The following is a conversation between myself and Ken Surridge on the causes of the separation of the Indian subcontinent and the responsible parties, British, Muslim and Hindu, focusing on Gandhi and Jinnah as key players. This discussion took place on Facebook June 18 and 19, 2013. Link with pictures
Gary Crethers: Pakistan’s military has long supported fundamentalists and separatists in Kashmir, in a proxy war with India. Now the Baluchi independence movement is, as the cartoon shows, burning the military in the butt. My own contention is that the nation states of India and Pakistan were colonial creations, compromises made by the British as they headed out the door after WW2. I also think that the two state solution was like in Palestine a poison pill planted by the British in the hopes of keeping things unstable and pliable for British long term interests, with an eye to return, something that didn’t happen and now the consequences of such ill thought out actions are being lived by the people. It will be interesting to see if Pakistan in particular survives.
Ken Surridge: Gary. I think you underestimate the role that Ghandi played in the division of the country. I don’t doubt that my country wanted to keep influence in the country but I think they did that with the system of government with different states and Rajahs. Ghandi deserves huge credit for forcing the British to grant independence to the region but he was very divisive among his own people. I think Ghandi’s inflexibility was the prime cause of separation.
Ken Surridge: He is credited with his non-violence in achieving independence and in my opinion rightly so, but the conflict he caused that lead to the partition of the country into India and Pakistan brought about many, many deaths and I think his stance played a part if not the main part in bringing about the bloodshed that preceded partition. I would argue that hundreds of thousands died and were displaced as a direct result of the conflict Ghandi caused among the parties negotiating the future of the region with the British.
Gary Crethers: Gandhi was against the separation. He opposed Jinnah in that. But ultimately gave in to pressure from others in Congress. I would say it was more due to Jinnah’s insistence and British appeasement than Gandhi, also there was the war, the cooperation of Congress was dependent on some promise of Independence after the war. If Labor hadn’t won the 1945 parliamentary elections, the British might have stalled a lot longer. But Labor had a social agenda at home and the war debt was enormous, so the empire was a judicious sacrifice. My poison pill theory is more a proposition than anything else at this point without access to British policy files. That sort of thing would not be easily accessible even at this late date. “Jinnah’s inscrutability and stubborn support for his Pakistan demand frequently frustrated Mountbatten during the series of meetings which took place between them early in April 1947. After one marathon session during which Jinnah appeared not to have been listening to any of his arguments, Mountbatten wrote in exasperation that ‘Jinnah must be a psychopathic case’.” http://www.historytoday.com/ian-talbot/jinnah-and-making-pakistan
Jinnah and the Making of Pakistan
The worldwide Islamic revival of the 1970s has overshadowed the attempts made by Muslims earlier in the century to unite religious and political authority. Muslims led the revolt against the colonial…(see link)
Ken Surridge: Ghandi was against separation. Jinnah was initially against separation too. Ghandi though wanted the independent country to be created on his terms and he was completely unwilling to compromise. Because of his public standing the British did not feel he could be pressurised into compromise which lead to a very frustrated Jinnah. Jinnah wanted formal assurances that the minority muslims of the country would be treated as equal citizens in the new country. Ghandi refused to agree to any such reassurances and insisted that the basis of the new country would be Hinduism. Ghandi was totally inflexible, trust broke down, and the British chose not to intervene. Jinnah felt the only way he could safeguard muslims in the region was to push for an independent Pakistan. I would hardly consider Mountbatten a credible judge of character - his admiration for cruel dictators is well-documented.
Gary Crethers: Interesting analysis of the separation of the subcontinent putting a lot more blame on British administrative practices. http://postcolonialstudies.emory.edu/partition-of-india/
» Partition of India Postcolonial Studies @ Emory
“A moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, when we step out from the old to the new, when an age ends, and when the soul of a nation, long suppressed, finds utterance.” - Jawarharal Nehru, “Tryst With Destiny” speech celebrating Indian independence…(see link)
Gary Crethers: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/partition1947_01.shtml this BBC version is very close to my own understanding. I know Gandhi was opposed to separation but I don’t think he was about to impose Hinduism. He was killed after all by Hindu Nationalists who thought he was an appeaser of Muslims.
BBC - History - British History in depth: The Hidden Story of Partition and its Legacies
by Dr Crispin Bates
Ken Surridge: I agree with most of the analysis but I think it ignores a few important points. Firstly, Jinnah was an ardent anglophile with no apparent religious convictions. Instead of praying, he would sit on his verandah drinking whiskey; he loved whisky. He dressed like an English gentleman of the day usually. He considered himself culturally muslim. I think he would turn in his grave if he saw what the company had become. Secondly, the region allocated for Pakistan included only a minority of the muslims in the region. In fact, there are more muslims in india today than there are in Pakistan. Thirdly, the analysis acknowledges the anti-muslim feeling in the country but underestimates the strength of it. Hindus talked openly on muslims getting their just desserts. Forth, the analysis acknowledges Ghandi’s vision of a Hindu india but it does not deal with his many pronouncements that it would a hindu country only. Lastly, it doesn’t deal with the conflicts that developed and the reasons for them between the parties negotiating the terms for independence.
Gary Crethers: True, Jinnah was not exactly a good Muslim, he was interested in power, and Islam was for him a tool, perhaps as a means of pressuring the British, perhaps as a way to counter the influence of the Hindu nationalists. As has been written Muslims supported the British war effort while Congress opposed and many went to prison. As a result Muslims gained influence during the war years and that added pressure on the British to grant a separate state. The Labor government also wanted out. due to the post war situation at home, remember Britain had rationing in place until the 1950’s and was in bad shape for years after the war.
Ken Surridge: I agree that Britain just wanted out and as a result made some very poor decisions. However, I think both the articles you have presented do not take into the following items into account - (1) Ghandi’s determination that India would be hindu and a refusal to provide assurances for muslim citizens, (2) the hostility in the country towards muslims and their genuine fear of reprisals after the British left, and (3) Jinnah’s initial commitment to a united country.
Ken Surridge: I would argue Gary that a close analysis of Ghandi reveals a very different person to the only that is publically bandied about. I think the image of Ghandi generally presented is very romanticised as is often the case with popular heroes.
Gary Crethers: This site is very critical of Gandhi but they are critical not because he insisted on Hindu nationalism but just the opposite for being a dreamer and idealist who believed in an ecumenical state. This is a site advocating nationalism and has little good to say about Gandhi. I just don’t see him as being intransigent in favor of Hinduism. Can you site some sources? http://library.flawlesslogic.com/gandhi.htm
The Gandhi Myth
The lesson of Gandhi’s failure is clear: In interracial relations a group that defines itself by its tolerance will lose against a group that doggedly pursues its own self-interest. Shrewd ethnocentrism is more politically powerful than compromising tolerance.
Ken Surridge: Gary, that’s a fair question. You will need to give me some time to dig through my books. Some them may even be in storage but it will be a good test of my memory. I will update as I find relevant sources.
Gary Crethers: Thanks, I have researched enough to know that Gandhi was a pragmatist and his pacifism was more a tactical response also ultimately became part of his world view. For a critique of Gandhi from a pacifist viewpoint see http://www.peaceworkmagazine.org/pacifist-critique-gandhi
A Pacifist Critique of Gandhi | Peacework Magazine
Peacework Magazine, a peace and social justice webzine, investigates, uncovers, highlights, catalyzes, and mobilizes the nonviolent success stories of today — and tomorrow.
Gary Crethers: But all in all, despite his flaws, he was a great man and advanced the cause of human freedom, at least to the extent of being an inspiration for people like Martin Luther King, who went to India. “From the early days of the Montgomery bus boycott, Martin Luther King, Jr. referred to India’s Mahatma Gandhi as ‘‘the guiding light of our technique of nonviolent social change’’ (Papers 5:231). Following the success of the boycott in 1956, King contemplated traveling to India to deepen his understanding of Gandhian principles.” http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/encyclopedia/encyclopedia/enc_kings_trip_to_india/
India Trip (1959)
From the early days of the Montgomery bus boycott, Martin Luther King, Jr. referred to India’s Mahatma Gandhi as ‘‘the guiding light of our technique of nonviolent social change’’ (Papers 5:231). Following the success of the boycott in 1956, King contemplated traveling to India to deepen his understanding…(see link)
Gary Crethers: Now I am no pacifist, but I am a pragmatist and seeing people getting killed for political ends is not my idea of how to conduct a social revolution, but on the other hand there are times when as Maximilian Robespierre said in 1790 “On ne saurait faire une omelette sans casser des oeufs.” Translation: “One can’t expect to make an omelet without breaking eggs.”
Ken Surridge: A Hitchens article, although I have better sources and will find them. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2011/07/the-real-mahatma-gandhi/308550/
The Real Mahatma Gandhi
Questioning the moral heroism of India’s most revered figure
Ken Surridge: If you read Gandhi’s letters and articles while living in South Africa, he comes across as deeply racist. He objects to the treatment of Indians but takes no issues with the treatment of kafirs and low caste Indians. The word ‘kafir’ is the South African equivalent of nigger. It is a deeply offensive and racist word. Read the original letters at http://www.mkgandhi.org/.
WELCOME TO MAHATMA GANDHI ONE SPOT COMPLETE INFORMATION WEBSITE
M.K.Gandhi, mahatma, Philosophy, non-violence, photographs of mahatma gandhi, Ghandi, Mahatma, Mohandas, peace, conflict resolution. Comprehensive site for Researchers Scholars Activists Students everyone. Includes a large collection of links on Gandhi, Non-Violence Peace and Conflict Resolution.
Ken Surridge: Note Gandhi’s support for ‘Purity of Race’ when he stressed racial separation and the leadership of whites with approval.
Gandhi wrote in his Indian Opinion of 24 September 1903:
“We believe as much in the purity of race as we think they do, only we believe that they [the white leadership of South Africa] would best serve these interests, which are as dear to us as to them, by advocating the purity of all races, and not one alone. We believe also that the white race of South Africa should be the predominating race.”
On 24 December 1903, Gandhi added this in his Indian Opinion newspaper:
“The petition dwells upon `the co-mingling of the colored and white races’. May we inform the members of the Conference that so far as British Indians are concerned, such a thing is particularly unknown. If there is one thing which the Indian cherishes more than any other, it is the purity of type.”
Ken Surridge: Jinnah was the architect of the Lucknow pact for which he earned the title of “the Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity”. Jinnah was a member of both the Congress Party and the Muslim League when the Lucknow pact was created in 1916. He fought hard for a united India in which Muslims would be fairly represented. The main clauses of the Lucknow pact were presented to the British as a united front. Jinnah was the main driver for a united India until the collapse of the Lucknow pact when he concluded that the hindu majority would limit the rights of muslims.
Ken Surridge: This is brief article that draws some attention to Jinnah’s role but does not do it justice. It is useful in that it points out that Jinnah was committed to a united India in the beginning and he, not Gandhi, was the main force behind the unity of Muslims and Hindus. http://storyofpakistan.com/the-lucknow-pact/
The Lucknow Pact
When All India Muslim League came into existence, it was a moderate organization with its basic aim to establish friendly relations with the Crown. However, due to the decision of the British Government…(see link)
Ken Surridge: The text of the Lucknow pact can be seen on the following web-site. http://www.indiaofthepast.org/contribute-memories/read-contributions/major-events-pre-1950/319-lucknow-pact-between-congress-and-muslim-league1916
Lucknow Pact between Congress and Muslim League 1916
Agreement between Congress and Muslim League in 1916.
Ken Surridge: The main clauses of the Lucknow Pact were:
•There shall be self-government in India.
•Muslims should be given one-third representation in the central government.
•There should be separate electorates for all the communities until a community demanded for joint electorates.
•System of weightage should be adopted.
•The number of the members of Central Legislative Council should be increased to 150.
•At the provincial level, four-fifth of the members of the Legislative Councils should be elected and one-fifth should be nominated.
•The strength of Provincial legislative should not be less than 125 in the major provinces and from 50 to 75 in the minor provinces.
•All members, except those nominated, were to be elected directly on the basis of adult franchise.
•No bill concerning a community should be passed if the bill is opposed by three-fourth of the members of that community in the Legislative Council.
•Term of the Legislative Council should be five years.
•Members of Legislative Council should themselves elect their president.
•Half of the members of Imperial Legislative Council should be Indians.
•Indian Council must be abolished.
•The salaries of the Secretary of State for Indian Affairs should be paid by the British Government and not from Indian funds.
•Out of two Under Secretaries, one should be Indian.
•The Executive should be separated from the Judiciary.
Ken Surridge: The Nehru report was produced in 1928. It was shaped by Nehru the protégé of Gandhi and rejected everything agreed in the Lucknow pact. Jinnah responded in 1929 with 14 points from the 1916 Lucknow pact for a united India from the 1916. The now Hindu Members of the Nehru committee rejected all the points outright. A meeting of all the Muslim parties subsequently rejected the Nehru report. If the Nehru Committee had shown some flexibility and willingness to incorporate some of the demands of the Muslim leadership, partition might have been avoided. The inability of Congress to concede any points was a major factor in the eventual partition of India.
Ken Surridge: http://www.allamaiqbal.com/webcont/393/NehruReport.html
Ken Surridge: The above report is right on the facts even if its pro-Pakistan sympathy is rather obvious.
Ken Surridge: Was Nehru Report a Reversal of Lucknow Pact?
Yes. The Motilal Nehru Committee Report, published in 1928 recommended reservation of seats for Muslims only in provinces where they were in a minority. The report proposed to abolish separate electorates, to discard reservation of seats for Muslim majorities in the Punjab and Bengal and to rekect the principle of weightage for Muslim minorities. This was a reversal of the Lucknow Pact. The Nehru Report asked for a political status of India as a dominion, which should be the same as that of British dominions like Canada, South Africa. It asked for a similar reservation for Hindus in NWFP. The provinces of Sindh and Karnataka shall be separate any further reorganisation of proposed report was good but not practical. The joint and mixed concept was practically unacceptable for the Muslim league.
Nehru Report 1928
Moti Lal Nehru Report 1928 At the annual session of the Congress in Madras in December 1927, a resolution was passed which advocated the boycott of
Ken Surridge Sorry Gary, I realise that I am overwhelming your notifications so I will finish with some book recommendations. India 1900-47 by Rosemary Rees, and the Lancaster Pamphlets on British Politics of the time.
Gary Crethers: I would not say he was deeply racist, but typically racist at that time racism was fairly common. But it is certainly a blight on his early days. I have noted that above in the Peacework critique. Gandhi certainly was no saint, remember he also slept with his young nieces, not having sex with them, but still it was a kind of creepy thing and several of his fellows left his movement because of it. But it does not take away from the fact that he was an influential force for liberation of the Indian subcontinent from colonial rule and did his best to do it without violence. The violence that occurred after partition cannot be blamed on him, he did his best to stop it. I would say it was more a result of the withdrawal of British troops, the demobilization of Indian forces, the rush to independence, the lack of experience on the part of many Congress politicians and the agitation of Hindu and Islamic fundamentalists and nationalists who spread fear and panic, also the lack of adequate police forces, lack of clear border demarcation, and inadequate preparation of the population at large, besides the fact that it was a bad idea to start with as far as I am concerned.
Ken Surridge: The Lucknow pact was agreed before Gandhi took the leadership of the Congress party. The Nehru report was created when lead, in fact, ran the Congress party having reorganised and put in place only people deeply loyal to him and his views. Had he been willing to compromise the Muslim League may have accepted the Nehru report and partition could have been averted along with the killing. Jinnah certainly indicated support after the publication of the Nehru report for a united India.
Gary Crethers: This site has an interesting description of Gandhi supporting the British war effort, his rather idealistic position, that by being good Commonwealth citizens, the British would reward Indians with greater political freedoms was naive and put him out of favor with his more realistic brethren. Gandhi had withdrawn from independence agitation and focused on labor issues working for workers rights during the war. Although in 1918 he helped recruit soldiers for the war effort and earlier had organized an medical unit at the war’s outbreak. He felt betrayed by the British when at the wars end the British determined that Indian civil liberties were to be curbed.
Gary Crethers: http://www.mkgandhi.org/biography/wrldwar1.htm the site
Mahatma Gandhi : Pictorial Biography
This is the first pictorial biography of Gandhi in which the narrative-concise, readable and incisive is illustrated with contemporary photographs and facsimiles of letters, newspaper reports and cartoons, adding up to a fascinating flash-back on the life of Mahatma Gandhi and the struggle for India…(see link)
Gary Crethers: As for the 1916 Lucknow Pact between Congress and the Muslim Brotherhood that was as you say largely the work of Jinnah, also as a result the radical Tilak faction and the moderate Gokhale factions in Congress were brought together. The ultimate goal was to gain access to concessions from the British for self government as well as to protect Muslim interests. They saw World War One as an opportunity to pressure the British. Gandhi was not involved in this process being opposed to using the war to pressure the British. Things began to change after the Chauri Chaura incident in 1922 during the non-cooperation campaign after the war. Gandhi and Congress decided to call off the campaign when enraged protestors burned down a police station killing some 21 officers trapped inside. Leaders of the Muslim Khilafat Movement became disenchanted with Congress for ending the campaign. Later in 1928 the Nehru report written as a response to British claims that Indians could not come up with a constitution, provided an outline of a path to Dominion status and Independence. Unfortunately it did not include provisions for separate Muslim elections or protections that were included in the Lucknow pact and caused members of the Muslim league and Khilafat movement to become more critical of Congress. This becoming a point that led to increased support for Sir Syed Ahmad Khan’s two state solution, as was proposed in 1930 by Allama Iqbal in a speech. The 1935 Government of India Act had adopted many of the concessions requested by the 1928 All-Party Muslim Conference which had demanded a 33% representation in a unified government. At that point a unitary state was still possible as the separate state movement could only garnish a small percentage of Muslim support, gaining only 5% of Muslim votes in a 1937 election. But under Jinnah’s leadership they pressed on and in the Lahore resolution of 1940 presented the two state solution. I don’t see Gandhi being the primary player in this process of separation between Muslim and Hindu interests, he certainly was a factor, but I don’t think he was as critical as you suggest. As to why Jinnah decided to give up on a unitary state and push for separation, there were many factors, Gandhi may have failed to understand Jinnah, and Nehru may have pushed him into a corner where he felt he had no option after the Nehru Report. Jinnah’s ambition may have led him to conclude that a separate power base using Islam as a means was the only way to have the impact he desired. He certainly was no devout Muslim and was a secularist. Ultimately the factors in the failure to form a unified country are complex and have their roots in history as well as in the personalities and forces of the times. Certainly the British divide and conquer methodology contributed to the current states.
Gary Crethers: I don’t agree with your analysis of the Congress Party at the time of the Nehru Report. Gandhi was not on the committee and he was not some omnipotent force in Congress.
Gary Crethers: On the other hand Gandhi was a very influential figure and his own rejection of a legislated approach to the communal problem in favor of an apocalyptic civil war as a sort of purifying experience for Indians was in my view both irresponsible, idealistic and ultimately led to his not taking Jinnah’s demands seriously enough. This is in marked contrast to his insistence on Non-violent struggle for independence. This is reported in “Gandhi: A Political and Spiritual Life”
by Kathryn Tidrick, on page 221. Although Gandhi did tell Jinnah that he personally would agree to the demands of Jinnah, he suggested that the Sikhs would withdraw their support. “Gandhi: The Man, His People, and the Empire” by Rajmohan Gandhi page 297. Gandhi was more concerned with the split between the elder and younger Nehru who disagreed over whether to accept Dominion status or complete separation. Gandhi brokered a compromise in which they would give the British a one year ultimatum for dominion. if it was not accepted then complete independence would be on the table. This is an interesting link to the British reaction and the various parties involved http://allinthepast.wordpress.com/2011/02/02/gandhi-and-british-public-opinion-part-two-nehru-report-to-the-lahore-conference-1928-29/
Gandhi and British Public Opinion Part Two: Nehru Report to the Lahore Conference 1928-29
The Nehru report, published in 1928 began a sequence of dramatic events in which the Indian Independence Movement became central to British Politics for the following three years. These events would…(see link)
Gary Crethers: Ultimately I think you have some good points and Gandhi certainly is not the idol some people make of him. His Hinduism was both a strength and a hindrance to his success. Also his reading of history, particularly the way he interpreted the American Civil War suggested that he anticipated a violent future for India before a truly communal state would arise. Was he being prophetic or help create the conditions of the ultimate bloodbath of the separation is debatable. Certainly the worst of two worlds resulted, a war and a separation, rather than peace and unity. Although he certainly was a key player, I still don’t believe that his actions determined the ultimate course of history, but they did play an important part.
Ken Surridge: Gandhi was not party to the creation of the Lucknow pact or a supporter of its goals but he was behind the decision to ignore it and the concerns of Muslims in the creation of the Nehru report.
Gandhi became president of Congress in 1921, and immediately reformed the party. He restructured the hierarchy filling many positions with loyal followers. He reduced the membership fee, opened new party branches and campaigned aggressively. Party membership grew rapidly and Gandhi became the darling of the public. Gandhi became very powerful with his control of Congress and his public image.
Gandhi expressed regret for the Chauri Chaura incident in 1922. It is true that officially Gandhi and Congress decided to call off the campaign, however, the party was at this stage very much doing his bidding. Gandhi was indeed very powerful and it was not easy or wise to disagree with him. Along with some other members, the Khilafat Movement did become disenchanted with the campaign ending. Gandhi’s control of the party is underlined by the fact that while Gandhi’s was in prison internal factions formed within the Congress party which looked at one stage like it might split the party. On leaving prison Gandhi took control of the party and reunited it.
The 1928 Nehru report was the second attempt at a constitution for India. There were 2 Muslim representatives who were part of the committee that drafted it. They refused to sign it because it ignored Muslim concerns. It was rejected by the All Muslim league shortly afterwards. Jinnah’s 14 points were the only attempt made to see if any common ground could be found. Nehru as a loyal supporter of Gandhi made sure the report reflected his vision for India. The Congress party very much under Gandhi’s influence ignored Muslim concerns.
I see Gandhi’s influence and his beliefs as the main cause of the stance that the Congress party adopted towards the concerns of the Muslim league. I believe his speeches and actions show that as his influence grew so did his confidence to assert himself and his refusal to compromise. He is known in meetings to have simply refused to even respond to questions or discuss topics on which he had made up his mind. He left many British officials deeply frustrated because of his refusal to enter into negotiations. He drove Jinnah and his allies to conclude that the two-state solution touted by others was the only way to safeguard Muslims. It is true that once Jinnah believed this to be the case, he threw himself behind the idea and campaigned aggressively for it.
I agree that there were other factors at play, but I think you underestimate Gandhi’s influence. Even after he relinquished the leadership of the Congress party no decisions were taken without consulting him.
Gary Crethers: As much as I would like to continue this discussion I have other matters to attend at this point. I will say that the debates over the Nehru Report at the time indicate that many in Congress saw Jinnah as petulantly sticking to a position that insisted on a 33% Muslim stake as opposed to the 25% offered, a compromise of 27% was not accepted by Jinnah. Shuaaib Qureshi was the only one of the panel members who seems to have not signed it according to the Wikipedia article but that could be wrong. Gandhi certainly was influential, I guess what we disagree on is how much that influence impacted the ultimate results. A very interesting analysis indicates that it was due to the inept work of Jinnah’s aid M. C. Chagla. “In the summer 1928 when these negotiations went on and a draft of Nehru Report was being finalised Jinnah had gone to London and Paris – his wife Ruttie was on her deathbed in Paris at the time. Around the same time, the Nehru Report was finalised. Under pressure from the Hindu Mahasabha, the Nehru Report did not go far enough to meet the Delhi proposals. Instead of the 33% proposed reserved representation, the Hindu Mahasabha insisted on a lower number, agreeing ultimately at 25% i.e. 1/4th instead of 1/3rd. A meeting of the Nehru Report attended by M C Chaga on behalf of the League became the turning point. While Motilal Nehru was ready to even accept separate electorates as an interim measure to allay the minorities, M C Chagla forcefully advocated joint electorates on behalf of Jinnah’s faction and also went on to accept the Nehru Report on League’s behalf. When Jinnah returned, M C Chagla went to receive him at the harbor only to find his mentor furious. For Jinnah the Nehru Report was a counter proposal and with 1/4th instead of 1/3rd reserved representation was a non-starter. In this he was right. Muslims were giving up their separate electorates and the Hindu majority was expected to give something in return – an increase in reserved representation.”
Gary Crethers: http://pakteahouse.net/2011/10/25/jinnah-m-c-chagla-and-the-nehru-report/
Gandhi according to this author is only mentioned in the context of having a positive opinion. “The package Jinnah gave for a settlement became famously known as the Delhi Muslim proposals. There is enough evidence to suggest that Motilal Nehru and Gandhi were thrilled by this proposal.” Thus all I can say is this subject is still being debated and as I am not an expert, I will have to leave it lie as it stands perhaps in the future I shall attempt a paper on the subject.
Jinnah, M C Chagla and the Nehru Report | Pak Tea House
The All India Reporter in its obituary on Jinnah wrote this very revealing line: “The change in his views and ideals leading to such cataclysmic developments in our national annals will remain one of the strangest things in history.”