Destined to differ

This is a fine chronicle of the roles Gandhi and Jinnah played in changing the sub-continent’s fortunes.

There is no dearth of books on Mahatma Gandhi or the tumultuous events that preceded the partition of India before Independence. But, journalist-writer M J Akbar’s latest book, Gandhi’s Hinduism: The struggle against Jinnah’s Islam, offers a unique perspective, laced with interesting anecdotes, of a largely familiar narrative, by juxtaposing the contrasting roles of Gandhi and Mohammed Ali Jinnah in shaping the history of the sub-continent at a crucial juncture.

Apart from chronicling Gandhi’s unorthodox methods of satyagraha, including 17 rigorous fasts over three decades to win the hearts of the people and fox the British administration into accepting the demand for independence, the author clearly brings out the ruthless and even diabolical games the British played before accepting bitter defeat: They used M A Jinnah as a pawn to divide India on communal lines and sow the seeds of hatred between the Hindus and the Muslims.

In the chapter on ‘Nehru’s historic blunder’, Akbar narrates how Jawaharlal Nehru unilaterally overturned the Congress Working Committee resolution to accept the Cabinet Mission Plan and opened the door for Jinnah to revert to his demand for partition of the country and quotes the then Congress president Maulana Azad, who called it, “one of the greatest tragedies of Indian history.” However, the fact of the matter is that both the colonial administration and Jinnah were bent upon partition before Independence and an impatient Nehru perhaps felt that India would be better off by leaving the ‘cancerous part’ aside and moving ahead.

Personality clash

The author brings out with remarkable precision Gandhi’s ‘weakness’ for Nehru, which changed the course of India’s history. Gandhi had openly declared Nehru as his ‘heir’, and on several occasions, went out of the way to back him, because he feared that “Nehru would not accept second place to anyone else.” Though history chose Gandhi and Jinnah as the two final arbiters of the sub continent’s destiny, there could not have been two more dissimilar people in their principles, ambitions, approach to issues, dress sense and general attitude to life.

There are poignant passages in the book about how, as Independence loomed, Gandhi found himself on the margins of the Congress party, as he had become a lone voice against the division of the country. When freedom dawned on the midnight of August 14/15, Gandhi chose to remain in Calcutta to douse the communal fire, rather than be part of the celebrations in Delhi.

The author notes that in the midst of this communal cauldron, Gandhi’s extensive tour of the eastern parts of the country, at considerable risk to his own life, prevented Bengal and Bihar from witnessing the kind of holocaust that Punjab did and with his sheer moral strength, he had saved thousands of lives.

In essence, Jinnah’s Islam might have trumped Gandhi’s Hinduism at that point of time, but the diverse journeys of India and Pakistan over the last seven decades have clearly vindicated Gandhi’s stand.