Book on penultimate viceroy in India launched
The newly launched book on display at the Pakistan Study Centre, Karachi University.–Photo by White Star
KARACHI: A book titled ‘Wavell and the Dying Days of the Raj — Britain’s Penultimate Viceroy in India’ by Dr Muhammad Iqbal Chawla was launched at the library of the Pakistan Study Centre, the University of Karachi, on Friday.
Welcoming the speakers and guests of the event, Prof Dr Jaffar Ahmed said the book was a sign that a shift in historiography was taking place. In the past 50 years, most historians had discussed a majority of leaders of the freedom movement. For example, there were studies on M.A. Jinnah and Liaquat Ali Khan and in India the likes of Gandhi, Nehru and Patel were the historians’ focus. The shift from ‘total narratives’ to ‘parts of India’ in history was now being witnessed and other actors in the political theatre were being brought into focus, he said. He told the audience largely comprising students of the Pakistan Study Centre that the book was basically Dr Chawla’s doctoral thesis and the author had selected a very important figure (Archibald Wavell).
He mentioned that review of a literature representative of that time period could also be read in the book.
Dr Ahmed put two questions to Dr Chawla. (1) Why was history always written about individuals (Mr Jinnah, Mr Gandhi, etc), and why can’t the role of socioeconomic factors in shaping history be discussed? (2) With reference to the title of the book, what were the global factors that caused the demise of colonialism?
Dr Chawla, who teaches history at Punjab University, said while Dr Ahmed’s point about the socioeconomic factors was valid, he’d been studying Lord Wavell for the past 20 years. He explained that there were studies aplenty on leaders such as Mr Gandhi and Mr Jinnah therefore he had thought he should inquire the role of British viceroys. He remarked though Churchill had tried to use Lord Wavell as the nightwatchman, Wavell turned out to be a thinking being and tried to settle disputes between Hindus and Muslims. He said much had been written on Mountbatten and Linlithgow, and there was scope to inquire about Wavell. There was a research gap and Wavell had not been studied by prominent historians.
On the second question, Dr Chawla answered that when the British were leaving India, the Cold War had just begun. The US was putting pressure on Britain to grant independence to India. British economy had become so weak that it couldn’t afford to remain in power in India, which was why they left Sri Lanka despite the fact that there was no resistance.
Responding to a question asked by a member of the audience, Dr Chawla emphasised that the British did not make or engineer Pakistan. It was the power of vote that resulted in its creation.
In response to yet another query, he argued the Cripps Mission had failed because the Congress wanted, among other things, to have control over the defence aspect of the country, which the British couldn’t allow because a World War was on.
Prof Shariful Mujahid was the last speaker of the event. He commended Dr Chawla for his work and commented it was a result of painstaking research and analytical vigour. “He has filled an important gap in our historic narrative.” He asked, if a plethora of books on Mr Jinnah could be written in India, why couldn’t books on Mr Gandhi be penned in Pakistan? On the issue of the votes cast in the 1945-46 general election, he said it was a unanimous verdict.
Highlighting the importance of the book, Prof Mujahid said all the major events in Indian constitutional history took place in the four years when Lord Wavell was viceroy (1943-47). Wavell wanted to do justice to Muslims and Mr Jinnah. Lord Mountbatten followed up on whatever had happened before him, he added.
Prior to the speeches and the question-and-answer session, Oxford University Press Managing Director Ameena Saiyid introduced the author to the gathering.
Three students of Pakistan Study Centre — Sajjad Haider, Ammar Ahmed and Tariq Husain — read out their reviews of the book.
Dr Chawla has made a point. All this is history. Now since we realize the futility of partition why can’t we correct the situation by living as good beighbours and alleviate the sufferings of the poor masses who have been hijacked by the clergy and the politician. Chawla
But at end he died as Pakistani not as Indian….
It is very difficult to put blame on one community or the other .What ever happened at the time of partition was a greater tragedy about 1.7 million innocent people were killed and about 10 million people or more were displaced . It is very difficult to heal these wounds but even afterwards the two countries continued fighting further devastating the life of common people . In my view the only solution lies in developing good relations between the two nations and allowing the people of the two countries to come together an atmosphere like that of European nation shall be created , The Region should grow up after all we have great potentials the world has come to realise .
We can not thank Qaid-e-Azam enough for his dedication to his people. He will be remembered in human history for as long history is recorded. My God bless him in afterlife
)
Gandhi was definitely a great leader for his own people as he realized so many years ago that the millions of muslims with increasingly radical ideas would be a problem for India and hindus, and gave his consent for partition,without which the British could not have divided India. By giving them parts of Punjab and Bengal, he was able to get rid of what would have been 400 million muslims today.Muslims were happy in their thoughts that they were gaining independence.
India would do nothing today to get these 400 million back.
It would be interesting to read the book and only then we can comment if author has really done a through and honest research, this subject has been under the shadow of our beloved establishment and this book is part of the acadmic thesis, these two factors do not create strong confidence that a independent research would have been carried out and accepted. Let us read the book first. Diary of lord wavell by itself has quite bit of material which reflect on politics of the time and interesting observation on characters of both Jinnah and Gandhi.
Mazhar
Mr.Kumar is very unkind to Mr.Jinnah He was the great leader of sole representative organisation of Indian Muslims.Rejection of Cbinet mission plan and earlier to that Crips’plan was very unfortunate.In fact Maulana Azad also,as president of the Congress given a similar plan but messers Ghandi,Nehru&Patel did not agree.Mr. Jinnah gave maximum chance to congress leaders to let India stay united as he was most secular leader in India.Mr.Jaswant Singh a leader of BJP &former F.M of India has accepted this.Mr.Advani present leader of BJP has agreed with Mr.Singh.
A must read for answers to most of the questions is “Muslim Separatism in India: by Dr. Abdul Hamid
The Indian point of view is English engineered pakistan because otherwise their theory we are all one falls apart-in reality we are not all one. we were just one empire. when the emperor went so did the empire. Infact india should have been broken into several more countries. The north of India, i.e awadh, kashmir, agra etc should have formed mughalistan and been seperate. The people decide the creation not any super power, case in point, south vietnal and north vietnam. did not work because tyhe people did not beleive in it.
Whatever, and however Pakistan was established, I think it was in the best interest of both the communities. Had there been no Pakistan, Muslims would have created an unbearable situation for the Hindus in independent India? Now, they have Pakistan and let them make it or break it. At least they can not blame the Hindus for all the problems.
Oh yes they can. Pakistanis are world champions at blaming anybody but themselves for their troubles. The country is one big echo chamber of conspiracy theories according to which the entire world is out to destroy poor innocent Pakistan.
You stole words from my mouth!!!
Here is a question I have always wanted to ask. Perhaps Dr. Chawala would be kind enough to address it in this forum:
What were the reasons behind the rejection of the cabinet Mission plan by Congress leaders after Mr. Jinnah had accepted it. The Plan would have maintained a united India. I have always thought Indian historians have been very dishonest in heaping full blame for the partition of India on Mr. Jinnah when the final straw that broke the camel’s back was Nehru and Patel’s rejection of the cabinet mission plan.
I fully agree with you. To understand the whole scenario of partition and rejection of Cabinet Mission Plan, please read the book: Partition of India – Legend and Reality by H.M. Seervai F.B.A. Advocate General of Maharashtra, 1957-1974.
What I have gathered from different accounts, a powerful section of Congress leadership was very skeptical about the role of Muslim population after independence and deemed them to be a constant thorn in their side and an obstacle in the Hindu Raj and Hindutva. V B Patel and Rajgopalachariya were leading this group. Under pressure from this group Jawaharlal Nehru gave a negating statement in Bombay which made Mr. Jinnah to take counter action. So, not withstanding, what Indian historians write, the real intention of Congress leadership was either subjugate the Muslim population or get rid of them in whatever manner possible. Rejection of Cabinet Mission Plan was a step towards that objective.
The reason for many books on Mr. Mohammed Ali Jinnah in India is, after all, he is an Indian by birth, lived most of his life in India, and acted like Indian.