ACCORDING to popular history, Mahatma Gandhi’s proposal to make Mohammad Ali Jinnah the first prime minister of independent India to thwart partition was opposed directly or obliquely by Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel. They apparently claimed that the idea would be repugnant to most Indians.

It can be argued that their assertion resembled the story of Baba Saran Das who built a modest temple in our Lucknow locality in the 1960s. After sharing the chillum with his protégés in the afternoons, the affable priest would take a siesta, drawing a curtain over the deity and declaring that god was taking a nap. (Bhagwan so rahe hain.) His believers indulged the Baba as did the followers of Nehru and Patel believe in them. Key questions followed from their rejection of Gandhi’s advice, however, to prevent a subcontinental tragedy.

Was Gandhi’s advice overruled because most Indians didn’t want Jinnah, or was it the street power of a few that bothered Nehru and Patel. Or could it be their narrow self-interest that prompted the fateful decision. In any case, what could have prompted the change in the 90 years since Hindu leaders led by Nana Sahib declared Mughal ruler Bahadur Shah Zafar their emperor, under whose flag Hindus and Muslims jointly and valiantly fought British rule? Hindutva’s founding father V.D. Savarkar was an early proponent of militant communalism. It was later mirrored by Muslim communalists, and eventually embraced by the Muslim League years later. But how did Savarkar, Nehru’s apparent bête noire become a Muslim-baiter?

Read more: A damaging debate on Savarkar

In his early avatar he was a vocal supporter of Hindu-Muslim unity though only insofar as they would jointly challenge ‘Christian rule’, as distinct from British colonialism, with which he would strike an accord against the armed struggle of Subhash Bose and the non-violent struggle of Gandhi. Savarkar’s applause for the alliance between Nana Sahib and the last Mughal ruler, had a communal purpose to target Christians. Then something snapped during his tenure in the Andamans jail. Savarkar now posited that Hindus and Muslims could not live in one nation as equals.

Was it the so-called majority opinion or fear of Savarkar that foiled Gandhi’s advice? In which case, what would the Nehru-Patel logic prescribe should the so-called majority of Indians at some future moment — or even during the current pass — ‘decide’ to abandon the very democracy that took Nehru and Patel to take power in a fractured India? Is India being bulldozed in the name of a majority, which is periodically conjured to win advantages for a coterie of upper castes? Look carefully, the alleged Hindu majority transforms into mutually aloof caste identities at the hint of an election. It’s likely then that the genuflection to a make-believe Indian opinion is actually a surrender to street power.

Is India being bulldozed in the name of a majority, which is periodically conjured to win advantages for a coterie of upper castes?

Fear of an illusory national opinion with its propensity to unleash a fearsome backlash if not heeded took a huge toll when Gandhiji was assassinated and key suspects were allowed to go scot-free in the interest of the state. Leading security analyst Ravi Visvesvaraya Sharada Prasad recently put fresh light on how non-juridical factors, including, not for the first time, a misplaced oblation to alleged popular opinion corrupted the investigation into Gandhi’s assassination. “It is quite likely that the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi could have been prevented if clues [from different cities] were investigated diligently,” Prasad wrote in Open magazine to mark Gandhi’s death anniversary on Jan 30. “However, overwhelming political and strategic considerations ensured that the role of the Hindu Mahasabha was not investigated closely. Even after the assassination, the investigation was deliberately weakened under instructions from deputy prime minister and home minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel to ensure that Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and Mahasabha leaders in Gwalior got away scot-free.”

Prasad’s mother — Kamalamma Madikera Sharada Prasad — was closely involved in the conduct of the case and had a ringside view as the prosecution dragged its feet and messed up the evidence. The Italian Beretta revolver Nathuram Godse used to assassinate Gandhi belonged to the military secretary to the Maharaja of Gwalior. Of those who dispatched the revolver to Godse and Narayan Apte, “Jagadish Prasad Goyal, the biggest weapons dealer in Gwalior, was not named in the charge sheet at all”.

According to Prasad’s mother, there were numerous national interests before Sardar Patel to ensure that the investigation did not probe the involvement of the Hindu Mahasabha too closely. The Mahasabha was conducting a proxy war against the Nizam of Hyderabad’s kingdom, where Muslim Razakars were attacking Hindus. The Hyderabad Congress agitation against the Nizam was led by Swami Ramananda Teertha, and included P.V. Narasimha Rao, S.B. Chavan, and Veerendra Patil. After their Congress cadres were murdered the leadership of the anti-Nizam agitation devolved to the Mahasabha, led by Nathuram Godse, among others, says Prasad.

For this reason and more, Patel and Morarji Desai wanted to avoid communal violence and its potential to cause political instability at all costs. Govind Ballabh Pant and Lal Bahadur Shastri corroborated the fear.

After a bitter Punjabi refugee Madanlal Pahwa was arrested for a botched attempt on Gandhi’s life he gave useful leads to the police about the fatal plot, which could have prevented the assassination. Morarji Desai told Jamshed Dorab ‘Jimmy’ Nagarvala, the deputy commissioner of police of Bombay about Pahwa’s confessions. Nagarvala later told Prasad’s mother, who worked closely with him, that he had immediately asked Desai for permission to arrest Savarkar, and that Desai had angrily denied this permission, exploding in anger to Nagarvala: “Are you mad? Do you want all of Bombay to go up in flames?” Now think of anyone electorally defeating Hindutva and then undoing its many wrongs. The choice would be to summon a Jimmy Nagarvala and give him a free hand, or join Baba Saran Das at his hermitage to smoke a variant of the peace pipe.

The writer is Dawn’s correspondent in Delhi.

jawednaqvi@gmail.com

Published in Dawn, February 22nd, 2022