The Shadow of the Great Game: Partition of India and British Strategic Interests

Jaswant Singhs bookJinnah-India, Partition, Independence reopened old wounds of Indias partition in 1947. His central argument was that Jinnah- an epitome of secular values- was unfairly demonized in India and that the blame lay squarely on Indian leaders like Pandit Nehru and Sardar Vallabhai Patel. Stung by thequirky views of Mr. Singh the response of BJP was swift. Jaswant Singh was expelled from the primary membership of the BJP party. Explaining the decision of the party to expel Jaswant Singh, the then party chief Rajnath Singh told the members of the press views expressed by Jaswant Singh in his book does not represent views of the party.In fact, the party completely dissociates itself from the contents of the book. While it may be tempting to think that he committed political hara-kiri by praising Jinnah and denigrating Sardar Patel an icon of BJP, nothing could be farther from truth. As far as political fortunes go, Mr. Singhs career in politics was in irreversible decline. With the BJP having lost the General election, the future looked bleak and uncertain for the polo playing princeling from Rajasthan. However his popularity revived somewhat when his book was banned in Gujarat by BJP strongman Narender Modi.His book became the toast of book launches at five star Hotels where the jaded glitterati vied with each other to have themselves photographed in the presence of the distinguished author. Mr. Singh was seen in cocktail parties wearing his quasi- military attire (epaulettes and all) and basking in his controversial aura. In his baritone voice he held forth on the secular credentials of the enigmatic Mohammed Ali Jinnah and the tortuous history of the partition. Guilty Men of Partition His book only flatters to deceive. Lacking the bubbly effervescence of originality his book can best be described as a vapid retreading of other peoples books. Maulana Azad in his book India wins freedom blamed Nehru and Sardar Patel for their inflexible views on the Cabinet Mission Plan, which eventually paved way for the Partition of India. The theme of lost opportunities and narrow vision of the Indian nationalist leaders was taken up by the formidable Ram Manohar Lohia who in his book Guilty Men of Indias Partition published in 1960 blamed the congress leaders like Nehru and Sardar Patel for failing to take initiatives to prevent the partition. Lohia also condemned the role of fanatical Hindu extremists for the partition. In his words The opposition of fanatical Hinduism to partition did not and could not make any sense, for one of the forces that partitioned the country was precisely this Hindu fanaticism. Other historians argue that it was the intransigence of Muslim separatist leaders like Muhammad Iqbal, the ideological founder of Pakistan, who as early as in 1933 preached, The religious ideal of Islam, therefore, is organically related to the social order which it has created. The rejection of the one will eventually involve the rejection of the other. Thus the religious basis of the twonation split goes back to 1930. Iqbal urged Jinnah who led a separatist movement in 1937 that it was imperative to prevent the domination of Muslims by Hindus. Some historians allege that Jinnah made unreasonable demands for representation of Muslims in the interim government as envisaged in the Cabinet mission Plan of 1946. The Congress leaders countered the demands of Jinnah by saying that the Muslims constituted only 20% of the population while the Hindus represented 75% of the population. As a compromise the Congress leaders offered Jinnah 5

members in a cabinet of 12 members. It is alleged that Jinnah wanted to grab power and pushed India to a bloody partition. As the gaunt and ascetic looking Jinnah grimly said we shall have India divided or we shall have India destroyed. India was divided but it not prevent the horrific carnage that was to follow. Thousands were slaughtered,millions mutilated or raped and tens of millions lost their homes. The religious segregation of Muslim and Hindus exacted a terrible toll, which continues in present times from the riots of Babri Masjid to the dangerous nuclear arms race between the two countries. But is the history of Indias partition to be viewed from the narrow perspective of personal failure of the keyplayers, namely, the British, Hindu and Muslim leaders to prevent the partition? Or were there larger geopolitical interests serving as the hidden agenda of the British Empire which dictated that the Partition was a foregone conclusion? The Wells of Power In his book The Shadow of the Great Game: The Untold Story of Indias Partition Narendra Singh Sarila, an ADC to Lord Mountbatten and who later served in the Indian foreign service,explores the perspective that there was a critical link between the partition and the British fears that USSR under Stalin had expansionist ambition of gaining control over the oil wells of the Middle East. In the twilight years of the British rule in India the British ruling elites realized that they needed partners and military bases to acquire influence in the area lying between India and Turkey. What made the British governing elites nervous was that to the Soviet Unions southern border lay the region ofthe Persian Gulf with oil fields- the wells of power- that were of vital importance to the West.British could ill afford to lose control says the author, over the entire Indian subcontinent that had served as its military base in dominating the Indian Ocean area and the countries around the Persian Gulf for more than half century. The British fears about Stalins ambition were heightened when he announced in 1946 that his countrys dependence on oil had doubled since 1941. The British shrewdly realized that the Indian Nationalists like Nehru and his close confidant V.K.Krishna Menon would have no alliance with Britain to protect her wells of power and be a pawn to counter the looming Russian bear from having influence over the Persian Gulf. The British needed willing partners in the Great Game to thwart Soviet Union any influence over the area. In a cynical exercise of manipulative politics the British used the Islamic card to encourage Jinnah and the Muslim League to press for a separate Muslim state. Lord Wavell- the viceroy of India from 1943 to early 1947- was the strategist who saw clearly that the breach caused in Britains capacity to defend the Middle East and the Indian Ocean area could be solved if the Muslim League were to succeed in separating Indias strategic northwest from the rest of the country. The cosy ties that Lord Wavell developed with Mohammad Ali Jinnah during the Second World War had the objective of influencing Jinnah to side with the British by offering military bases in a separate Muslim state. Churchill- an ardent imperialist-expressed his contempt for ethical values when he said we do not think that logic and clear cut principles are necessarily the sole key to what ought to be done in swiftly changing and indefinable situationsWe assign a larger importance to opportunism and improvisation seeking to live and conquer.These were prophetic words for what was conceived in Churchills time was put to execution by the British Labour Government under

Clement Attlee with the same cynical disregard for scruples when India was partitioned.On 14th August 1947the new Islamic Republic of Pakistan was born and on 15th August1947 saw the birth of free India ending 350 years of British rule. Poisoned Chalice Pakistan kept its word and formed a bulwark against Communism. It joined the Baghdad Pact together with Iran,Turkey and Britain. Later it became a part of CENTO of which US was a prime mover. These moves were meant to counter the Soviet Union in the Middle East.In 1954 Pakistan entered into a bilateral pact with Britains ally US and allowed the CIA to have an air base in Peshawar. The U2 spy planes took off from Peshawar and kept a close watch on Soviet Russia. In the eighties Pakistan took the fateful step of helping US to eject Russian troops in Afghanistan. This involved a tie up of its intelligence agency ISI with CIA to train the Mujahidin to fight the Soviet troops in Afghanistan. The US, which replaced Britain as a dominant power to stem the Soviet influence also played the Islamic card with devastating effect. Funds were diverted to ISI to radicalize the Madrassas to fight Godless Communism. After the Soviets withdrew their troops from Afghanistan, Pakistan was involved in deadly AFPAK wars for decades which led to hundreds of Pakistani civilian casualties including innocent women and children killed through the drone strikes launched by the US military on its tribal borders.On the whole after its independence, Pakistan has fared badly by subordinating its national interests to suit the geopolitical interests of Britain and then that of US. It has a corrupt military oligarchy being the power behind the faade of civilian governments. The military Generals attired in splendid military uniforms took bribes from the US-UK axis. The devastated and the fragile economy of Pakistan was propped up by US military aid and drug trade. The plight of the ordinary people of Pakistan has deteriorated to the point that there is seething discontent in the streets. The ruling elites of Pakistan are widely perceived to be unrepresentative of the peoples interests and acting as hired mercenaries to protect US oil and geopolitical interests in the region. India has emerged from the partition relatively stronger by adopting a non-aligned foreign policy which stayed clear of the geopolitical rivalry between US and USSR. But there is no room for complacency. There have been military conflicts over Kashmir which remains unresolved. The war over East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) was a bloody one.The conflict in Kargil was another fierce struggle, which soured the relationship between the two countries. More sensational was the grisly terrorist attack in Mumbai in 2008 for which India blamed Pakistan for planning it. The long shadows of the hatred of the partition were also seen in religious conflict over Babri Masjid and Godhra riots in Gujarat. India is also taking dangerous steps to cosy up to US and supports its hegemonic interests in the world. On June 28, 2005 the Indian Defense Minister signed the New Framework of Defense Relations with US. On July 18, 2005, the Indian Prime Minister issued a joint statement with the then US President Bush on a wide range of issues including Indias nuclear programme. On September 24, 2005 India voted against Iran in the meeting of the Board of Governors of IAEA. In recent months President Obama and Secretary of State of the US government Hillary Clinton have lobbied against Iran and asked the Indian government to boycott Iranian oil in the standoff between US and Iran over the nuclear programme. Bowing to US pressure the Indian government has reduced its oil import from Iran. These foreign policy shifts are indications that New Delhi has increasingly tilted towards US strategic requirements in the region. The US on its part has played upto Indias global status, which is a psychological ploy to influence public opinion especially the assertive middle class and the upper class in urban India

to go along with US wars on terror. There are carefully published stories in newspapers that US considers India to be the great regional power in the region.Now the Great Game for US which has replaced Britain as the empire is not so much as to curb the Soviet expansionism which collapsed in 1991 but to thwart the rise of China. There are worrying signs that India may be used as a foil to Chinese ambitions. There are murmurs of discontent in the Sino- Indian relationship which has reopened old wounds of the Sino-Indian border conflict in 1962. India could become another pawn-like Pakistan but this time in a deadly chess game played between US and China. Would India drink from the poisoned chalice as Pakistan did when it willingly sacrificed its national interests to become a client state for serving British and then US interests?Would the same fate await India if it does so? If the grim lessons of the partition are not learned then the relentless forces of history would inexorably hurl India to a future equally bleak and terrible as Pakistan. C R Sridhar