ஜெயமோகனுடன் ஒரு நாள் - பகுதி II



இது தான் சாக்கு என்று தஸ்தயேவ்ஸ்கி 'The Brothers Karamazov'ல் Zosimaவை அறிமுகப்படுத்தும் வகையில் பிரம்ம பிரயத்தனம் செய்வதையும் இதை ஒரு இந்திய மனது ‘குரு’ என்ற ஒரு வார்த்தையில் புரிந்து கொண்டிருக்கும் என்றேன். மெலிதாக சிரித்தார். ரஷ்ய புராதன கிறித்துவம் கீழை நாட்டு தரிசனங்களுக்கு மிக அருகாமையிலானது. அதன் வளர்ச்சி பெளத்த சமண தத்துவங்களால் பாதிப்பு அடைந்தது என்றார். யூத மரபியல், கிரேக்க-ரோமானிய மரபியல் இவற்றுக்கு முற்றிலும் வேறான  ஒரு இருப்பை அது கொண்டிருப்பது தல்ஸ்தோய்- தஸ்தயேவ்ஸ்கி வரையில் தொடர்கிறது என்றார்.

தஸ்தயேவ்ஸ்கியின் 'The Brothers Karamazov'ல் சில விமர்சகர்கள் ‘Elder Zosima' பற்றிய பகுதிகள் தேவை இல்லாமல் நீட்டி முழக்கப்பட்டுள்ளன் என்று கூறுவதை வருத்தத்துடன் முறையிட்டேன். இதையே நான் நாவலின் முக்கியமான பகுதியாக கருதுகிறேன் என்றேன். Zosima இளவயதில் இறந்த தனது மூத்த சகோதரனின் ஈடேற்றத்தை அல்யோஷாவிடம் காண்கிறார். அவர் அல்யோஷாவுக்கு போதித்த அடிப்படை அறத்தை வலியுறுத்தும் விதமாக 'Ilyushka'வின் இறுதி சடங்கில் நாவல் முழுமை பெறுகிறது. மேலும் 'Crime and Punishment' நாவலில் ரஸ்கல்நிகொவ் இறுதி மன மாற்றம் அடைவது நம்ப முடியாத அளவுக்கு 'அவசரமாக' சித்தரிக்கபட்டிருப்பதாக வைக்கப்படும் விமர்சனத்துக்கு இவரின் எதிர்வினை என்ன என்று கேட்டேன்.

அவர் மனித ஆழ்மனம் அளவிட முடியாத ஆழமும் ஊகிக்க முடியாத திருப்பங்களுக்கும் தயாராக இருப்பது என்றார்.  ஒரு தருணத்தின் மாற்றம் ஒரு சிறு விதை போல் ஆழ்மனதில் பதிந்து கிடப்பது என்றும் அது அடையும் மாற்றத்தை இயந்திரத்தனமாக 'process'  ஆக சித்தரிப்பது சாத்தியமன்று என்றார். உதாரணமாக விவேகானந்தர் ராமகிருஷ்ணரை சந்தித்ததை விளக்கினார். முதல் முறை பார்த்த உடனேயே 'உனக்காக எவ்வளவு நாள் காத்திருந்தேன்' என அரற்றிய ராமகிருஷ்ணரை கண்டு கொஞ்சம் விலகி சென்ற நரேந்திரனின் கணுக்காலை பற்றிய மாத்திரத்தில் விவேகானந்தர் அடைந்த மாற்றத்தின் தருணம் , Oxford - Sorbonne பல்கலைகழகங்களில் படித்த நடராஜ குரு கிராமத்து பூசாரி கணக்காக இருந்த ஸ்ரீ நாராயண குரு 'நடராஜ், இவிடே இருக்கட்டே'  என்று  ஒற்றை வரியில்  மாற்றிய தருணம்,  பின்னர் குரு பூர்ணிமா அன்று ஒரு காவி துண்டு கொடுத்து (அது என்ன நாள் என்று அறிந்திராத ) அவரை சன்யாசி ஆக்கிய தருணம் இவை எல்லாம் தருணம் என்ற மிக சிறிய கால அளவில் ஆழ்மனம் வெகு காலமாக சமைத்து கொண்டு இருக்கும் ஆக்கங்கள் வெளிப்படும் முறை என்றார்.

தல்ஸ்தோய் இதை சித்தரிப்பதில் மிகக் கை தேர்ந்தவர் என்றார். பிரபஞ்ச அளவில் ஒப்பிடும் பொது மனித வாழ்க்கையின் அளவு மிகக் குறைந்தது, அர்த்தமற்றது என உணரும் பொழுது விளையும் இயற்கையான எதிர்வினையான 'existentialism'த்திற்கு முரணாக தல்ஸ்தோய் அறத்தை முன் வைக்கிறார். வாழ்க்கை கடல் அலையின் மேல் கணத்தில் தோன்றி மறையும் நீர்க்குமிழியாக இருப்பதினாலேயே அறம் மானிட வாழ்வின் இன்றியமையாத தேவை என்றார்.

இவர்களுக்கும் பின் இருந்த ஒரு நூற்றாண்டு காலத்தில் Freud உலகை படுத்திய பாடு பற்றி முறையிட்டேன். பிராய்டின் பலவகைக் கட்டுமானங்கள் 'evo devo  theory' மற்றும் 'neuron' இயக்க தியரிகளாலும் முறியடிக்கப்பட்டு வருவதை பற்றிக் கேட்டேன். இவ்விஷயத்தில் VS ராமசந்திரன் சில கண்டுபிடிப்புகளை நிகழ்த்தி வருவதை பற்றி கேட்டேன்.  என்றாலும் சமீபகாலமாக எல்லா விஷயத்திற்கும் 'neuron' களை சரணாகதி அடைவதை 'Neuro Reductionism' என்ற கருதுகோள் முலம் விமர்சிக்கப்படுகிறது என்றார். Freud க்கு மாற்றாக அவர் வாழ்ந்த காலத்திலேயே CG Jung தனது மாற்று கருத்துக்களை வடிவமைத்ததை பற்றி கூறினார். Freud நடத்திய 'experimental data' விலேயே பிழைகள் இருந்ததை பற்றி கூறினார். Freud அடைந்த பிரபலத்திற்கு காரணம் அவரின் எழுத்துக்களே என்றும், சான்றாக  அவருக்கு ஒரு காலத்தில் நோபெல் பரிசு 'இலக்கியத்துக்கு' பரிந்துரைக்கப்பட்டது என்றும் கூறினார்.

Freud ன் உளப்பகுப்பு ஆய்வியலில் மனித மனத்தின் வளர்ச்சியையும் யூத மரபின் தொன்மையான உருவகத்திற்கும் (There was a Paradise, It was lost) உள்ள ஒற்றுமையை கடற்கரை மணலில் காலால் படம் வரைந்து விளக்கினார். மார்க்ஸ் நினைத்த ஆதி கம்யூனிசம் இந்த உருவகத்தில் இருந்து விளைந்ததே என்றார். இவ்வாறு பேசி கொண்டே Sir Francis Drake தரை தட்டிய Drakes Estuero வரை நடந்து திரும்பி இருந்தோம். ஒரு சில நிமிடங்களே மேகத்திரை விலகி சூரியன் தென்பட்டான். அப்போது கடலில் இருந்த சிற்றலைகளில் தெரிந்த நுரைப்பு கண்ணுக்கு பேருவகை தந்தது. பின் மீண்டும் பனி மூட்டம். நடை. பேச்சு. சில நேரம் நீரின் ஓட்டத்தால் எலும்பு போன்றே ஒரு குட்டித் திமிங்கலம் போன்று தோற்றம் அளித்த சில கோடுகள் அமைந்த  ஒரு பாறையை பார்வையிட்டார்.

இப்படியாக திரும்பி  கார் நிறுத்திய இடத்தை வந்து அடைந்தோம். மற்றும் வேறு ஒரு கார் மட்டுமே தென்பட்டது. அங்கு ஒரு cafe  இருந்தது. இந்த அத்துவான காட்டில் எவ்வாறு வியாபாரம் நடக்கும் என்று கவலைப்பட்டார். அன்று செவ்வாய்கிழமை என்றும் கோடை காலம் என்பதால் சனி ஞாயிறு 'சும்மா கூட்டம் அலை மோதும்' என்று அவரை ஆறுதல் படுத்தினேன். பின்பு வந்த வழியே திரும்பி Mendocino செல்லும் திட்டத்தில் பெருமளவுக்கு கடலை ஒட்டியே செல்லும் CA-1 ரோட்டில் பயணித்தோம்.

பனித்திரை அதற்குள் அவருக்கு சலிப்புடியது போலும். ஊட்டியில் தங்கும் போது மூன்று நாளைக்குப் பிறகு வெய்யில் அடித்தால் நன்றாக இருக்கும் என தோன்றும் என்று குறிப்பிட்டார். கொஞ்சம் நேரம் ஜேசுதாஸ் பட பாடல்கள் கேட்டார். பின்பு கொஞ்சம் கண்ணயர்ந்தார். Mendocino செல்ல இன்னும் 3:30 மணி நேரம் ஆகும். சுத்த மடையனாக இடை விடாது ஒட்டி தள்ளினேன். இடது புறம் பசிபிக் கடல் வருவதும் போவதுமாக இருந்தது. Tomales Bay என்ற காயல், வைக்கப்போர் நிறத்தில் மேய்ச்சல் வெளிகள், திடீரென்று பனித்திரை கூடிய மரங்கள், பெரும்பாலும் பைன் மரங்கள், பெரிதும் சிறிதுமான  பாலங்கள், பெரிய பாலங்களுக்கு அடியில் பெரும் நதிகள் (Russian River), சிறிய பாலங்களுக்கு அடியில் சிற்றோடைகள் என காட்சி மாற்றம் நிகழ்ந்து கொண்டு இருந்தது.

தொடரும்.....











 

Jaswant on Jinnah

My Review here

ஜெயமோகனுடன் ஒரு நாள் - பகுதி - 1

சில விளக்கங்கள் : இது தமிழில் எழுதும் என் முதல் முயற்சி. அடைமழை என பொழிந்த கோர்வையான, விரிவான ஜெயமோகனின் வரிகளில் 3 வாரங்களுக்குப்பின் நினைவில் தங்கியதை மீட்டு பின் சொல்லாக்குவதில் உள்ள என் சிக்கலுக்கு உங்கள் புரிதலை வேண்டுகிறேன்.

------

ராஜன் இல்லத்தில் வெகுநேரம் பேசிகொண்டிருந்துவிட்டு புறப்பட்டோம். எனது IPhoneஐ –Vanல் உள்ள cassette player adapter உடன் கோர்த்து விட்டேன். இது எப்படி சாத்தியம் என்ற அவரது வினாவுக்கு தெளிவாக பதிலிறுக்க முடியாமல் பொத்தாம்பொதுவாக சமாளித்தேன். ‘விழியே கதை எழுது’ என்ற பாடலை கேட்டுக்கொண்டெ ஒரு மிகச்சிறிய அறிமுகத்தை முன்வைத்தேன். நான் அவரது நூல்களில் இது வரை படித்தவை பற்றிச் சொன்ன போது ‘நினைவின் நதியில்’ பற்றிய என் கருத்து என்ன என்று வினவினார். மிகச்சிறப்பாக உரையாடலின் மூலம் சு.ரா.வின் ஆளுமை கண்ணெதிரெ நிறுத்தப்பட்டுள்ளது என்று கூறினேன். உண்மையில் அது ‘நினைவின் நதி’ யன்று. சு.ரா.வின் மரணத்தில் விசை கொண்டு எழுந்த காட்டாற்று வெள்ளம். மிகச்சில நாட்களுக்குள் எழுதி முடிக்கப்பட்ட நூலெனினும் காலத்தின் அளவு நதி போன்ற போக்கில் எழுதபட்டுள்ளது. சு.ரா.வுடன் எழுத்தாளர் கொண்டிருந்த வேறுபாடுகள் கறாராகவும் கண்ணியமாகவும் முன்வைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளன. இதை எல்லாம் சொல்ல முடியவில்லை.


அமெரிக்க சிறுகதைகள், முக்கியமாக ‘New Yorker' வகையறா பற்றித் துழாவினேன். நான் வெகுகாலமாக படித்துவருவன என்றாலும் அவற்றுக்கான இலக்கணத்தை John Updike நிறுவியதை தெளிவாக விளக்கினார். புறவயமான கூறுதலை முன்னிறுத்துதல், செயல்பாடு, சம்பவம், நேரடி அனுபவம், மிதமான உணர்ச்சி, ஆகியவையே இவற்றின் விழுமியங்கள். O Henry பாணியிலான இறுதி முடிச்சு முத்தாய்ப்பாக. உலகின் எல்லா பகுதிகளில் இருந்து எழுதப்பட்டு மொழிபெயர்க்கப் பட்டாலும் இந்த இலக்கணத்தை அவர்கள் விடுவதில்லை என்றார். அதனால் ‘மிகச்சிறந்த சிறுகதை’ தொகுப்புகளில் 'New Yorker' வகையறா இடம் பெறுவது அரிதாக உள்ளது என்றார். இவற்றிடையே ஒரு தமிழ் சிறுகதை ஒன்றையும் (ஒரு நிலச்சுவான்தார் தன் ‘துணைவி’யார் வீட்டுக்கு செல்வதா வேண்டாமா என ஊஞ்சலில் ஆடிக்கொண்டே யோசித்து பின் போகாமலே முடிந்து விடும் கதை) மற்றும் திகில் உணர்ச்சி மேலுந்த எழுதப்பட்ட ஒரு கதையையும் (உயிருடன் தோலுரிக்கப்பட்ட ஒரு மான் இரு நண்பர்களை மீண்டு வந்து திகிலூட்டும் கதை) இவற்றின் வேறுபாடுகளை விவரித்தார்.இவ்வாறாக 'Richmond-San Rafael Bridge' வந்து சேர்ந்தது. தமிழ்க்கதைகள் மொழிபெயர்ப்பிற்கு பிறகு ஒரு பொதுத்தன்மையை அடையும் பொருட்டு தனது கலாசார களத்தை இழந்து விடுவன என்றும் குறிப்பாக அவரது ’மாடன் மோட்சம்’ ஒரு வாசகருக்கு புரிய வேண்டுமென்றால் 80 களில் குமரி மாவட்ட்த்தில் மண்டைக்காடு சம்பவங்களின் பின்னணியும் இந்தியா முழுவதும் உயர்மத தத்துவத்திற்கும், நாட்டார் மத நடைமுறைக்கும் தொடர்ந்து வரும் முரணியக்கம் ( மோதல் என்று கூறி பின் உடனே ஜகா வாங்கினேன்) இவை புரியாவிட்டால் கதை புரியாது என்று தயாரித்து வைத்த மேதாவித்தனத்தை களமிறக்கினேன். அமைதியாக ஆமோதிப்பது போல் இருந்தது. இதற்குள் வீடு வந்து சேர்ந்தது. அடுத்த நாள் அதிகாலை எழ வேண்டி இருந்ததால் மேற்கொண்டு கதைக்க வில்லை.

5:40 வாக்கில் அவரை எழுப்பினேன். தேநீர் போடட்டுமா என்ற கேள்விக்கு மிகவும் நீர்க்க இருக்க வேண்டும் என்று உத்தரவே போட்டார். சரிதான் என்று என்று தண்ணீரை கொதிக்க விட்டேன். அவரிடம் பலவகை தேநீர்ப்பை அடங்கிய குடுவையை நீட்டி தேர்ந்து எடுக்குமாறு கூறினேன். அவர் எடுத்த தேநீர்ப்பையை சுடுநீரில் முக்கியவுடன் பின்னாலேயே வந்து தூண்டில் மீனைத் தூக்குவது போல் தூக்கினார். தேநீர்ப்பை கலங்கி குடுவையின் அடி மறைக்கும் முன் எடுத்து விடுவதே நல்லது என்றார். பின் குளித்து முடித்து Bank Audit செய்யும் அதிகாரி போல சிற்றுண்டி உண்ணத்தயாரானார். இயற்கை உணவு பற்றி இராமகிருஷ்ணன் எழுதிய நூலை மொழிபெயர்த்த பேச்செடுத்தேன். மனித உடல் பிரமிக்கத்தக்க அளவு மிகக்குறைந்த அளவு உணவில் உயிர்வாழ படைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது என்றார். ஒரு குரங்கை நாம் சாப்பிடும் அளவு சாப்பிட பழக்கினால் அது அஜீரணத்தால் இறந்துவிடும் என்றார். மேலும் சமைக்காத உணவு மனித உடலுக்கு மிகவும் உகந்தது என்றும் ஒரு இட்லி விள்ளலை வாயில் போட்டுக்கொண்டே ஒரு Post-Mortem பார்த்த அனுபவத்தில் மனித ஈரலின் உள்ள அசாதாரண ஜீரண சக்தி உள்ள அமிலங்களைப் பற்றி விவரித்தார்.

பின் Pt.Reyes- Mendocino செல்லும் திட்டத்தில் கிளம்பினோம். அவருக்கும் எனக்கும் உள்ள பொது நண்பர்களைப் பற்றி பேசிக்கொண்டிருந்தோம். யார்தான் அவர்கள் என்று மண்டை வெடிக்கட்டுமே என்ற அவாவில் மேற்கொண்டு இவ்விஷயம் ப்ரஸ்தாபிக்கப்பட போவதில்லை. ஈழத்தின் கடைசி நிகழ்வுகளை ஓட்டி ஆதீனகர்த்தர்களின் கூட்டத்தில் தருமபுர ஆதீனம் அவர்களின் மிகச்சிறந்த உரையை பாராட்டினார். சைவ மதத்தின் குருவாக மட்டும் அல்லாமல் சைவர்களை போருக்கு ஆசீர்வாதம் வழங்கி அனுப்பவதற்கு மாறாக எல்லா மதத்தினருக்கு இடையேயும் இணக்கத்திற்கும் அமைதிக்கும் மாறாத அறத்திற்கும் பாடுபடுவதே ஆதீனகர்த்தர்க்கு உரியது என்று தருமபுர ஆதீனம் பேசியதாக குறிப்பிட்டார்.

Pt.Reyes தீபகற்பமானது ஒரு வினோதமான நிலப்பரப்பு. கடும் கோடையில் நல்ல பனித்திரையுடன் காணப்படும். 50 அடி முன்னால் தெரியாது. கடலில் இருந்து 25 மைல் உள்ளே வருவதற்குள் 3 விதமான தாவரவியல் தன்மை உடையது. கடலை ஒட்டி வறண்ட மண், பின் தட்டையான தாவரங்கள் உள்ள சமவெளி, பின் அடர்ந்த நெடுமரங்கள் அடங்கிய Inverness மலையிடுக்கு. அன்று கடுமையான பனித்திரை. மாடுகள் படுத்து இருந்தாலும் கண்ணுக்கு எளிதில் புலப்படவில்லை. Sir Francis Drakeன் கப்பல் தரை தட்டிய கடற்கரை வந்து அடைந்தோம் வீராவேசமாக Jacket இல்லாமல் இறங்கி அவரைப்ப் போல் பின் Jacket அணிந்து கொண்டேன். அலைகள் சுத்தமாகவே இல்லை. Low Tide நேரம். சூரியன் பேருக்கு நிலா மாதிரி இருந்தது.

மெல்ல நடக்க ஆரம்பித்தோம். எங்கும் ஒரே பனித்திரை. சாம்பல் நிறத்தின் சாம்ராஜ்யம். எனக்குத் தெரிந்த ஒரு புகைப்படநிபுணர் Pt.Reyes பகுதியை வெகுவாக படம் எடுத்து வருபவர் ஒருவரை சந்தித்த அனுபவத்தைப் பற்றிக் கூறினேன். அவர் கருப்பு-வெள்ளைப் புகைப்படங்கள் மட்டுமே எடுப்பவர். அவரிடம் நான் கேட்டது இதுதான். ’So, you shoot only black and white?' அவரிடம் இருந்து ஒரு ஏவுகணை பதிலாக வந்தது. ‘and the milliion shades of gray'.
அதை இவரிடம் சிலாகித்தேன். சற்றே மலர்ந்து தனது குரு நித்ய சைதன்ய யதி கரிக்கட்டி ஓவியத்தில் தேர்ந்தவர் என்றார்.

குரு யாருக்குத் தேவை என்ற எனது பொத்தாம்பொதுவான கேள்விக்கு பதில்கூறத்தொடங்கினார். ‘தண்ணீரின் தேவை தாகமிருப்பவனுக்கு’ என்று கூறி நிறுத்தினார். சும்பத்தனமான கேள்விக்கு இது போதும் என்று நினைத்துவிட்டாரோ என விசனப்படும் முன்பேயே விரிவாக பதிலளிக்கத்தொடங்கினார். கல்வி என்பது சமைத்து முடித்த பண்டமான ‘சிந்தனை’யை ஜீரணம் செய்யும் முறையாக உள்ளது என்றார். சிந்திக்கும் முறை குருவை அருகில் இருந்து அவதானிப்பதால் சாத்தியமாகிறது என்றார். ’சித்தம்’ ஒரு நிலையான பொருளன்று. அதன் இயக்கம், வளர்ச்சியே (’சித்த வ்ருத்தி’) அதன் உள்ளார்ந்த இயல்பு. வளர்ச்சியும் இயக்கமும் உறைந்த முடிவிறுத்த விஷயங்களான ‘சிந்தனை’யை கற்றுத்தேர்வது மூலம் சாத்தியமன்று, மாறாக சித்தம் தனது விருத்தி மூலம் வந்தடைந்த விதம் மிக முக்கியம். இது ஒரு குருவின் அருகாமையில் இருந்து கற்றுக்கொள்வது. இவ்வகையில் தனது குரு நித்ய சைதன்ய யதி பல்வேறு தளங்களில் பரவலாக உள்ள சிந்தனைகளில் சஞ்சாரம் செய்து அவர் கூடவே வரும் சீடர்களுக்கு இம்முறையைக் கற்பித்ததை விளக்கினார்.

தொடரும்.....

Preparing to meet Jeyamohan
or
The Art of Violently Forced Summer Reading, House Cleaning And Getting Organized

Jeyamohan is my favorite Tamil writer, whose blog I read regularly. A friend of mine introduced to his writings in the net magazine Thinnai, a long time ago. By reading his writings regularly, a mental closeness had formed over the years. I can cite multiple reasons: superb narrative and expository skills, masterful intellect, clarity of expression - but the skeptic observer in me, would say affinity in thought about socio-cultural-political issues. Over the years I could feel that I can converse with him mentally, and think of new questions to ask. But someone else would ask that same question, and he would answer it in his blog. Or othertimes I would have formed an opinion for my questions and find that he more or less holds the same view - supporting it with tons of facts from multiple sources, masterfully weaved in a seamless manner in one cogent argument. Reading it I would feel at once a rush of great vindication pursued closely by a sense of agonizing shame at my own lack of clarity.

Let us not digress into such boring stuff. How clever! Didnt I trick you into believing that what follows is not going to be boring? Jeyamohan was writing about his travels to Australia. I started to dream of his possible trip to US. Lo and Behold...Here is his post about his travel plans to US. And a whole month in the Bay Area! I immediately dashed off an email to Rajan, the trip organizer asking about public events. His response was immediate; I could come and meet him anytime. Oh oh! What a predicament! What the heck do I talk with him? My stock is very limited. I haven't read any of his fictional work yet.

The Lord indeed was merciful. JM gave a link where I could buy his collection of 10 books. Problem solved. Well, Almost. They were to be shipped from India. And, I had to read them. Meanwhile I prepared a reading list. Just to get me kickstarted I read a book that I knew I wouldn't give up. The Court of the Red Tsar by Simon Sebag Montefiore. About a 1000 pages. It gave me great confidence that I could read. A Book. In Full. Then its pre-quel 'Young Stalin', it is infact a sequel, but historically a pre-quel.

Atlast the books came. As usual I had them shipped to my office desk. I had to go for a haircut that evening straight from the office. Waiting for my turn at the barber shop, I read the first shortstory 'Nadi'. It was a jolt of powerful writing. My hairs stood on their end. Which helped the barber enormously. That same night I finished "Ninaivin Nadiyil", a great tribute to Sundara Ramaswamy by JM. I started reading the short stories. Some of them were violently twisting my idea of what the structure of a short story should be. But I yielded to his twisting like a kid yields to his favorite uncle.By the time I met him I had read half of his short stories collection.

Meanwhile I was curious about this fuss about Dosteyevsky. Checked out 'Brothers Karamazov'. Boy what a novel! I couldn't stop reading it. In the course of finishing this novel not a few relationships were ruptured, notable among them : wife, boss and daughter. Well, all the relationships. Then came the 'Crime and Punishment'. I started getting dreams of getting caught by Police and waking up all sweaty.

JM's introductory primer about Modern Tamil Literature was read. The tamil terms at the addendum were memorized. Multiple questions arose. 'Borivilli' is near Bombay, where is this 'nanavili'?, Heard of 'koodu vittu koodu payvathu', what is "oodu pavu"? Is that a Chennai slang for entering someone's house and beating him? Slowly I felt comfortable at the growing stock of materiel. I could say things like 'எழுத்தாளனின் ஆழ்மனம் வாசகனின் ஆழ்மனத்துடன் படிமங்களால் நடத்தும் அந்தரங்க உரையாடலின் செறிவும் ஆழமும் தான் இலக்கியத்தின் முக்கியமான அளவுகோல்." And receive my wife's and daughter's puzzled stare.

Rajan allotted me 2 full days to take JM around the North Bay area. My character can be captured in two words : laziness and ....well laziness alone will do. I am a minimalist when it comes to doing things. Most of the time I do nothing. But getting the home organized for JM's visit was like organzing Olympics. I read in one of his post that he likes to read in a reclining pose with a foot rest. Craigslist was scavenged. A nice recliner was bought. A tax attorney was selling his (recently dead) dad's recliner. Then the books that were in the storage room were hauled and arranged. All bought for $1 and $2 from San Francisco Public Library Sale in yester years. The bookshelf was my Darumi style retort, "I have read all these books. Did you think I bought them for $1 or $2 somewhere?"

Vacation was planned. Detailed negotiations on who picks up the kid on what day and when were conducted. A big debate ensued about buying another bed. Some background is necessary. We had moved from a 3 bed to a 2 bed recently. We had given away the extra bed. My Mother in law had recently stayed with us and slept on the floor mattress. You can imagine the outrage. Exemplary behavior on my part for weeks finally broke the stalemate.

From Bed to Bath and Beyond. Fresh bath towels and hand towels. A new toothbrush stand and a soap dispenser. A dish plate to keep paste, shaving cream, soap and shampoo. A bowl to keep pot pourri. All In blue color. None of it was pre-approved. Secrecy was paramount for success. Well, some times. My wife had thrown away the old pot pourri two days ago. Another run to the store for pot pourri.

The house was "Pollyanxha" cleaned. That is the name of the maid. Followed by "Srinivasan" cleaning. It was the week of miracles. Touchup paint was sought from the Apartment management to paint over my daughter's scribbles. The patio blinds started closing again. The water pressure in the bath was set right. My wife was positively pleased. Looking at me holding windex and towel, she said that she could see a faint spark of hope. Now I could relate to my dad's frenzy on the eve of my Engineer Athimber's yearly visit.

I read in one of his post about his liking for green tea. A kettle to boil, a kettle to pour. Two little cups. A packet of green tea. But what if he doesnt like that flavor? In my office kitchen, there exists atleast 20 varieties of tea. You cannot positively get anybody's wife to agree to buy 20 varieties of tea. I grabbed (stole) a few packets, stashed in a brown bag that carried my lunch. The planning would have pleased Raskolnikov.

6 (or so, who remembers all these things) months ago, a little stone fell on my windshield, driving thru a construction zone and cracked my windshield a teeny bit. The windshield was replaced. The van was bathed in soap and water! How my van squealed in delight when the washer's sponge brushed over her delicate body! 14000 miles and 10 months later engine oil was changed.

The D-Day atlast arrived. I saw JM was working on something in his laptop. I touched his feet and shook his hand. It was my tribute to have caused this revolutionary frenzy in me.

A way forward for BJP

As all losers are bound to, BJP is in for a major introspection of “what went wrong?” after Elections 2009. One hopes that the party will undertake this exercise like adults. The primary requirement of psychotherapy is total honesty with oneself. This did not happen in 2004. For fear of offending or insulting Vajpayee/Advani duo, the party glossed over its glaring failures – failure to expand its sphere of influence, disastrous loss of ground in UP, wrong choice of allies etc. The single digit difference between its tally and the Congress tally provided a false statistical comfort. It created an impression that Congress did not win the election but BJP lost it. However a political party is in the business of winning elections; not to be comforted on the rival’s near equal performance. Somehow this lesson was lost.

Here are some prescriptions: It must shed its “leader cult” which was once alien to it that it wears so naturally now. In that sense, the party must rediscover its collective yet corporal personality. It is one of the parties in India that can discard its ‘holy cows’ and start anew. It must use this chance to come out of the Vajpayee/Advani era. RSS must let this happen untrammeled by watchful ‘pracharaks’ guarding the ideological line from inside or running commentaries from the outside. A great remedy would be observing a TV News Channel Silence for the next 3 months. Upvaas cleanses the soul and focuses the mind. As it is none of the channels care 2 hoots about the BJP and the teen-ager competition in spurting out sound bites is not a conducive environment for any therapy.

While victory has many fathers, but it is also true that failure too is fobbed off to many fathers. Among the myriad causes thrown around a keen focus and political sense is required to discard false diagnoses; However there are two main strands of thought that prevail when it comes to the future- to return to a ideologically pure Hindutva mobilization or to become more moderate in outlook and policy prescriptions to capture the vast “center-right wing” political space. There might be intense pressure from RSS to not disown the Hindutva line, but it is unlikely that RSS would want the BJP to pursue it with renewed vigour. Though there may be few causes here and there near and dear to the Hindutva faithful, by and large, the national environment is palpably indifferent to those tunes. The sub-continental environment is supremely unsuitable to say the least.

Here is a hidden truth. Everybody knows BJP is a “hindu-friendly” party. Nobody doubts that. Those who think it is not sufficiently “hindu-friendly” are in the sub-numeral fringes. There is no need for the BJP to reactively grab every "hindutva" cause in its grasp to prove itself to its own ideological base.  However there is a large body of voters that think it is too “hindu-centric” for responsible governance. Those that advance the mobilization option should prove 2 things, that there exists a sufficient “Hindutva” space yet unclaimed and BJP’s efforts in the future can claim that successfully. It is a very hard case to make. That leaves the “center-right” option.

What does this “center-right” mean? Didn’t General Beck say that catch phrases are for those that can’t think for themselves? Unless BJP understands what that means it should not declare itself to be a “center-right” party. Here is what it generally means – an informed national security perspective, a vigorous pursuit of national interests above all considerations, greater reliance on muscular foreign policy, a hard-line internal security policy against separatists and naxals, liberal economic policies, a fundamental belief in private entrepreneurship driven growth, free trade and open markets. Though BJP can check the boxes on most of these, when it comes to economics, it cannot let the entire “non-right wing” space to Congress. There are genuine considerations that are prevalent in India which makes classical neo-liberal right-wing economics unsuitable in practice and hence unrewarding in political competition. A Modi here or a Naveen there can win elections statewide, but Congress will clean its clock every time in such a scenario. Most of the pundits that prescribe this space for the BJP are its known detractors.
 
Though in general there is some level of consensus on economic reforms the BJP would be better advised to concentrate its brand differentiation in the mechanics of its implementation. Here are huge opportunities vis-à-vis the Congress.The so-called “Youth Revolution 2009” is mostly a nepotistic extension. Sachin Pilot, Jitin Prasad, Jyotiraditya Scindia, Navin Jindal won’t have a chance to be where they are without their famous last names. BJP has not done well in doing its own bit of advancing Anurags, Raghavendras, Manavendras and Dhushyants. Here is where it can stand out as a truly democratic party that rewards competence and integrity.

Another is the scope for empowerment of the middle India. This India does not live in Bangalore, New Delhi or Mumbai. This is the India of Ratlams, Tonks, Jabalpurs, Mahbubnagars and Madurais, where the intense yearning for upward mobility stymied because of infrastructural bottlenecks- both hard and soft. This India lacks educational institutions, has uneven preparatory ground in terms of primary, secondary education and uneven employment opportunities, in short "poor connectivity". By the way this India turns up at the polling booths. What the Congress has offered is this oft repeated catch phrase called “NREGA”. BJP should expose the sham that it is - a sop thrown around so that the Muniyammas and Karuppais can get on a bus to a neighbouring town and lug soil on their head for minimum wage while the guilt-free Government comfortably pursues big-business friendly “reforms” in search of 9% growth. The fact that Muniyammas' and Karuppais' children are wasted in sub-standard schools (if they are not working alongside vide) and destined for NREGA II, III should be the concern of BJP.
 
Finally a word on leadership tussle: For all its so-called “parivar” values the naked ambition and horse race for even inconsequential posts like Leader of Opposition does raise a stink. It would be best advised to not talk about who is the next PM candidate any time soon. But to choose a party leader for the next 5 years would make some headway in providing a long term focus and direction to the party.

Ironies of 2009 : Tamil nationalist Vaiko defeated in Virudhunagar, TN which comprises Thirumangalam from where he made his “POTA” winning speech, in the midst of a grave Srilankan Tamil situation by a guy called Manick Tagore! An eight term, 81 year old Hindi Enthusiast BJP MP Dr. Laxmi Narayan Pandey defeated by a Tamil-origin Meenakshi Natarajan in Mandsaur, MP.

In the 60^th anniversary of Indian independence one cannot help looking back to those tumultuous years of our nation's birth. Among the thoughts and emotions that flood our mind, the partition takes a primary role and rightly so; it transformed the political, economical and geo-strategic landscape of the subcontinent. It has deeply influenced, shaped and coloured the events, mindset and direction of the peoples of both India and Pakistan. Not the least, it has given a veritable line of employment to the "Partition" scholarship industry as recently observed by Ramachandra Guha in one of his recent columns^[1]

My intention is not to join a long winded debate about it, but to focus on a narrow aspect: the Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946 and play some "ifs" and "buts" as invited by Irfan Hussain in his recent column in "The Dawn".^[2]

At the outset I wish to make few points.

1. I have chosen to focus almost exclusively on Congress actions. If it appears that I have given a free pass to Jinnah and the League, it is deliberate for the purpose of focusing on the Cabinet mission plan alone and its central aspect, the grouping provisions.
2. The intention is not to "fix" the blame on Congress for the Partition. It would be wholly out of place to blame one event, party or personality for the partition.
3. I have chosen to discuss the issue taking only expressed opinions and facts. I have not tried to second guess or question the motives or indulge in conspiracy theories.


Cabinet Mission Plan: A Background

When the Second World War ended, the British were resigned to the fact that they had to leave India soon. The next question that arose was how and to whom their power should be transferred. One scheme was to transfer power to an interim government on the basis of a constitution framed by one assembly elected on a one man-one vote basis.^[3] The Indian National Congress argued for this scheme. Regarding the minorities, the Congress would go the whole length and would guarantee to protect their religion, culture, personal law, language and the like. However the Muslim League was firmly opposed to this scheme. They claimed that the Muslims of the sub-continent constituted a nation by themselves; they deserve an independent sovereign Pakistan. At any rate, they were not willing to be ruled by a perpetual Hindu majority.

In December 1945 elections were held to the Central legislative assembly. The Congress won 91.3% of votes in Non-Muslims seats and the Muslim League won 86.6% of votes in Muslims seats.^[4]It was amply clear that both had overwhelming support for their positions in their respective consistencies and none could convince the other side. Hence a compromise, a via media on the constitutional question was imperative. To explore the various options in the middle of these two positions and to reach an agreement on a suitable scheme, the Atlee Government which had taken over power in Britain sent a mission of 3 of its Cabinet ministers to India to negotiate with Indian leaders.

The Cabinet Mission comprising Sir Stafford Cripps^[5], Lord Pethick-Lawrence and A.V.Alexander arrived in India on 24^th March 1946. During the next two months they conducted a series of discussions and parleys with various parties, communities, interests and the Princes of Indian States.

The main parleys obviously involved the Congress and League on the main constitutional question of one Union vs. Pakistan. Each side stuck to their original positions and pointed out weaknesses inherent in the other's scheme. But the series of discussions did produce some forward movement. Congress was willing to concede some degree of self-determination to the Muslim majority provinces to function as a group and to arm the Union with only the minimum of powers^[6]. The rest would remain with the provinces or be delegated to the Union by the provinces. The League was willing to consider the option of one Union provided the Union dealt only with foreign affairs, defence and communications for defence. It was not even willing to let the Union raise revenues for these subjects. It also demanded right for the groups to secede from the Union, to which the Congress was opposed. If the Union had any central legislature, the League demanded parity between Muslims and Non-Muslims.

After failing to bridge this divide the Cabinet Mission had 2 alternatives: declare the failure of the mission and go home or put out a proposal that they thought would be acceptable to both parties, based on the viewpoints put forth by the parties, and to form an interim government and constituent assembly based on this agreement. They chose the latter option and produced the Cabinet Mission Plan and published it on 16^th May 1946.


The salient aspects of this plan were

• ^{One Union with Central Legislature and Executive responsible for foreign affairs, defence and communications and the powers to raise revenues for these subjects}
• Provinces would be vested with all the residuary powers. They would be free to form groups. Provinces will have the option to get out of the group after the first general elections.
• The parties that accept the plan would be included in Viceroy's executive council which will function as the interim Government.
• A mechanism was laid out to describe how the groups to be formed. It required the delegates to meet in three sections initially and the section as a whole would decide if provinces in the section should join form groups or not, and set up the provincial constitutions.

An appraisal

Before proceeding further on the Congress and League reactions, I wish to record some observations about what the plan was about and what it was not.

The plan was not an agreement between the parties, but a suggested scheme for one. As the Mission stated clearly in its statement they would have preferred an agreement between the Congress and the League, without their involvement. In the absence of such agreement, the proposals in the scheme were what the Mission thought would have maximum chance of acceptability.

As a consequence, the plan, at least the major aspects of it, stood in their entirety and not amenable to selective agreement or subjective interpretation by the parties

The plan was not an award that would be enforced by British authority. It required the goodwill and mutual cooperation of all the parties for the successful working of the plan.

Nothing in the plan was sacrosanct and final; However any changes to the plan, especially major aspects (para 15) could only be done by mutual agreement.

The plan was not an immutable grand scheme for the constitution of United India. The plan itself provided a reconsideration of the terms of any constitution arrived according to the plan, after 10 years.

Congress and League Reactions

The plan gave the League the option of forming a "Pakistan" Group within the Union while rejecting its idea of partition and stated out compelling reasons against the division of India. After making some usual noises, holding forth eloquently about the imperious attitude of the British in denying and denigrating the Pakistan idea, the Muslim League accepted the Plan on June 6^th 1946 reserving their right to work towards their cherished goal of Pakistan from within the framework of groups and the Union.

The Congress initial response came out in its Working Committee resolution on May 24^th 1946. It was a commentary and a reaction to the plan; neither an acceptance nor rejection. The resolution stated that the option for joining the groups as one that could be exercised even prior to the constitution coming into effect. This had some legal basis as the document in para 15(5) stated that "Provinces should be free to form Groups with executives and legislatures, and each Group could determine the provincial subjects to be taken in common". The argument was that the option forced on provinces in the mechanism para 19 clause (v) violated the principle enunciated in para 15 clause (5) and to resolve this contradiction they interpreted it to mean the option to be exercised initially. This interpretation of the Congress was firmly refuted by the Mission and the Viceroy in their statement the very next day on May 25^th 1946. They reiterated that the "scheme stands as a whole" and the Congress interpretation of grouping "does not accord with the Delegation's intentions".

The provinces in contention were Assam and NWFP. According to the Mission plan, the members of the constituent assembly would meet in 3 sections. In Section A, the provinces of Madras, Central Provinces, Bombay, Bihar, UP, Orissa would meet and decide on the question of group formation. In Section B- Punjab, NWFP, Sindh would meet for the same purpose. In NWFP the Congress delegates were in majority, but the choice of its group would be decided by the Section-B as a whole, where the League was in majority. In Section C, Bengal and Assam would meet. Section C had 70 members: 36 Muslim and 34 Non-Muslim. Assam however was a 66% Hindu majority province whose choice of joining the "Pakistan" group would be decided by the Muslim majority dominated by Bengal. According to the plan, Assam and NWFP would be placed in the "Pakistan" group but would have a chance to opt out after the first general elections held under the new constitution. Hence under Congress interpretation, NWFP and Assam they would not even go into the "Pakistan" group.

Before or After: The wrangle

While sticking to their stand and not accepting the Mission's interpretation the Congress accepted the plan in its June 24^th working committee resolution. Jinnah was riled at this Congress "non-acceptance" acceptance. The Cabinet Mission tried to sort out this ambiguity to get clear statements from Congress on the grouping provisions. But Gandhiji wouldn't budge. He insisted on getting the Federal Court's interpretation as "law givers could not interpret their own law". ^[7]

The Mission pointed out to Gandhiji that this is not a legal issue, but a practical issue, that too on the singular pivotal aspect on which the whole scheme hinged. Even if the Federal Court were to agree with the Congress interpretation, Jinnah would bail out. If Muslim League would try to scuttle Assam's options in "Pakistan" Group, the Congress had ample opportunities in the Union Assembly to retaliate. But Congress would not budge, and curiously Sir Stafford Cripps and Lord Pethick-Lawrence did not insist on a clear answer in spite of repeated pleadings by Viceroy Lord Wavell to draw the line.

Jinnah was insistent that the Congress acceptance is no acceptance and warned that the League will revoke its acceptance in the absence of clarity from Congress. On July 10^th 1946, in a press conference in Bombay, Nehru tore apart the grouping provisions in the plan and dilated on the question of Union subjects. On 29th July 1946, the League Council at Bombay passed a resolution withdrawing its acceptance of the plan. The burial for the plan was laid between May 16th and July 29th 1946. The subsequent Calcutta Killings on "Direct Action" day on Aug 16th, October riots in Noakhali-Tipperah and the Bihar reprisals destroyed whatever hopes remained.

As a desperate measure, Atlee invited Nehru, Jinnah and Baldev Singh to London for a final patch up and to finalize the interpretation of the grouping provision. He also armed himself with the opinion of Lord Chancellor Jowett who advised that the Mission's interpretation was the correct one, but as a face saving measure to Congress, he was willing to let the matter be decided by Federal court. This was put out on a statement on Dec 6 1946. After cornered squarely, the Congress budged and came around. But the false hope that had been given to Assam and NWFP delegates created some problems. On Dec 15, 6 days after the constituent assembly first met, Gandhiji, in his unofficial capacity wrote to Assam delegates "As soon as the time comes for the Constituent Assembly to go into sections, you will say 'Gentlemen, Assam retires...' Else, I will say that Assam had only manikins, and no men." Finally on Dec 22, the Working committee passed a resolution accepting the plan with the original interpretation.

Questions and Observations

Why pick on the Congress alone? Wasn't the League's acceptance also conditional, in that it had still maintained that "a sovereign Pakistan was still the unalterable objective of Muslims in India"?

The League's intentions were to work for the consolidation of "Pakistan" group after getting into the Constituent assembly on the basis of the plan as a whole and further through the working of the constitution. It was a long term objective. Similarly the Congress would have been justified to "break the groups" after getting into the Constituent Assembly and then onwards. Once the country was sovereign each would have been justified to pursue their goals.

But the acceptance of the Mission plan implied that in the initial phase the Constituent Assembly was not wholly unconstrained to take decisions on the basis of majority, but to "bootstrap" itself based on prior agreements concluded outside the arena of constituent assembly. The provision of grouping was the singular essential element in it. If the Congress had fears about Assam it would have been better to negotiate to get safeguards from the League or changes in the plan by mutual agreement. But Congress was not justified to "accept" the plan on its own terms. The plan was an agreement in progress; it required the parties to execute their part of the concurrent promises through out its working. But the Congress actions at the initial stages of the plan, added distrust and suspicion, if there was shortage of any in League's mind towards it.

Why should the Indian National Congress sacrifice its principles to yield on the groups question on the basis of British and League Pressure?

Rather this question can be re-phrased and asked why even accept the Mission plan. To answer this one needs to approach this not from the view points of principles or stated positions but as a practical matter of various possibilities. There are different ways a constitution for a nation can be forged. In the presence of substantial unanimity on the concept of nationhood, boundaries, citizenship the constitution making body can deliberate to produce a political structure to govern the nation.

In the absence of agreement on these, there are only 2 options to preserve the Union. The first option is for the predominant party or group should undertake to enforce their will upon the unwilling parts or parties and drag them to the constituent assembly or decide on their behalf. The second option is to negotiate an a priori agreement, to produce a constitution, which is a contract of give and take, in order to accommodate the unwilling parts or parties to the Union. The constitution so arrived would buy the unity by giving up the strong national character of the center. This agreement definitely would preclude and prejudice the constitution making body in some aspects or the other.

It was amply clear in 1946 that there was no unanimity on the concept of our nationhood, boundaries, citizenship among Indians. The Congress's huge success in the freedom struggle should be seen in this light. It produced an overwhelming consensus that India should be free; but no overwhelming consensus on how India should be governed after we were free. That required another distinct phase of struggle. In that situation, it was imperative to give up some principles, to reach across and forge agreement on unity. If Union was desired, it was doubly imperative that agreement be reached, as the struggle for principles can be carried from within the Union, for without the union, the struggle either had to be given up or carried from the outside with impossible odds. To be fair to the Congress, in agreeing to the Mission Plan, it implicitly understood this principle. However by not agreeing to the grouping as proposed, it undermined the agreement seriously.

H.M.Seervai and A.G.Noorani argue that Jinnah's partition demand was a bargaining ploy and partition was his second best option. His first best option was autonomy for Muslim majority provinces and an equitable share in the center. In their view the group concept was a landing place offered to him by the Mission and he lapped it up and gave up on partition, practically. It was unwise of Congress to prick his ego on the group question while he was making his own psychological climb down and uncertain of Congress intentions.

Consider this situation. Even if we had a fragile Union, if Pakistan were to break up later, wouldn't it have broken up with even a larger territory, with its borders touching the outskirts of Delhi?

The question implies that "Pakistan" group formed by Sindh, Baluchistan NWFP, Undivided Bengal and Undivided Punjab would breakaway as Pakistan later. That would indeed put Gurgoan inside Pakistan, a rather depressing thought, I concede. Let us deal with it first in terms of principles and then on practical aspects. This question presumes that the "blessing" of the groups in the Constitution arrived according to the CMP also "blessed" sovereign distinct nationhood on them. That was the spin put out by the League in accepting the proposal, for political purposes to satisfy its own consistency and to retain their bargaining cards. The break up from the Union by the groups was not part of the plan. What was clearly spelt out was a reconsideration of the terms of constitution after 10 years. A break up by the "Pakistan" group as a whole indeed did not axiomatically follow from their existence as a group. This would have been a drastic revision of the constitution and would have necessitated the consideration of the whole question de novo and there was absolutely nothing binding the Congress to concede large parts of Bengal and Punjab where there was overwhelming Non-Muslims majority to this greater Pakistan formed by the break up.

Let me turn towards the practical aspects of the issue. If League attempted to consolidate the "Pakistan" group to form a greater Pakistan, Congress also had ample opportunities to tweak the League even within the Pakistan group. It was well known how hard League had to struggle to establish it its dominance in Sindh, Bengal and Punjab, in the increasing order of difficulty. For a brief discussion about the "uneasy" relation between the Punjab premier Sir Sikander Hyat-Khan and Jinnah read this insightful piece by A.G.Noorani^[8]

The 56% Muslim majority was not in the League's kitty wholly behind the question of Pakistan. There were powerful cross currents between the land owning class of all three religious groups Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs mostly to protect their property rights. The Unionist party symbolized this coming together. The division of Punjab was what they dreaded the most. ^[9] Though Sir Sikander died in 1942 and the Unionist party fizzled out after Partition, the propensity behind it is still alive and can be traced to this day in both West Punjab and East Punjab. The Choutalas, Badals , Shujaat Hussains are veritable inheritors of the Unionist legacy.

Similarly in Bengal too, the same peasant land owning interests had a cross current in the form of the Krishak Proja Party led by Fazlul Haq. It relied even more heavily on support from its Hindu members as Muslims counted for only 54% in the province.

Based on these facts, for Jinnah to get a greater Pakistan, he would have had to continuously use the religion card after the formation of the "Pakistan" group. But his card would have lost its sheen after he had reached an agreement in the Union. The local and provincial factors would have strengthened not weakened once the communal issue was settled, even if somewhat provisionally. This would have given ample opportunities to Congress to check and thwart this greater Pakistan demand.

On the other end of this effort, as the clamour for a sovereign Pakistan subsided, the minority muslims in UP, Bihar, Bombay would have had to be accommodated in the power structure. The Khaliquazzamans would have easily come around as it was exclusion in power which drove them to the League in the first place^[10].

But to do all this, Congress would have had to pacify its left wing and right wing supporters and to postpone its ambitious land reform program till the communal issue subsided and economic concerns became paramount. Indeed this was a very difficult task, personally for Nehru, but the consolation is, League faced greater troubles as it was even more reliant on land owner support and could not have outflanked the Congress to be a viable opposition in this issue.

At any rate the Congress capacity to fight a greater Pakistan would not have diminished but strengthened. If the scheme fell apart, with its strength in the Union, and its predominant position in current India, a Bengal and Punjab partition could have been eventuated and the current India as it is constituted today would have been secured.

Wouldn't India have got a weak center with a possible chance for balkanization?

I have some sympathy for this position. A.G. Noorani asserts in these articles at the footnote that India would have got a strong center not a weak one. However I am not convinced for the following reasons. There was no way an Art.355 or Art.356 becoming part of a constitution for this Union. Further more because of the strong provinces, central planning and taxation would have been weakened.

But the issue is very difficult to analyze as in 1947 many of provinces in India consumed more from the Central revenue pool than what they produced. An unlikely inclusion in this list is Punjab. Bengal's position was not that great either, with the current Bangladesh being a huge rural slum. These "Pakistan" provinces required help from the Union and in turn would have had to give up some "perks". The NWFP and Baluchistan entirely depended on federal revenue share to even subsist. But economics is not all and emotive factors play a huge role then and it is difficult to come up with their commensurate influence.

As far the balkanization question, it has to be considered separately from the Pakistan demand. At that time the Congress had predominant influence among the current India territory. The regional and other centrifugal tendencies were in the making and had not concretized yet. Even if it can be conceded that the current Pakistan would have broken away, it would have happened relatively earlier than when these other balkanizing factors became stronger to create any lasting effect. It can be asserted that Congress under Nehru's leadership was well placed to face this challenge and to secure current India as a whole.

We would have been back to square one you say, then why bother working the Cabinet Mission Plan?

To this a simple answer could be: just because we would have had the same results today does not mean we should have refused to start the experiment. The paths and predilections of the under taken experiment itself would have given us some lessons and benefits.

The primary benefit would be chance for the resolution of the question among the parties themselves without the involvement of outsiders. In the triangular relationship between the British-Congress-League, both the League and Congress trusted the British more than each other. This deep mutual distrust persists even today, after the British have been gone for 60 years.

If the Union experiment had been persisted, with the good will and mutual cooperation of the parties even for a relatively short period, while they were acting as sovereigns, it would have been unprecedented in history. This would have imparted some positive benefits for the future. Some of the benefits could have been the absence or resolution of conflicts such as Kashmir during the separation, some level of convergence on foreign policy and security perceptions.

Today the best case scenario as portrayed by experts is this situation is the resolution of Kashmir and a security pact. This best case would have been possible, say 50 years ago with greater chances of fruition than caused by the initial rancorous rupture and subsequent bitterness.

References

1.Transfer of Power in India : V.P. Menon

2.Partition : Legend and Reality , Constituitional Law of India : Vol 1 - Chapter 1 by H.M.Seervai

3.The Viceroy's Journal : Journal entries of Lord Wavell edited by Penderel Moon

4.Pakistan or the Partition of India: B.R.Ambedkar http://www.ambedkar.org/pakistan

Footnotes

[1]“Poems of partition - Bad poetry can sometimes tell us more than the finest history” by Ramachandra Guha , The Telegraph, Saturday, April 28, 2007. Link

[2] "Games historians play" –Irfan Husain , The Dawn Saturday August 34 2007 Link

[3]Jinnah said “If it comes to one man-one vote, then Brother Gandhi has 3 votes, I have only one"

[4]Subsequent elections to the Provincial legislatures presented a somewhat nuanced position. In the future Pakistan provinces of Sindh and Bengal, League had to enter into coalitions to form governments. In Punjab it was the single largest party, but lost power to a Unionist -Congress-Akali combination. In NWFP it lost to the Congress out rightly. However it won practically all the Muslim seats in current India.

[5]Sir Stafford Cripps was the President of the Board of Trade. Lord Pethick-Lawrence was the Secretary of State and A.V. Alexander the First Lord of the Admiralty.

[6]The Congress definition of ‘minimum’ as one would expect was entirely different from the League’s; it consisted of Foreign affairs, defence, communications, fundamental rights, customs and planning and all other subjects that would have to be administered by the union based on inter-relationships with these subjects

[7]Cripps and India's Partition – A.G.Noorani, The Frontline Volume 19 - Issue 15, July 20 - August 02, 2002 Part I and Part II

[8]Punjab and Pakistan – A. G. Noorani , The Frontline Volume 22 - Issue 06, Mar. 12 - 25 2005 Link

[9]I suggest the readers to read the brilliant speech by Sir Sikander in Punjab legislative Assembly on 11 March 1941 about the idea of Pakistan, which is presented as Appendix I in Transfer of Power in India by V.P.Menon. An online version is found in http://www.questia.com/ in the book Speeches and Documents on the Indian Constitution, 1921-47 Vol 1, but the site requires subscription.

[10]H.M.Seervai, V.P.Menon and B.R.Ambedkar are unanimous in this question.

Fostering Rule of Law in Indian Democracy

A vibrant, socially united community is promised inclusion in the ST List, in a politically expedient move before the elections. As time goes on, the community feels the promise has not been respected. A whole series of agitations are launched, buses burnt, shops looted, public property damaged. Policemen fire on the agitators, kill a few of them. A nationwide outrage ensues. Trains running across states are stopped. Effects are felt on the national capital. Opinion forums are busy debating the pros and cons of the demands and the state response. A deal is reached finally. A Single Judge commission is appointed to positively consider the demand. ‘Normality’ returns. Life goes on.

More than 5 years ago, a train carriage with passengers is burnt. In a vast danse macabre, a whole state is gripped by raving mobs carrying swords and guns. Members of a particular community are targeted for attacks. The law and order machinery of the state takes a convenient absence of leave, aligning with the political goals of the power holders. After the mayhem subsides, “normality” returns. Life goes on.

Almost 2 decades ago, a caste organization demands differentiated treatment among the backward classes. The modus operandi: Felling trees, blocking vehicular traffic, paralyzing the state. Violence continues but after a while, “normality” returns. The government is brought to its knees. It designates the caste as “most backward”. The caste outfit catapults itself as a mainstream political party on the basis of this “success”.

An interim order of the Supreme Court mandates the release of water from a reservoir to a neighbouring state. Mobs and chauvinist groups gather and take over the sluice gates of the dam. The state pleads “inability” to control the mobs and cites “possible wide spread law and order problems” as an excuse for not obeying the ruling.


On less serious occasions, a veteran Chief Minister gets upset at an interim order of a Supreme Court bench. He calls for a state wide bandh to express “solidarity” with the backward classes. In effect a state government protests against the very law and order machinery it is supposedly in charge. An opposition party leader promises “free” power to farmers. Just to sweeten the offer, he advises them not to pay their dues until he comes to power and cancel their dues. A national opposition party in the national capital plays a dubious role in persuading traders in the city to protest and disobey court orders. A Chief Minister won’t unequivocally side with the law, but hedges her bets just in case, she doesn’t get wiped off in an anti-incumbency wave.

One can go on and on and find numerous instances, when individuals and groups indulge in acts brazen defiance of the law in pursuit of political goals, at times finding themselves on either side of the fence, at times even simultaneously. Of course one cannot argue that “status quo” is good and is bound to be obeyed at all times. The very purpose of a democracy based on rule of law, is to provide a procedural, predictable way to manage changes to the status quo. Then what is unique about this agit-prop tendency in our country?

To answer this question in some detail, it is necessary to trace back our roots. “India” as a cohesive political entity in the modern era was mostly formed in the atmosphere of the struggle against the British rule. The crucible of Freedom struggle is where our nation’s modern consciousness was forged. The righteousness ascribed to the agitations against unjust British laws in particular and the colonial power in general, is still lingering.

It is worth recalling that some of the liberals such as Gokhale and Tagore had qualms about the agit-prop emotional nationalist approach and it’s unwarranted after effects. The fact that the current laws are our laws and needs to be treated differently than colonial laws is still dawning on us. Not very many appreciate that the State, the laws and Constitution are ours since January 26 1950. There has never been a clean break in the distinction in the minds of people about the nature of the State. In the early days of the republic, the two main antagonists to Congress in freedom struggle, both the right and left adopted ambiguous stands. The Left was still involved in an armed “freedom” struggle. The right contested the election of 52 on the promise of altering the constitution.

On the other hand, our institutions, laws though have remarkable continuity from the British Era. This has smoothed the transition and spared us some of the “revolutions” that were visited upon other nations emerging from colonialism but has imposed a slower and gradual pace in establishing the rule of law. The State which functions in the name of the people has been demonized, (rightly at times one can argue) lowering the mental barrier in breaking the law. This periodic demonization by groups themselves involved in the democratic process helps anti-democratic groups such as Naxalites and other extremists to gain legitimacy while deflating the moral power of the State to fight against it.

How do we then foster greater respect in the rule of law, while remaining a functioning, dynamic democracy? Two processes have to concurrently occur. 1) The definition of “ours” and “we” has to be expanded so that increasing number of people and groups feel that they are part of the establishment. 2) The process of law making and decision making should value greater consensus (that may result in gradual change in status quo) over rapidity (achieved with narrow majorities).

The Candidate

Act I – Scene I

Characters : Sonia Gandhi, Prakash Karat, A B Bardhan, Karunanidhi, Manmohan Singh

Location : Manmohan Singh’s residence

Agenda : To choose a presidential candidate

Sonia : This is the 60th year of our Republic. We need a woman candidate. The Congress has some persons in mind. Let us discuss them one by one.

Karat : Absolutely, we need a woman candidate. Who is your first choice?

Manmohan : Shivraj Patil will be an excellent choice. (within himself : boy, would I be happy to get rid of him from the cabinet!)

Bardhan : She is not a good candidate. We cannot support her. She used to side with the BJP when she was the speaker.

Karunanidhi : We agree with the Left. I suspect she is also close to some other woman that I very much dislike.

Sonia : Allright. How about Karan Singh ? She will be a good candidate.

Karat (jumping from chair ) : She will be a disaster (within himself : that screw up that snatched Nepal from our comrades cusp ? never). She is too right wing.

A B Bardhan ; Cool down comrade. How about Mrs. Arjun Singh ?

Manmohan : She is very old. She cannot bear the excruciating schedule of Presidency. She is barely managing the ministry of HRD.

Karat : Why don’t you spare Pranab da?

Sonia : We would like to. But she is very important for the government.

Karunanidhi: This is not getting anywhere. Can’t we find some other women ?

Manmohan : Why not? Here I have a 3rd tier list of women in case we cannot reach a consensus.

A B Bardhan : Please read a name randomly from the list. That way there is no bias in our selection.


Manmohan : Karunaji, please pick a number between 1 to 100.

Karunanidhi : 40

Manmohan : (within himself; Goodness gracious, can’t he think of any other number? ). OK. Lets do a 40 mod of the number of letters in your name, which is 11. Yes. Seven is the lucky number. And the name is Mrs…

Sonia : (stretching her neck and reading aloud the name from Manmohan's list) Pratibha Patil.

Karunanidhi : Excellent ! Excellent Choice! (within himself : but who is she?)

A B Bardhan : Yes I know her very well. When I was a student in Nagpur, I had a crush on her. She is a good woman candidate.

Sonia : Karunaji, Thanks for helping us pick a woman candidate in this historic election!