjutant–General to the Forces in 1997, is his stepson.

This narrative is also a letter to an institution – India's bureaucracy – in which I worked for close to four decades as a member of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), successor [alongside the Civil Service of Pakistan (CSP)] to the ' heaven-born' ICS that ran the Raj.

A poem by Lord Dunsany1 that appeared in the British weekly, The Spectator, in August, 1950 would have expressed the feelings of many who were leaving India for good.

It read:

A SONG IN THE RUINS

Troubled with influenza, a politician said

The men that died for India came floating round my bed, The dead from Chillianwallah, the watchers of Mardan, The ones who held the Khyber against Afghanistan,

______________

1 Edward Plunkett, 18th Baron of Dunsany (1878-1957), Anglo-Irish writer and dramatist, he achieved fame for his short stories, plays and fantasy novels.

The victors of Sobraon, the dead from frontier fights, With those that guarded Lucknow for eighty-seven nights. They were side by side and touching, though born so far apart, And with reproaches in their eyes that cut one to the heart.

The men that put down thuggee, the men that bridged the streams And built the roads of India were worrying my dreams.

It was only influenza. I feel all right by day.

But by night I'm always dreaming of an empire thrown away. I call and call to Kipling, ' What other course had we?' But he only sees the soldiers and he will not look at me. Last night I questioned one of them, and ' Tell me, then', I said,

' What could we do but what we did?' He turned away his head.

Only a dream, I know, and yet it means I must be ill. One thing a soldier said at last that I remember still. He said, ' We went to carry on the work begun by Clive;

If you did not want an empire we might have been alive'.

About the horrible Partition that ensued, a noted Urdu litterateur, Kaifi Azmi (or Athar Husain Rizvi), who passed away in 2002, lamented:

' Taqseem hua mulk toh dil ho gaye tukde, Har seene mein toofan, yahan bhi tha, wahan bhi,

Har ghar mein chitaah jalti thi, lehrate thhey sholay, Har sheher mein shamshaan, wahan bhi tha, yahan bhi, Gita ki koi sunta na Quran ki sunta,

Hairaan tha imaan, wahan bhi aur yahan bhi'. [The land is divided, lives shattered,

Storms rage in every heart, both here and there, Funeral pyres burn in every home, the flames mount high,

Cities are deserted, it's the same here and there,

No one heeds the Gita, no one heeds the Qur' an, Faith has lost all meaning, both here and there] And further,

' Jo door se toofan ka karte hain nazara,

Unke liye toofan wahan bhi tha, yahan bhi, Dhaarey mein jo mil jaoge, ban jaoge dhaara, Yeh waqt ka elaan, wahan bhi hai, yahan bhi'. [Those who view the storms from afar,

See little difference between here and there, To join in and become part of the mainstream,

This is the call of the times, both here and there]

For many years, the debate did not subside as to whether a chance to keep a United India was lost with the collapse of the Cabinet Mission Plan in 1946. The outgoing Congress President, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad - by then a solitary political figure - believed the Congress threw away this last opportunity and that while ' Jawaharlal's mistake of 1937 was bad enough, the mistake of 1946 proved even more costly'.2

The Cabinet Mission had put forward a three-tier zonal scheme with a Federal Centre for Defence, Foreign Affairs and Communications. Included in its Plan were provisions for the establishment of a Constituent Assembly to work out details and for the formation of a provisional government in New Delhi.

In the face of the Mission's refusal to agree to an independent Pakistan, the Muslim League accepted the Plan with Jinnah, however, saying that the acceptance was dictated by the

______________

2 Maulana Azad: India Wins Freedom (Orient Longmans, 1959).

After winning in the U.P. in the 1937 elections, the Congress – influenced by Nehru – declined to accommodate the Muslim League in the provincial ministry.

British decision and was a result of his inability to extract more from the Mission.

The Congress, on the other hand, procrastinated, discussed and hemmed and hawed for several days, despite Azad's efforts to seek a compromise. While its Working Committee finally accepted the proposals, the approval was hedged round with reservations relating to the formation of the provisional government.

In the first week of July 1946, Jawaharlal Nehru voiced his doubts at Jhansi in the United Provinces; in reply to questions ' whether the Congress had accepted the Plan, in toto, including the composition of the Interim Government', he replied that the Congress would enter the Constituent Assembly ' completely unfettered by agreements and free to meet all situations as they arise'. Pressed further, he made the unambiguous declaration that ' the Congress had agreed only to participate in the Constituent Assembly and regarded itself free to change or modify the Cabinet Mission's Plan as it thought fit.'

These were novel propositions which had not been envisaged by the Cabinet Mission on its departure from India. Later, Azad opined that Nehru was wrong because the Congress was not free to modify the Plan.

Now in a serious dilemma, the Working Committee met to reiterate its original stand but the damage had been done. Once again, the whole Muslim question was pushed into the foreground, with stress being laid on the utmost need for an independent Pakistan as the only salvation for the Muslims.

The real issue with the Plan was in respect of how the Constituent Assembly would have framed the Constitution. Unlike the 1935 Act under which an All India Federation could have taken shape after the Princes had fallen in line, by 1945-46 Indian politics had been seriously communalized. For the Cabinet Mission Plan to succeed, the Congress would have had to accept the realities of

power-sharing and Nehru and Patel would have had to give up on their goal of Congress rule succeeding the British Raj.

The two Congress stalwarts – and Mahatma Gandhi – have been regarded by some historians and journalists as having influenced the Labour Government led by Clement Attlee in adopting a non-responsive attitude towards the efforts of the last- but-one Viceroy, Lord Wavell.

This happened at a critical stage in the negotiations. A United India – if it had been preserved – might have emerged in the league of the People's Republic of China.

The Indian Independence Act, 1947 defined the Dominion of India as the territory of the old British India (an original member of the United Nations), minus the territories detached from it for the creation of the Dominion of Pakistan, that is, the West Punjab, Sind, East Bengal, the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) and the Chief Commissioner's Province of British Balochistan. The underlying assumption of the Act was that the Dominion of India would be regarded as the parent State and would, therefore, continue the ' international personality of India'. While the Act did not expressly say so, the assumption was also apparent from the statement of the Secretary of State for India and Burma, Lord Listowel, at a press conference in London on July 4, 1947.

A dispute arose - pressed by Pakistan - that both the

Dominions were successor States of ' India'.

In the event (and after protracted consideration), it was held that the Delegation of the Dominion of India had to present fresh credentials to the United Nations – in view of certain basic constitutional changes – and that its U.N. membership remained unaffected. On the other hand, Pakistan was a new State and was required to apply for membership in accordance with the provisions of Article 4 of the U.N. Charter.

In one of his last interviews before he passed away in May, 1964, Jawaharlal Nehru said about the Partition:

' Gandhiji was against it, right to the end. Even when it came, he was not in favour of it. I was not in favour of it either, but ultimately I decided, like many others did, that it was better to have Partition than this constant trouble. The leaders of the Muslim League were big landlords who did not like land reform. We were very anxious to have land reforms which we did have afterwards, and that was one reason we agreed to Partition because we thought that if they remained with us, apart from this trouble continuing, they would oppose many of our measures. And we felt it was better to have a part of India and go ahead with our programme of reforms than to be tied up with those who would come in the way of these reforms'…'…'…'.

Before the emergence of Pakistan, a Parsi statesman, Sir Ardeshir Dalal (1884-1949) of the 1908 ICS (who was later with the Tata Group, was a signatory to the Bombay Plan of 1944 and was appointed Member-in-charge of Planning & Development in Lord Wavell's Executive Council) had said that some ' experimental measures' should be taken to address the concerns of India's Muslim community. He felt that India should adopt a Federal Constitution, proposed giving 33.25% representation to the Muslims in the legislatures and reserving representation for the Scheduled Castes and Sikhs, viewing India as not only a geographical but also a cultural and a spiritual entity:

' That unity has been forged through countless ages by the culture, traditions and usages of the successive generations of men who have migrated, settled down and been absorbed through the predominant qualities of tolerance and adaptability which are the characteristics of the Indian civilization'…'…'.

Sir Ardeshir thought that the Indian Constitution should be under the guardianship of the Federal Court and two (out of its five Judges) should be Muslims. He was of the view that Pakistan's

creation ' '….. should be considered only if no other alternative is possible

'…..'.

A nascent Pakistan weathered the initial obstacles and did not fold up, despite the inherent contradictions.

The Hindus and Sikhs, especially the more prosperous, fleeing the West Punjab believed the troubles were of temporary nature and that they would be able to return to their houses after a reasonable interval. After all, they had long been friends with the Muslims and had quite happily co-existed with them under British rule.

How wrong they were!

The optimistic sentiment was less shared by the Muslims departing the East Punjab for a promised Homeland.

The Hindus of East Bengal who left what was to become the other half of Pakistan realized they would not be going back to their homes. A fair proportion of the Muslims in West Bengal preferred to remain in India.

Lord Louis Mountbatten, the last British Viceroy who had royal connections, erred on many counts during the process of the Partition, but to suggest that he was predetermined to sever India seems far-fetched. Years afterwards, he reflected:

' Looking at the problem, the first thing that struck me (and an opinion that I have not changed) was that the right answer would have been to have kept a united India'.

So divisive was the entire exercize that Mountbatten admitted:

' '….. I've at last made a mess of things through overconfidence and over-tiredness. I'm just whacked and worn out and would really like to go'.

The Partition brought the two Dominions to a stand-off and the canal disputes that soon arose added to the distrust. A deeply divided political landscape emerged in which the partitioned Punjab made future cooperation uncertain and Kashmir made it completely difficult.

The post-colonialists have blamed the British, the Pakistanis blame the Indians and the Hindus assert that it is the Muslims who started it all. However, none of the parties look at themselves and say that we – each of us – contributed to the nightmare of Partition. Till we can do that, we will not be able to find ways of living in a more peaceful environment.

Simply put, the Hindu-Muslim question could benefit from a period of benign neglect.

All in all, I have tried to convey a flavour of what politics and government were like in the Subcontinent in the last century and share some of the high and low points, as perceived by me.

One has often felt more at home in the past than in the troubled present.

Our protagonist, Atul Prasad Mitra, a Bengali kayastha, adherent of the Brahmo Samaj, an ICS, barrister and politician, was born in Lahore in the undivided Punjab on Christmas Day, 1911 and died in his sleep at Calcutta (Kolkata) in the small hours of New Year's Day, 2000, the beginning of a new millennium.

Read on, and I hope to earn the privilege of your time.

o – 0 - o

' We never expected to get it so soon '…. we never expected to get it in our lifetime' exclaimed Miss Fatima Jinnah, the Quaid-i-Azam's younger sister and a dental surgeon by training, on the eve of Partition.

She was wrong because, but for the Quaid (1876-1948), there wouldn't have been a Pakistan. He lived for a little over a year after its creation.

In June, 1937, Sir Muhammad Iqbal had written to Jinnah:

' …… you are the only Muslim in India today to whom the community has a right to look up for safe guidance through the storm which is coming to North-West India and, perhaps, to the whole of India'.

- - o0o - -

One of Mahatma Gandhi's closest associates, Mrs Sarojini Naidu, made an emotional broadcast to a shocked nation two days after his assassination on 30 January, 1948, ending with the words:

' My father do not rest. Keep us to our pledge, give us the strength to fulfil our promise …. You whose life was so powerful, make it as powerful in your death. For from mortality you have passed to immortality by supreme martyrdom in the cause most dear to you: Hindu- Muslim friendship.'

- - o0o - -

I

Paris of the East

Atul Mitra (1911-2000) shared his birthday, Christmas, with Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya (born in 1861), three-time President of the Indian National Congress and a founder of the Hindu Mahasabha; also with Pakistan's founder, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, born a year after Syed Fazl-ul-Hasan, known by his pen- name, Hasrat Mohani who hailed from Unnao district (United Provinces) and coined the slogan Inquilab Zindabad (Long Live the Revolution).

Regarded as one of the first persons to demand Complete Independence for India at the Ahmedabad Session of the Indian National Congress in 1921, Maulana Hasrat Mohani (1875-1951) wrote verses expressing love for Lord Krishna and went to Mathura and Vrindavan to celebrate Janmashtami. Although later aligned with the Muslim League, he did not leave for Pakistan and was a Member of the Constituent Assembly of India. He would not accept government allowances and living accommodation. Instead, he stayed in mosques. When asked why he travelled in third class railway compartments, he quipped: ' because there is no fourth class'.

He was an admirer of Bal Gangadhar Tilak. His biographer, Muzaffar Hanafi, records ' ….. Once while discussing about their favourites amongst the national leaders, many students named Sir Syed Ahmed Khan as their guide some named Dadabhai Naoroji

or Surendranath Banerjee; Mohani, however, mentioned Tilak as his mentor and guide '.

Interestingly, Mohammadali Carim (MC) Chagla – Jinnah's junior at one time and, later, Chief Justice of the Bombay

High Court and Cabinet