news details |
|
|
| Congress and policy of appeasement | | STARK REALITY | |
Rustam
JAMMU, Jan 28: Even after 65 years of independence and the creation Islamic Republic of Pakistan, India continues to witness movements unleashed by sections the minority community, which was responsible for the communal partition of India, directed against the system on the ground that it is discriminatory and pro-Hindu. They have been putting forth demands which, if accepted, would culminate in a situation conducive for another communal partition of the country. Dr B R Ambedkar, Chairman of the Drafting Committee, was convinced that if India was to be partitioned on religious basis, then there had to be a comprehensive exchange of population failing which the Hindu-Muslim question would continue to create communal tensions in India. In his book, Thoughts on Pakistan, which deals with the Hindu-Muslim questions in a dispassionate manner, Ambedkar had cautioned the Congress party about the dangerous ramifications of what he called bluntly called "appeasement". He wrote thus: "Appeasement amounted to offering to buy off the aggressor by conniving at or collaborating with him in the rape, murder and arson on innocent Hindus who happen for the moment to be the victims of his displeasure. On the other hand, settlement means laying down the bounds which neither party to it can transgress. Appeasement sets no limits to the demands and aspirations of the aggressor. Settlement does. The second thing the Congress has failed to realise is that the policy of concession has increased their aggressiveness and what is worse, the Muslims interpret these concessions as a sign of defeatism on the part of the Hindus and the absence of will to resist. This policy of appeasement will involve the Hindus in the same fearful situation in which the allies found themselves as a result of the policy of appeasement which they adopted towards Hitler".
It needs to be underlined that there were many leaders in India, including Mahatma Gandhi, who had opposed the Muslim League's demand seeking partition of India and creation of separate Muslim State comprising Muslim-majority provinces. On the contrary, Ambedkar had endorsed the demand for Pakistan holding the view that the creation of separate Islamic state would mean "a settlement" and which in turn would mean settlement of the "Hindu-Muslim problem" on a permanent basis. It was then widely believed that an overwhelming majority of the Muslim population in British India wanted the establishment of a separate Islamic state. It was this aspect that had led Ambedkar to believe that once India was partitioned on the basis of two-nation doctrine, it would naturally mean exchange of population. This was his presumption. He further wrote: "Consequently, it (exchange of population) will do away with this constant need of appeasement and ought to be welcomed by all those who prefer the peace and tranquility of a settlement to the insecurity of a growing political appetite shown by the Muslims in their dealings with the Hindus".
India was finally partitioned in August 1947, but there was no "comprehensive exchange of population". Why? The Congress leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru put their foot down as they believed that the minority community would constitute the party's strong, solid and reliable support-base. Indira Gandhi, who became Prime Minister after the sudden demise of Lal Bahadur Shastri at Tashkent (USSR), followed in the footsteps of her father and pursued "policy of appeasement" to win over the Muslim votes. Her son Rajiv Gandhi treaded the path of his maternal grandfather and her mother. So much so, his government upturned the Supreme Court landmark judgment in Shah Bano case that granted Muslim women the "right to seek maintenance". Both Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi, in addition, aligned with the highly communal Muslim League in Kerala and Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (MIM) (Andhra Pradesh). The Muslim League was part of the UPA-I and it is part of the UPA-II as well. As for MIM, it severed its relations with the Congress-led UPA-II only a couple of months ago. The Muslim League and the MIM are known for their hatred for India and the majority community and fomenting communal troubles. These parties, like the National Conference of Farooq Abdullah and Omar Abdullah, the All-Party Hurriyat Conference (M) of Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, Tehrik-e-Hurriyat (the) of Syed Ali Shah Geelani, Jammu & Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) of Yasin Malik, to mention only a few, have been surviving and thriving because of the "appeasement policy" of the Congress party.
It is time to go in for a policy that ends the policy of appeasement, considers every citizen of India as Indian, discards the institution of communal reservation and brings to justice all those who have been opposing the Indian Constitution and demanding a preferential and differential treatment under one spurious pretext or other. India is a democratic country. There should be no space for those who continue to play politics, Muslim League-style. They have already done enough of damage to India. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
