The Partition Dilemma: Political compromise and exhausted leadership

Mohan Bhagwat recently invoked its former general secretary HV Seshadri’s book The Tragic Story of Partition.

(RSSFACTS is a column that demystifies the functioning, organisational structure and ideology of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh.) 

In his recent address at Vigyan Bhawan from 26-28 August, while replying to a question on ‘Partition and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)’, the Sarsanghchalak Mohan Bhagwat invoked its former general secretary HV Seshadri’s book The Tragic Story of Partition. The first edition of the book was published in 1982, and it is one of the most widely read books amongst the RSS swayamsevaks.

Seshadri’s account is not just a chronicle of events but a sharp reflection on how political compromises, communal appeasement, and colonial strategies tore apart a civilisation. It also documents how the RSS protected millions of Hindus and Sikhs and helped in their rehabilitation.

The RSS generally refrains from talking about any political party. However, in this no-holds-barred account, Seshadri squarely places the blame for partition on Congress and offers several arguments for the same. He also challenges the narrative forged to justify the partition.

The key argument that reflects the RSS’ viewpoint on partition is in a chapter aptly titled ‘The Poisonous Seeds’. According to Seshadri, the mental condition of our leaders at that time went through four facets: firstly, a lack of firm ideological conviction; secondly, falling prey to the Britishers’ divisive machinations; thirdly, undermining the will and self-confidence of Hindus; and fourthly, succumbing to exhaustion, a loss of nerve, and, in the case of many of them, a temptation for power.

Political Bargaining

Seshadri’s argument is that the basic faith in Bharat’s eternal unity was abandoned. The unity of Bharat, in the eyes of Congress, became merely a matter of mundane bargaining. The apportionment of political power became the only issue for the endless parleys that the Congress leaders carried on with the British on one hand and the Muslim League on the other. Almost everyone at that time seemed to equate the achievement of independence with the division of powers.

“The question ‘Why Swaraj?’ had been shelved to the background. The sublime national ideals and aspirations, which formed the breath of independence, had all but evaporated. The vision that had inspired countless martyrs of the freedom struggle had become eclipsed. Independence had come to mean, at best, wielding political and economic powers without the foreigner’s interference.”

Hindu-Muslim Brotherhood

One of the most often repeated excuses given to justify partition is: ‘Hindus and Muslims were like brothers in the family. If for any reason, the brothers couldn’t get on together, is it not customary for them to divide the property between themselves and live separately? Why not view the partition also in the same light?’

Seshadri made a strong counter-argument as he wrote, “This logic too is just another garb for looking upon Bharat as a mere material property amenable to division. Not for them is it the sacred Motherland or the adored Bharat Mata. But has anyone heard of children cutting their own mother into two, claiming that she too is their ancestral property? It is only in an ideological void that such lifeless arguments take birth.”

He goes on to add, “One can successfully face and come through critical situations in life only when one’s whole being is surcharged with fervour and faith in certain ideals. What happened in the case of our leaders was exactly the opposite: their basic faith itself had withered away.”

Tempted Leadership

Seshadri has quoted Ram Manohar Lohia, N.V. Gadgil, Leonard Mosley, and historian Michael Brecher to drive home this point that the Congress leadership was tired, exhausted, and not ready to go to prison any more. It opted for the easy way out, which was the partition of India.

NV Gadgil, a member of the first cabinet of free India, wrote in Government from Inside (p. 22), “The main political force in the was the Indian National Congress, and its leaders were tired old men. They were not quite sure of the gains of four decades of incessant struggle, nor were they confident of what the future had in store for them. They were afraid to stretch too much, lest it should break and all be lost. The result was that even the old and valiant fighters were inclined to compromise rather than stake their all.”

Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, who led India to partition as its Prime Minister, told Leonard Mosley in 1960, “The truth is that we were tired men and we were getting on in years too. Few of us could stand the prospect of going to prison again, and if we had stood out for a united India as we wished it, prison obviously awaited us. We saw the fires burning in Punjab and heard every day of the killings. The plan for partition offered a way out and we took it.”

Earlier RSSFACTS columns can be read here.

(Arun Anand has authored two books on the RSS. His X handle is @ArunAnandLive.)

Views are personal, and do not represent the stand of this publication.