The Historic Meeting of Ambedkar, Jinnah and Periyar
K. V. Ramakrishna Rao, B.Sc., M.A., A.M.I.E., C.Eng.(I)., B.L.,
A paper presented during the 21st session
of South Indian History Congress held at Madurai Kamaraj University from 18 to 20 January 2001 ans published in the proceedings, pp.128-136
Introduction: The meeting of Bhimarao Ramji Ambedkar (1891-1956), Mohammed Ali Jinnah (1876- ) and Erode Venkatappa Ramaswamy Naicker (1879-1973) (hereinafter mentioned Ambedkar, Jinnah and EVR) took place at Bombay on January 8, 1940. It is not that they never meet each other earlier. EVR has met Ambedkar three times (on 06-04-40, 07-04-40, and 08-04-40 at Bombay, 21-09-44 at Madras and on 03-12-1954 in Rangoon) and Jinnah four times (on 08-01-40 at Bombay, twice at Madras and once at Delhi); Ambedkar and Jinnah have met each other many times, as both were in Bombay1.
However, the meeting of three together appears to be very interesting, informative and crucial in the social, political and economic conditions of India during the material period. The political condition at that time was surcharged with nationalist and other independent movements with the economy struggling hard after the Great depression of 1929. When people started to think about an Independent India, they found that they were faced with different social, economic and political problems. Not only, they were discriminated with and divided on many factors, their leaders too confused with newly fermenting ideologies. While the educated elite was just trying to understand the modern political concepts and their applicability to Indian context, common people were subjected to various socio-economic-political processes.
When the question, �Who should rule India after the British?� arose, they were divided on the basis of ideologies, put forward by the respective leaders and supported their ideologues and theoreticians. The ambitions of Indian political leaders in such a power struggle clashed with the interests of common people. According to their perceived ideology, the leaders tried to mobilize masses on the basis of emotional and sensitive issues to achieve political goals. Obviously, thus, writers and researchers have never touched upon the topic or dealt with in their writings while dealing many issues and topics. Therefore, it is discussed in this paper.
Background and Preliminary Preparations for the Meeting: The non-Brahmin movements started in different parts of India in early 1920s, particularly, South have created impetus among certain non-Brahmin and Muslim leaders and ideologues to forge an alliance among them. The secular, elite and educated Jinnah started turning communal with the exigencies in Bombay. Ambedkar, though initially started working for the Mahars and other depressed classes, suddenly changed to support for Muslim cause, with all his progressive social, political and economic theories in 1930s. The Justice Party, initially started for the welfare and interests of non-Brahmins, started turning against Hindus, definitely with the ideology of EVR.
Incidentally, most of the Justice party leaders resented his anti-Hindu tirade with his open support for Muslim cause. However, the contacts between the followers of EVR and Muslims increased considerably during 1930-40. Jinnah appointed Mohammed Ismail as the convenor of Muslim League in Madras, when he took the leadership in 1936. In 1938, the Madras District Muslim League was started. Mohammed Ismail and others must have worked for the meeting of EVR with Jinnah.
In fact, EVR�s association with Muslim leaders goes back to 1920s. The third Majilissul Ulema Conference was held in Erode, in which Islamic scholars and leaders like Maulana Mohammed Ali, Maulana Saukat Ali (known as Ali Brothers of Khilafat Movement), Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad, Hakim Hajmal Khan, Chuadhrikali Kussaman were participated2. They all stayed in the house of EVR. While introducing Ali brothers to his mother and wife, EVR commented, �While the entire world is with Gandhi, that Mahatma is in the pocket of Maulana Mohammed Ali�!. EVR and Ismail, though belonged to different ideologies worked together, discussed about politics together as friends since 19203. He used to all ML, Miladi and Ramzan functions without fail.
As Ambedkar was in Bombay, arrangement must have been made to meet him also. A letter addressed to Gandhi by Jinnah proves the fact that the Day of Deliverance was a prelude for such a meeting. He writes:
�It is true that many non-Congress Hindus expressed their sympathy with the Deliverance Day in justice to our cause, so also the leaders of the Justice Party and Scheduled Castes, and the Parsis who had suffered�4
On January 1, 1940 he writes like this and on 9th he meets EVR along with others including Ambedkar.
EVR made the demand for Dravidanadu in his presidential address at the 14th Confederation of S.I.L.F on December 1938. He met Sir Stafford Cripps and put forward the demand of Dravidanad in 1939. The persons met Cripps included Sir Muthaiah Chettiar, N. S. Samiappa Mudaliar and W. P. A. Soundara Nadar5. Resolution was passed to that effect in 1940. Ironically, Muslim League refused the Cripps offer in 1942.
Support for Day of Deliverance by Ambedkar and EVR in 1939: Jinnah declared that the Mussalmans should observe Friday December 22, 1939 as Day of Deliverance to mark the cessation of Congress Governments, when the Congress was popularizing the idea of Constituent Assembly and all were eagerly looking forward to the resumption of talk between Nehru and himself at Bombay6. Amedkar supported the Day of Deliverance at Bombay in a public meeting organized by the Muslim League in 1939. Sir Currimbhoy Ebrahim moved the resolution and Ambedkar seconded it on December 22, 1939! The first news of the Day of Deliverance was that both Ambedkar and Jinnah met each other at a public meeting held at Pentiarghat and shaked their hands each other.
EVR also extended his support. He called upon his party and as well as all Dravidians to celebrate December 22 �on a grand scale�.to rid the country of the menace of the Congress�. As on January 1, 1940, Jinnah was writing about the support of many non-Congress Hindus expressed their sympathy with the Deliverance Day in justice to their cause, so also the leaders of the Justice Party and Scheduled Castes, and the Parsis who had suffered, it is evident that he knew that he was meeting EVR and Ambedkar.
Meeting Of EVR, Ambedkar and Jinnah on January 8, 1940: The historic meeting of the three leaders took place at Bombay on January 8, 1940. The leaders must have either corresponded with each other directly or indirectly or their friends arranged such meeting as explained above.
On January 5th morning, EVR left for Bombay along with the following at the invitation of the non-Brahmin citizens of Bombay:
Justice T. A. V. Nathan,
P. Balasubramaniam � Editor of Sunday observer, the mouth piece of Justice Party,
C. A. Annadurai, the General Secretary of Justice Party and
T. P. S. Ponnappan.
C. Panjatcharam
He was sent off by Kumararaja Muthaiah Chettiar, General Kalifullah and others.
On 06-01-40 by 10.00 a.m, he arrived at Dadar station with his colleagues. He was given a reception and taken by a decorated coach fitted with two white horses! Evening, he met Ambedkar and latter took the former to his residence. Both discussed on various social and political issues from 9.00 to 10.30 p.m.
On 07-01-40, Ambedkar arranged a meet in the Gokhale Educational Institute and gave a dinner. S. C. Joshi, M.L.C., Dr. R. R. Bhole, M.L.A., D. G. JADAV, M.L.A and others attended the function. Ambedkar introduced the guest to them.
On 08-01-40, they met Jinnah at his residence and discussed about the current situation of their activities from evening 5.30 to 8.30 p.m. P. Balasubramaniam, T.A.V. Nathan, K.M. Balasubramaniam � Advocate were also present. They discussed about the working of anti-Congress parties.
It is said that they had also discussed about �
1. The possibility of creating a non-Brahmin opposition group within Congress.
2. Urging Muslims, Scheduled Caste and non-Brahmins to leave Congress and join non-Congress parties.
3. Joint action by parties opposed to Congress.
4. Anti-Hindi agitation.
5. Embarrassing Congress and Congress leaders by all means.
6. Muslims, non-Brahmins and depressed classes working together.
7. Demand of separate states for Mahars, Muslims and Dravidians.
8. Representing to British Government accordingly.
Accordingly, they agreed for the following:
1. Jinnah and Ambedkar would tour Tamil districts for a month in April or May 1940 and support the demand for Dravidanad (as announced by A. Ponnambalam).
2. EVR was again invited to visit Bombay.
3. EVR and his followers support for the Muslim cause and work together.
4. Ambedkar also would support the Muslim cause.
5. All would create more problems for Congress.
6. Make representations to the British to that effect that power should not be vested with Congress alone.
On ninth, Ambedkar arranged a special dinner at 9 p.m for EVR, which was attended by Jekal - the Reporter of Sentinel, Rao - the Chief Reporter of Times of India, Balsarar � Journalist, P. N. Raj Bhoj, Muthaiah Mudaliar � former Minister of Madras, Chockalingam � an advocate and son of the former and others. It was over by 11 p.m.
Though, the full contents of their discussions are not known, it is evident that their meeting has played a crucial role in the Indian politics. It may be noted that within three months, the resolution for the demand of Pakistan (see Appendix.I) was passed by Jinnah on March 25, 1940 at Lahore session of AIML and within seven months Dravidastan by EVR on August, 1940 at Thiruvarur.
After the passing of Lahore resolution, the relationship between the Justice Party and Muslim League became more intimate. At a joint meeting of Justice Party and Muslim League at Madurai in March 1940, a proposal was made to seek the help of Jinnah for the creation of Dravidastan and Jinnah assured EVR to that effect. In fact, both continued to have good relations.
EVR Meets Jinnah in 1941 at Madras: The 28th Annual session of Muslim League was held in Madras on April 11, 1941 at Peoples Park. Jinnah came from Bombay to address the opening session and EVR duly graced the occasion by sitting on the dias along with other Dravidian and Muslim League colleagues. The leader on the dias were � EVR, R. K. Shanmugam Chetty - Dewan of Cochin, K. V. Reddy, M. A. Mutaiah Chettiyar, C. R. Srinivasan � the editor of Swadesa Mitran, M. C. Rajah, N. Sivaraj, Sir A. P. Patro and others. Jinnah and his followers openly demanded the creation of yet another independent sovereign state in the South. He interestingly propounded for a third nation:
�In this subcontinent, you have two different societies, the Muslim society and the Hindu society and particularly in this land, there is another nation, that is Dravidastan. This land is really Dravidastan, and imagine its three percent of electioneering, three percent of them should secure a majority. Is this democracy or is this a farce? Therefore, I have the fullest sympathy and give my fullest support to the non-Brahmins, and I say them: �the only was for you to come into your own is to live your own life, according to your culture, according to your language etc., etc.,�7
Thus, Jinnah propounded three nations � Hindustan, Pakistan and Drabidastan for Hindus, Muslims and Dravidians, as if Hindus and Dravidians are different forgetting or ignoring Mahars and other scheduled castes who supported him. In fact, he only argued and worked for Muslims in his attempts with the British based on his two-nation theory. He never popularized the three-nation theory (as mentioned above) or four-nation theory (the fourth one for Scheduled castes)!
EVR Meets Jinnah in 1941 (?) at Madras Again: From the letter of Jinnah8 dated August 17, 1944 (see Appendix - III), it is evident that both met at Madras atleast twice and discussed about Dravidastan and Pakistan. In fact, it is clear that Jinnah had categorically told EVR and his colleagues that he would join them to support for Dravisdastan, but could not work for their cause, as he would only work for the cause of Muslims and not for non-Muslims. Later, it came out openly in his letter.
EVR Meets Jinnah in 1942 (?) at Delhi: EVR met Jinnah at Delhi and discussed about Pakistan and Dravidastan. Jinnah must have told EVR that as he was representing Muslims, he could not work for the cause of non-Muslims. EVR must have explained his ideology as to how they were different from Hindus by being Dravidians and so on. He might have proved his stand by his speeches and writings. But, because of the pressure of ulema, Jinnah had to disassociate from the Dravidian politics. In fact, ulema did not approve the working together of Jinnah and Gandhi or the leadership of Gandhi for Muslims, as he was a kafir.
Sudden Change Noticed in the Attitude of Jinnah Towards EVR: Though EVR had been moving with Muslim League and Muslims very closely showing benevolent gestures, there was sudden somersault in Jinnah�s response towards EVR. He wrote to Jinnah to take up the issue of Dravidastan along with Pakistan on August 9, 1944 (see Appendix. II). But, Jinnah categorically replied on August 17, 1944 that he always desired that the non-Brahmins of Madras to establish their Dravidastan, but as EVR�s activities were indecisive, he could not speak for non-Muslims. Similarly, he did not positively reacted for the telegrams sent by the Goan Association and P. B. Mudaliar.
The Goan Association sought Jinnah�s help against the merger of Goa with Maharastra. The honorary secretary of the Association, V. S. De Pompeia Viegas in his letter dated July, 30, 1942 addressed to Jinnah as follows:
�As a leader of (the) major minority in the country, my countrymen do look for your valuable support to safeguard the rights of every Indian and particularly the minorities�9.
P. B. Mudaliar, Managing editor of the Sunday Observer, Madras also wrote9 to him on October 13, 1946 to support their cause i.e, to plead for the demand of non-Brahmins along with that of Muslims. In his talks with Gandhi, ��.because the leadership of (the Justice) Party is in very bad hands�. It is intriguing to note as to why he should accuse EVR doubting his leadership!
Jinnah�s solitude to other non-Muslim was confirmed by his inclusion of Jogendra Nath Mandal, a leader of Scheduled Caste, in the Muslim League quota to the membership of the Viceroy�s Executive Council, and he was profusely eulogized by non-Muslims. From these references, it is inferred that Jinnah might have thought of or urged EVR to consider for a Muslim-non-Brahmin alliance, with ultimate aim of creating a Muslim state with broad base. Or he might have suggested Ambedkar and EVR with their followers to convert to Islam, so that they could dominate Hindus. In fact, Ambedkar in his book on Pakistan analyzed the possibility of the conversion of all Muslims to Hinduism to solve the Muslim problem! He spoke at the Bombay Presidency Mahar Conference in May 30 and 31, 1936, advocating the need to abandon Hinduism10. Annadurai used to assert that both Dravidians and Muslims belong to the same race different from that of Hindus / Aryans. As he was also present during the historical meeting of the three, his assertions are quoted appropriately11:
�Dravidastan is not an echo of Pakistan, but it has its own origin. In fact, its north Indian reflection is Pakistan. The demand for Pakistan was raised on March 22, 1940 at the Lahore Conference of Muslim League, but the demand for a Dravidanadu made during December 1938 when the Justice Party held its conference at Madras�.
�They are Aryans - we Dravidians. The same research only proved that Muslims are Dravidians with Islamic path. Therefore, the Dravida-Islamic confederation has arisen�.
�English and Aryans belong to the same race! Race joins with race! Dravidians and Muslims belong to the same race, thus, the same race joins with the same race! �
�Periyar has categorically declared during Coimbatore Conference that Dravidians may live (under the rule of Muslims) in Pakistan, but not with Aryans! Yes, it is fact! Periyar has told like that only, (because) he has brought out the fact that the same race joins with the same race!�.
Why Jinnah should accuse EVR is intriguing, but not without any reason. Though, they had been working for non-Congress power sharing, EVR made the demand of Dravidanadu in 1938 and passed resolution in 1939 to that effect. Jinnah also realized that he was not the sole representative of the South Indians or Dravidians, as each group working differently, particularly with the Congress. That his leadership itself was question was also known to him. Similarly, he understood the position of Ambedkar very well. Therefore, with the mounting pressure of Ulema, he decided to work only for the cause of Muslims, though as a shrewd politician making assurance to others.
The observations of Ambedkar about the change of Jinnah is revealing to be mentioned here:
�Never before was Mr. Jinnah a man for the masses. He distrusted them. To exclude them from political power he was always for a higher franchise. Mr.Jinnah was never known to be a devout, pious or professing Muslim. Besides kissing the Holy Koran as and when he was sworn as an M.L.A., he does not appear to have bothered about its contents or its special tenets. It is doubtful if he frequented any mosque either out of curiosity or religious fervour. Mr. Jinnah was never found in the midst of Muslim mass congregations, religious or political. Today, one finds a complete change in Mr. Jinnah. He has become a man of the masses. He is no longer above them. He is among them. Now they have raised him above themselves and call him their Qaide-Azam. He has not only become a believer in Islam, but is prepared to die for Islam. Today, he knows more of Islam than mere Kalama. Today, he goes to the mosque to hear Khutba and takes delight in joining the Id congregational prayers. Today, they know him by his presence. No Muslim meeting in Bombay begins or ends with without Alla-ho-Akbar and Long Live Qaide-Azam� 12.
EVR Meets Ambedkar Three Times: As pointed out above, EVR first met Ambedkar at Bombay on 06-04-40, 07-04-40 and 08-04-40. At that time, they discussed about the creation of separate States for Muslims, Hindus, Depressed classes and Dravidians. Second time, he met him at Madras on 21-09-44, when Ambedkar came there officially as a member of Viceroy Council. At that time, there were two groups in Justice Party and one was opposed to EVR. Third time, they met at Rangoon, Burma during the Third International Buddhist Conference on 05-12-44. At that time, Ambedkar revealed that he had decided to convert to Buddhism and urged EVR to convert. But, EVR replied that as long as he was in Hindus he could criticize it, but when he left, he could not. Therefore, he wanted to be in Hinduism to fight against the tyrannies.
Pakistan, Dravidastan and Buddhistan: From the above, it is evident that the three have definitely discussed about the creation of Pakistan for Muslims, Dravidastan for Dravidians i.e, non-Brahmins and Buddhistan for untouchables / Scheduled castes. (Here, the word Buddhistan is used as it is used in Marathi literature on the subject matter). Unwittingly, the leaders themselves have proved that the three groups cannot live together.
Ambedkar�s analysis of Islam and mind of Muslim is revealing10:
1. A country is Dar-ul-Islam (abode of Islam), when it is ruled by Muslims, Dar-ul-Harb (abode of war) when Muslims reside in it but are not rulers of it. India cannot be the common motherland of the Hindus and Muslims (p.287).
2. Hindus are kafirs and therefore, they cannot rule Muslims. Muslims cannot have Hindu leaders (p.296).
3. Jihad (holy war) is waged, till Dar-ul-Islam is achieved. It is every duty of Muslim ruler outside Dar-ul-Harb to help Muslims (pp.288-289).
4. Islam divides inexorably as it binds and it is a brotherhood of Muslims for Muslims only (p.325).
5. There is fraternity but its benefit is confined to those within that corporation and for those who are outside, there is nothing but contempt and enmity (p.325).
6. Islam can never allow a true Muslim to adopt India as his motherland and regard Hindu as his kith and kin (p.325).
Jinnah could not relish Ambedkar�s views of Pakistan and he had to disassociate him. However, In his book Pakistan or Partition of India, published in December 1940, Ambedkar brought out all his views � about Muslims, their belligerent attitude etc., which were evidently disliked by Jinnah and other Muslims. Thus, when Ambedkar started criticising Pakistan, Jinnah might have sidelined or parted way with him. As Jinnah himself was accused of hobnobbing with kafirs (non-Muslims, unbelievers, idolators etc.), he might have decided to work only for the cause of momins (believers) instead of kafiri-Dravidians or kafiri-untouchables. In fact, in Arabic, the words kafir, kafiri etc are derived from kufr or kufru means unclean, thus the kafirs are the unclean people with them momins could not have any relationship, unless their kufr is removed. Jinnah has never hidden the fact, as he has written it black and white many times to Gandhi. In fact, he has also categorically pointed out to EVR, though both discussed about Pakistan and Dravidasthan.
As Ambedkar had been consistent with his social, political and economic theories, he might have decided to work within the Constitutional framework. Moreover, he was involved in the division of Maharastra leading to another controversy. Thus, he could become a Minister, in spite of his electoral defeat in 1952 elections.
The offshoot of DK or followers of EVR too had to absolve from the separatist ideology, the moment they won the elections and started ruling Tamilnadu.
Similarities Noted Among the Three: The three different personalities from three different parts of India representing their respective ideologies had some common qualities and characters, which perhaps brought them together to forge a common alliance. They are identified and discussed as follows:
1. Highly Ambitious: Ambedkar with all his education tried to become a mass politician and tried to exploit the caste feelings maximum with his writings. Though, he participated the Round Table Conferences arguing against Gandhi and reportedly the English bestowed leadership on him (a statement made by Suhas Chandra Bose) , he could not overtake Gandhi politically. As Perhaps, Poona Pact (reached on September 24, 1932) sealed his political ambition. Jinnah�s ambition is open and he exploited Islamic communalism, fanaticism and fundamentalism to achieve his goal. Though once he said, �It is my ambition to become the Moslem Gokhale�, he became Father of Pakistan! As he desired, he partitioned India and became president of Pakistan. EVR too tried to become mass leader in Tamilnadu, but could not succeed, because of his contradictions. However, later he was called as �Gandhi of southern India�! Except Jinnah, both Ambedkar and EVR had to dilute their ideology and get along with the politics with accommodation.
2. Projecting to be a Saviour of a Particular Community: Ambedkar projected himself as the saviour of untouchables, Jinnah that of Muslims and EVR that of non-Brahmins.
3. Pro-Communist Ideology: Definitely, all the three were influenced by the Communist ideology. While EVR had gone to the extent of becoming a citizen of Russia, Jinnah used it for his �two nation theory� and Ambedkar for separate electorates. All three were believers of nations forming based on race, religion, language, and so on.
4. Congressmen: Surprisingly, all started their political career with congress. Though they tried their best to beat Gandhi with communal and casteist sticks, they could not overtake him. They used to dub Congress as �Brahmanical Party�, Hindu Party� and so on.
5. Pro-minority (later changed to pro-Muslim): Expecting support from the Muslims, both EVR and Ambedkar tried to strike deal with them. Both supported the �Day of Deliverance�. However, Ambedkar understood their communal gameplan and wrote against them, though supported for the creation of separate state for Muslims. EVR simply supported Muslims without making any analysis of their psyche like Ambedkar. He celebrated Muslim festivals condemning and blaspheming Hindu festivals. He compared Brahmins with Jews to exploit the feelings of Muslims tactfully (The Mail, April 28, 1940). When, EVR expected much from Jinnah, latter bluntly refused to work for his interests, but he continued his pro-Muslim policy.
6. Opposition to Congress and Gandhi: Though, all the three were Congressmen, they had been bitter critique of Congress and Gandhi in their speeches, writings and action. Inside and outside Congress, they embarrassed Gandhi maximum. Ambedkar clashed with Gandhi over the issue of who represented the interest of untouchables in 1931 and he refused to accept Gandhi�s claim to represent untouchables. The same thing happened, in the case of Jinnah, when ulema discussed as to whether Gandhi could be the leader of Muslims too. Later, when they left Congress, they started attacking Congress and Gandhi openly. For attacking Congress and Gandhi, initially, they started attacking the symbols of traditional Indian factors, later turned into anti-Hindu tirade.
7. Anti-Hindu Ideology and Writings: Their writings exhibit totally anti-Hindu. Though, Jinnah was a Muslim, he had some restriction, but Ambedkar and EVR were virulent in their writings against Hinduism. The small difference between them is that the former excelled in writings and the latter in his speeches, which inturn were published as his works. Ambedkar burned Manu Smriti on December 25, 1927 with great funfare, the birthday of Jinnah! EVR perhaps followed his method later in Tamilnadu. When Ambedkar met EVR at Rangoon on 05-12-1954, during the Thrird World Buddhist Conference urged him to convert to Buddhism. But, EVR replied that if converted himself to Buddhism, then, he could not criticise Hindu religion! Jinnah died as a �Muslim�, Ambedkar as a �Buddhist� and EVR as an �atheist�.
8. Opposition Within Their Groups / Community / Religion: As Jinnah was a Shia and that too exhibiting secular traits ulema dubbed him as a kafir. Mufti Kifayatullah considered him as a kafir, though later included him in the Muslim quam. Perhaps, the opposition of ulema to him and AIUML made him more persistent to achieve Pakistan proving himself a true Muslim! EVR, though legally was a Hindu, advocated anti-Hinduism. Even the leaders of Justice Party did care his atheism, as their sessions started with singing of Tevaram etc. Ambedkar had to face opposition, when he married a Brahmin lady second time when he was 56, just like, when EVR married Maniammai. Though, Ambedkar was an anti-Hindu ideologist, when his first wife Ramabai, died, he performed last rites with a Hindu priest tonsuring his head! Thus, the critiques point out their contradictions.
9. Rajaji Monitored: Curiously, Rajaji was monitored or even spied for his speeches and moves. EVR in his letter dated August 9, 1944 records that, ��..I have been watching carefully the proceedings of Mr Rajagopalacghariar�s formula towards solving the dead-lock and your desire to receive Mr Gandhi at your residence in Bombay�..�. It is too well known to be mentioned that he was a friend of Rajaji. Another interesting incidence recorded by the close relative of Mohammed Ismail and former Rajya sabha member � A. K. Ribayi - is, when Syed Mudsa Hazrat, MLA (Delhi) was travelling in a train from Trichi in 1940, Rajaji and T. S. S. Rajan got in Sri Rangam Station. Syed Hazrat was overhearing the conversation of Rajaji and Rajan from upper berth, when they were discussing about Muslims. Without revealing his identity and pretending as sleeping, he listened to them. After reaching Madras, he straightaway went to Ismail�s house from Egmore station and informed about the conversation to understand the minds13. As Ismail used to meet Jinnah, he might have informed about it. It m
History is not what was written or is written, but it is actually what had happened in the past.
Back to Top
K. V. Ramakrishna Rao View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar
Joined: 06-Apr-2006
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 287 Quote K. V. Ramakrishna Rao Quote Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Apr-2007 at 10:48
1. Rajaji Monitored: Curiously, Rajaji was monitored or even spied for his speeches and moves. EVR in his letter dated August 9, 1944 records that, ��..I have been watching carefully the proceedings of Mr Rajagopalacghariar�s formula towards solving the dead-lock and your desire to receive Mr Gandhi at your residence in Bombay�..�. It is too well known to be mentioned that he was a friend of Rajaji. Another interesting incidence recorded by the close relative of Mohammed Ismail and former Rajya sabha member � A. K. Ribayi - is, when Syed Mudsa Hazrat, MLA (Delhi) was travelling in a train from Trichi in 1940, Rajaji and T. S. S. Rajan got in Sri Rangam Station. Syed Hazrat was overhearing the conversation of Rajaji and Rajan from upper berth, when they were discussing about Muslims. Without revealing his identity and pretending as sleeping, he listened to them. After reaching Madras, he straightaway went to Ismail�s house from Egmore station and informed about the conversation to understand the minds13. As Ismail used to meet Jinnah, he might have informed about it. It may be mentioned that Rajaji later in 1944 put forward his scheme, popularly known as Rajaji�s formula wit the approval of Gandhi. The formula was discussed with Gandhi in March 1943 but was not communicated to Jinnah. Ambedkar criticised the formula14.
Was Pakistan a Success? Jinnah�s Pakistan has been unsuccessful only, as it is proved that Islam cannot keep the nation together. The creation of Bangladesh has posed a serious question to the separatists who argue based on religion. Pakistan declared several Muslim groups as kafir and even expelled them destroying tyheir mosques. Sind and Baluchistan have been demanding separate nationhood from Pakistan. Recently, on September 17, 2000, many leading Sindhi, Pushtu, Baluch and Mojahir leaders of Pakistan met in London and demanded azadi.
Why Dravidastan Could not be Achieved? Even Ambedkar did not accept the theory of Aryans and Dravidians, in fact, he debunked the Aryan invasion theory in his writings. He argued only for Pakistan for Muslim and Hindustan for Hindus and not any other �stan�! There was opposition within the Justice Party for his separatist ideology and activities. Telugu, Kannada and Malayalee people did not accept his theory that they were Dravidians and different from other Indians or Hindus. He could not show more Dravidians in any state, as Muslims claimed. Even Ambedkar argued only for Pakistan for Muslims and Hindustan for Hindus. Of course, Jinnah argued for Dravidastan just to exploit EVR and later openly told him that he could work only for Muslims and not for non-Muslims! As mentioned elsewhere, his followers with the creation of D.M.K longed for political power through elections instead of separate nation.
Why Buddhistan Could not be Achieved? As pointed out, Poona Pact sealed the fate of Buddistan or separate electorate for Depressed classes. As his own social, economic and political theories could not support him or realizing the condition, Ambedkar might have dropped the idea of separate nation. The map published by him for Pakistan and Hindustan had no place for Dravidastan or Buddhistan. Realizing the fact or influenced by the factor that religion could pave way for separate nation, he might have been converted to Buddhism later along with his followers to increase the number of Buddhists. But, EVR refused to convert, when Ambedkar putforward this idea on 05-12-44 at Rangoon. Thus, he had to decide himself alone. Unfortunately, he died on the same years, when he converted. Of course, he too could not prove in any state where Depressed class people or Buddhists were majority in numbers. Thus, Buddhistan could not be achieved.
Conclusion: The meeting of three giants of distinct ideologies representing different communities had been definitely a crucial one. Collectively, what they have achieved through the meeting is debatable, as each perhaps stuck to their respective stands. Jinnah was the first to broke away and achieved separate statehood for Muslims. Ambedkar continued with Government even after independence. His further activities or the dramatic conversion to Buddhism could not fetch any homeland for his followers. His associates, because of politics and power games, abandoned EVR and he had to fight for separate homeland for Dravidians even after independence and DMK had already abandoned the separatism fearing legal action. Thus, EVR had to confine his ideology in breaking Hindu idols, burning figures of Hindu Gods and Goddesses and Hindu scriptures. It is not known as Jinnah repented for the creation of Pakistan in his last days, Ambedkar regretted for his conversion or EVR atoned for his exclusive anti-Hindu atheism. It is better that impressionable issues are not sensitized, eruptive problems disturbed and emotional factors confused.
Thus, Jinnah�s Pakistan, Ambedkar�s conversion and EVR�s exclusive anti-Hindu atheism must have warned and alerted the Hindu society, community and polity, as the targetted people have been definitely Hindus. Communalization of politics, politicization caste and ideologization of religion for vested personal or community interests became a new phenomenon, but have not resulted in any humane to humanity. Secularization of social processes, modernization of political processes and westernization of economic processes were too suspected by such theoreticians as a threat to their ideologies. Racial turned ethnic, linguistic turned vernacular, commune turned communal, nation turned nationalities, sub-continent turned sub-nationalist ideologies nurtured only more separatist, fissiparous, communal, fanatic groups doing nothing good for any group or community.
Notes and References
1. The dates are taken from the daily Kudi Arasu and other publications of Dravida Kazhagam and cross checked with the writings of Ambedkar and correspondence of Jinnah as mentioned below.
Viduthalai (Tamil) Jan.4, 6, and 9 1940.
K. Veeramani, Periyar and Ambedkar, Dravidar Kazhagam, Chennai, 1999.
Thanthai Periyarum, Doctor Ambedkarum, Dravidar Kazhagam, Chennai, 2000.
K. Samidurai, Ambedkar Pesukirar, Dravidar Kazhagam, Chennai, 1999.
2. Mohammed Ismail, Mani Vilakku, June, 1983;
A.K. Ribayi, Kavmin Kavalar (Tamil), Kottaram, p.104.
3. Ibid, pp.103-104.
4. Durlab Singh, Unity Talks, Hero Publications, Lahore, 1945, Letter dated January 1, 1940 addressed to Gandhi, p.46.
5. The Transfer of Power, Vol.I, Document No.446, p.555.
6. Durlab Singh, opt.cit., pp.6-9.
7. A. M. Zaidi (ed), Evolution of Muslim Political Thought in India, Vol.5, The Demand for Pakistan, S. Chand & Company, New Delhi, 1978, p.290.
8. Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada (ed), Quaid-e-Azam Jinnah�s Correspondence, Meteropolitan Book Co.P.Ltd., Nerw Delhi, 1981, p.233-234.
9. Saleem M. M. Qureshi, The Politics of Jinnah, Roay Book Co. P.O. Box.7737, Saddar, Karachi, Pakistan-3, p.152.
Telegrams and letters to Jinnah from-
Muralidhar of Sunday Observer, October 13, 1946
Krishnaswamy of Liberator, October 16, 1946.
K. R. Bangeri, President, National Party of India, October 16, 1946.
P. Gopalakishna, President, Andhra Provincial Scheduled Caste Federation, October 21, 1946.
President, Scheduled Caste Federation, Khandesh, October 25, 1956.
All from the personal collection of Mr. Shamsul Hasan and quoted by Saleem M. M. Querishi in the above mentioned book.
9. B. R. Ambedkar, Pakistan or Partition of India, Thacker and Company Limited, Bombay, 1945, pp.405-406.
10. Ambedkar, �Why Go For Conversion?�, Dalit Sahitya Akademy, Bangalore, 1984.
11. C. N. Annadurai, �Ariya Mayai� (Tamil), Pari Nilayam, Madras, 1985, pp.35-36.
12. B. R. Ambedkar, Ibid, page no. as mentioned within brackets in the paper itself for convenience.
13. A. K. Ribayi, opt.cit, p.77
14. B. R. Ambedkar, opt.cit., pp.408-411.
History is not what was written or is written, but it is actually what had happened in the past.
Back to Top
K. V. Ramakrishna Rao View Drop Down
Joined: 06-Apr-2006
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 287 Quote K. V. Ramakrishna Rao Quote Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Apr-2007 at 10:49
APPENDIX.I - Lahore Resolution of the Muslim League - March 25, 1940:
�It is the considered view of this session of the All-India Muslim League that no constitutional plan would be workable in this country or acceptable to the Muslims unless it is designed on the following basic principles, viz., that geographically continuous units are demarcated into regions which should be so constituted with territorial re-adjusdtment as may be necessary that the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in a majority, asin the North-Western and Eastern zones of India, should be grouped to constitute independent States in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign. Adequate, effective and mandatory safeguards should be specifically provided in the constitution for minorities in the units and the regions for the protection of their religious, cultural, economic, political, administrative and other rights and interests in consultation with them and in other parts of India where the Mussalmans are in a minority, adequate, effective and mandatory safeguards shall be specifically provided in the Constitution for them and other minorities, for the protection of their religious, cultural, economic, political, administrative and other rights and interests in conslutation with them. The session further authorizes the Working Committee to frame a scheme of Constitution in accordance with these basic principles, providing for the assumption finally by the respective regions, of all powers such as defence, external affairs, communications, customs and such othert matters as may be necessary�.
APPENDIX.II - Letter of EVR addressed to Ambedkar
Erode,
August 9, 1944
My dear Jinnah,
I have been watching carefully the proceedings of Mr Rajagopalacghariar�s formula towards solving the dead-lock and your desire to receive Mr Gandhi at your residence in Bombay on your return which will probably be about the middle of August. It is welcomed in political circles. Though I have no full hope, there are signs of change as our opponents have come forward to settle the Hindu-Muslim questions, especially in relation to Cripp�s offer.
I need not say that the Congressites are experts in twisting words, and to give occult sense. They can say anything and give meaning in whatever manner they think. Though we do not depend upon them, you know very well that we should be vigilant and careful in the negotiations.
It is clear that general election with Muslims and Hindus as well as Aryans and Dravidians will give hardship to both of us. Kindly excuse me for reminding you about our discussions relating to Pakistan and Dravidasthan while we were at Madras and Delhi and your assurance that you would plead for both as one. Here in South India, I considered the questions as one and done my best to solve the problem as far as possible.
Yourself know very well that there could be no Pakistan and independence of Muslims in India and until and unless independence was achieved for the rest of the nations.
With kind regards.
Yours sincerely,
E. V. Ramaswami Naicker.
APPENDIX . III - Jinnah�s Reply to EVR
Bombay,
17th August, 1944.
Dear Mr Ramaswami,
I am in receipt of your letter of August 9, thank for it. I have always had much sympathy for the people of Madras 90 percent of whom are Non-Brahmins, and if they desire to establish their Dravidasthan it is entirely for your people to decide on this matter. I can say no more, and I cannot speak on your behalf.
I have made the position cleasr to you and your colleagues when I was in Madras more than once, but hitherto I have noticed that in your activities you have been undecisive. If the people of your province really desire Dravidasthan, then it is for them to assert themselves.
I hope that you understand my position that I can only speak for Muslim India but you have my assurance and whenever I have a say in the matter, you will find me supporting any just and fair claim or demand of any section of the peoples of India, and particularly the non-Brahmins of South India.
Yours sincerely,
M. A. Jinnah.
History is not what was written or is written, but it is actually what had happened in the past.
No comments:
Post a Comment