UNIT 14 JINNAH AND SAVARKAR

Structure
14.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives

14.2 Muhammad Ali Jinnah

14.2.1 Early Years (1875-1904)
14.2.2 Early Political Career (1904-1912)
14.2.3 Congress-Muslim League Unity (1912-1920)
14.2.4 Parting of Ways (1920-1930)
14.2.5 Round Table Conferences (1930-1932)

14.3 Vinayak Damodar Savarkar

14.3.1 Early Years (1883-1906)
14.3.2 Savarkar in London (1906-1910)
14.3.3 Savarkar in Andamans (1911-1920)
14.3.4 Savarkar and Hindutva (1920-1924)
14.3.5 Savarkar and the Hindu Sanghatan (1924-1937)
14.3.6 Savarkar and the Hindu Rashtra (1937-1943)

14.4 Jinnah: Two-Nation Resolution 1940 and After

14.5 Savarkar: Postscript (1948-1966)
14.6 Summary
14.7 Terminal Questions
Suggested Readings

14.1 INTRODUCTION
The Indian Freedom Struggle had many luminaries who contributed immensely with their
ideologies. But some of them did not necessarily find Gandhi’s leadership as inspiring and
held on to their respective ideologies steadfastly. Prominent among them are Muhammad
Ali Jinnah, the founder of the state of Pakistan and Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, who had
leanings towards right-wing ideology. Both were critics of Gandhi’s leadership in the
national freedom movement. Their ideologies had an overwhelming influence on some
sections of their respective communities. This Unit attempts to make the learner understand
the varied perspectives of these distinguished men, and how their ideas shaped a part of
nation’s history.
Aims and Objectives
After reading this Unit, you would be able to understand
 The political ideology of Jinnah
 His parting of ways with Congress and demand for a separate state
 Ideological leanings of Savarkar
 His espousal of the Hindu Rashtra
Jinnah and Savarkar 161

14.2 MUHAMMAD ALI JINNAH

14.2.1 Early Years (1875-1904)
Mammad, as his pet name goes, was born to Mithibai and Jinnabhai Poonja, an Ismaili
Shia converted from a Hindu Kucchi family. He was educated briefly in Bombay and
mainly in Karachi. After completing schooling, he was recommended for apprenticeship to
a British firm. In London, Jinnahbhai shortened his name to its present form. He gave up
the apprenticeship and registered at the Lincoln’s Inn and qualified for the Bar at the
young age of 19. He returned not to Karachi but to Bombay in 1896. For three years,
his practice would not pick up. In 1900, for a short period, he accepted the post of
Acting Presidency Magistrate. Thereafter, he became one of the most successful lawyers
at the Bombay Bar.
14.2.2 Early Political Career (1904-1912)
In London, Jinnah had come close to the Moderate leader Dadabhai Naoroji, who was
seeking election to the House of Commons. He won by a narrow majority. Jinnah would
visit the Parliament and also get to know a number of Liberal Party members. In India,
Jinnah attended the 1904 Congress session in Bombay, where he met Gopal Krishna
Gokhale, his future mentor, for the first time. The year 1905 was marked by the Partition
of Bengal. This gave a fillip to the Swadeshi Movement, particularly in Bengal and
Maharashtra, both in its peaceful and revolutionary forms.
The following year, a Delegation of Muslims, led by Aga Khan, met Viceroy Minto, who
demanded special privileges to make up for the harsh treatment meted out to the Muslims
for their participation in the 1857 uprising. The Viceroy was more than receptive to their
demands. Following this, the Muslim League was established to “protect and advance the
political rights and interests of the Mussalmans of India”. The Aga Khan, though absent,
was elected the president at this Dacca meeting.
Jinnah, non-existent in the above development, was busy in Calcutta, working as secretary
to Dadabhai Naoroji presiding over the Congress session. He helped draft the Presidential
address that talked of ‘Swaraj’ for the first time. This reflected the new nationalist spirit,
though Swaraj, then, meant Dominion Status within the Empire.
In 1908, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, though politically not on the same side of the Moderate-
Extremist divide, engaged Jinnah to defend him at his sedition trial. Jinnah argued that it
was not sedition for an Indian to demand freedom and self-government in his own
country. Still, Tilak was convicted.
The Morley-Minto scheme of Reforms, given effect to in the Indian Councils Act 1909,
created a separate electorate for the Muslims and under a system of weightage, enabled
the Muslims to obtain more seats in the various councils than their population in the
country.
Jinnah was against separate electorates and, at the 1910 Allahabad Congress, condemned
its extension to the local bodies. Ironically, he was among the first batch of Muslims
chosen to represent the community under the new Act. In the Imperial Legislative Council,
he proved to be a worthy disciple and colleague of Gokhale. Together they got the
system of Indentured labour to South Africa abolished. Jinnah’s Wakf Validating Bill was
the first private bill to be enacted by the Council. Jinnah’s credentials as a liberal, secular
Moderate constitutionalist were well established by this time.
162 Gandhi: The Man and His Times

14.2.3 Congress-Muslim League Unity (1912-1920)

The year 1912 marked a liberal phase in the history of the Muslim League. President
Shafi presented the new Constitution and invited Jinnah to join the League. The next few
years saw Jinnah’s efforts to get the League closer to the Congress. In 1913, Jinnah
joined the Muslim League while continuing to be in the Congress. He belonged to the
Congress and the Muslim League, and was a respected figure not only in the Government
camp, but also in India and in England.
Sarojini Naidu, also a disciple of Gokhale, wrote a book Mohammed Ali Jinnah, an
Ambassador of Unity, in which she emphasised that Jinnah’s ambition was to follow in
the footsteps of Gokhale. Gokhale’s death in early 1915 followed by that of Pherozeshah
Mehta left Jinnah as the spokesman for the Moderate camp. Annie Besant and Tilak were
pioneering the Home Rule movement. A Congress liberal, Mazhar-ul-Huq, was presiding
over the Muslim League. Jinnah took upon himself the task of getting all these groups
together and set out to obtain consensus on the agreement that he had drawn up. The
object was “national unity which has brought Hindus and Muslims together, involving
brotherly service for the common course”. A.C.Mujumdar, presiding over the Lucknow
Congress session in 1916, welcomed Tilak’s new party. Tilak was willing to make
common cause with Gokhale’s disciple. The Muslim League and the All-India Congress
Committee resolved to make a joint demand for Representative Government in India.
The Congress made vital concessions to the Muslim sentiments, particularly the three main
demands of the Muslims, viz. separate electorates, extent of Muslim representation, and
the safeguards. In a way, the ‘Lucknow Pact’ endorsed the assumptions on which the
Morley-Minto reforms had enacted in 1909. This reflected the Hindu-Muslim unity in
making a common political demand on the British Government.
In August 1917, the Montague proclamation was issued: “The policy of His Majesty’s
Government is that of increasing the association of Indians in every branch of the
administration and the gradual development of self-governing institutions with a view to the
progressive realization of responsible government in India as an integral part of the British
empire…”
At that time, Gandhi was a mere witness to these events. Since his return from South
Africa he was trying to understand India. He was being slowly drawn into various local
movements- Champaran in Bihar, Kheda and Ahmedabad in Gujarat. At the Amritsar
Congress in 1919, Tilak, Gandhi and Jinnah, all received Montague’s initiatives with
enthusiasm.
But within weeks, the introduction of the Rowlatt Bill spoiled the situation. When Gandhi
tried to apply his ‘satyagraha’ technique, he realised that the masses needed to be trained
in non-violence. After some ‘Himalayan’ failures, and withdrawal of the non-cooperation
movement, Gandhi gradually convinced the Congress party of the soundness of his
philosophy.
Jinnah, however, could not accept Gandhi’s new approach. Muslims in India were pained
that following Turkey’s defeat in the war, Britain had taken over the holy places including
‘the Kaaba’. Britain had also gone back on their promise to protect the Khalifa. The
Muslims started a Movement to protect the Khilafat, and sought Gandhi’s guidance. The
Khilafat Movement had religious implications and Jinnah was against bringing religion into
politics. Gandhi saw in this an opportunity to get the Muslims into the mainstream
nationalist politics and to make them abide by non-violence. This was the first major
Jinnah and Savarkar 163

national non-violent mass uprising in history, but it also marked the parting of ways
between two powerful personalities. In 1920, at the special Calcutta session and then at
Nagpur, Gandhi took control of the Congress Party and restructured it. Jinnah felt
humiliated and left the Congress party.
14.2.4 Jinnah: Parting of Ways (1920-1930)
Jinnah continued to work for Hindu-Muslim unity. At the Muslim League sessions, he
would plead against a political party for Muslims. In the Imperial Legislative Council, he
would work in cooperation with Motilal Nehru. His objective, while presiding over the
1924 session of the League, was “a complete settlement between the Hindus and Muslims
as was done in 1916… without in any way being antagonistic to the Congress”.
In 1926, Motilal Nehru and Abul Kalam Azad floated the Indian National Union and
Jinnah, along with M.R.Jayakar, fought and won the elections on that ticket. When the
statutory Simon Commission was appointed in 1927, Gandhi called for a boycott and
nearly all leaders, including Jinnah, joined in. He was also in the All-parties Conference
that tried to respond to the British challenge and draft an acceptable constitution. The
Nehru Committee had compromised on Dominion status instead of Independence .It had
also, after much deliberation, suggested Joint Electorates.
Jinnah looked at Separate electorates as a necessary evil. He was willing to consider
other safeguards that would ensure protection to the minorities as an interim measure. In
March 1929, the Nehru Report came up for discussion at a meeting of the Muslim
League in Delhi. To accommodate the different schools of thought among the Muslims,
Jinnah moved a resolution containing ‘Fourteen Points’. At this stage, while a number of
safeguards were suggested to protect the Muslim as well as Hindu minorities as an interim
measure, the principle of Separate Electorates was being given up. But the Hindu
Mahasabha members in the Congress came in the way and an opportunity to do away
with separate electorates was lost.
Now, Jinnah, in danger of losing his grip over the Muslim League, withdrew. After its
ultimatum to the Government for accepting the Nehru Committee Report before 31
December 1928 was not heeded, the Lahore Session, with Jawaharlal Nehru as
president, passed the ‘Purna Swaraj’ resolution that marked a radical departure for the
Indian Nationalist movement. Further, Gandhi had undertaken the Dandi March. The
Satyagraha movement that enveloped India and the British oppression that followed
equally abhorred the constitutionalist Jinnah.
14.2.5 Round Table Conferences (1930-1932)
Jinnah and his associates, who had boycotted the Simon Commission, now inexplicably
accepted a nomination from the Viceroy for the drafting of a Constitution for this country
under direct British auspices.
Jinnah participated in the First Round Table Conference. He pointed out that “there were
four main parties sitting round the table now. There are the British party, the Indian
Princes, the Hindus and the Muslims.” Jinnah had recognised over the years a wide range
of special Muslim interests, needs, and demands; but this statement marked a new
departure and became a major theme of his Pakistan strategy.
In December 1930, when presiding over the Muslim League at Allahabad, Mohammed
Iqbal gave public expression to the idea of a northwest Muslim State, may be within the
Indian Federation. It marked a subtle beginning of the conception of Pakistan.
164 Gandhi: The Man and His Times

In December 1931, Jinnah again left for England. He participated in the Second Round
Table Conference, but stayed on in London and practised at the Privy Council. His
parting message to the Muslim youth contained an emphatic claim for communal rights and
safeguards, though he also repeated that communal unity was essential for Swaraj. The
discord between the Hindus and the Mussalmans was sapping the strength of India and
making the claim for self-government sound like hollow mockery. Jinnah appeared to
aggravate the disease deliberately, which he was most anxious to heal.
Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald had realised that it was difficult to find an answer to
the communal problem. On January 14, 1931, Aga Khan, Jinnah and Shafi called on the
Prime Minister and warned him that unless the Government’s policy statement contains an
announcement of satisfactory safeguards for the communities, most of the Muslim delegates
will dissociate themselves from the Conference.
M.C. Chagla, one of the closest associates of Jinnah tried to analyse: “Why did Jinnah
change? There could be many possible explanations for this. He had to be a leader, and
the prime mover in whatever cause he worked with. With the emergence of Gandhiji in
Indian Politics, Jinnah felt that his importance would gradually diminish. Jinnah was a
complete antithesis of Gandhiji. While Gandhiji believed in religion, in abstract moral
values, in non-violence, Jinnah only believed in hard practical politics.”
In 1934, Jinnah returned to India. The Government of India Act 1935 had given effect
to most of what he wanted. In view of the elections due in 1937, Jinnah announced the
formation of a Muslim League party to fight the elections. He fought the election on the
Muslim League manifesto claiming special treatment to the Muslims. The League did not
do too well and formed government in only three provinces while the Congress formed
ministries in most provinces.
So far, Jinnah had only the Congress to contend with. Hindu Mahasabha, like many other
groups in the twenties and the thirties, was under the Congress umbrella. Jinnah’s lawyer
friend M.R.Jayakar had strayed towards the Mahasabha. Savarkar too joined the battle
vigorously. Meanwhile, Jinnah determinedly argued on basis of his Two-Nation theory.

14.3 VINAYAK DAMODAR SAVARKAR

14.3.1 Early Years (1883-1906)
Vinayak, popularly known as Veer Savarkar, was born in Bhagur, near Nashik, on May
28, 1883, to Damodarpant and Radhabai. His father was well to do, knew English and
well versed in Indian classics. Though Savarkar was to become an advocate of casteless
society, his early years were conditioned by his pride in belonging to the Chitpavan
Brahmin heritage.
From his childhood he was inspired by the revolutionaries Wasudeo Balwant Phadke and
the Chapekar brothers, who had taken up arms against the British. The execution of
Chapekar brothers for the Rand Murder in 1899 had provoked Savarkar into the vow:
“...For the freedom of my country I shall, in armed warfare, be a martyr like Chapekar,
or become victorious like Shivaji, and crown my Motherland with Swaraj...To regain the
independence of my country I shall raise armed revolt, and shall fight till I die while killing
the enemy.”
Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak, a strong nationalist was editing the newspaper ‘Kesari’.
Savarkar, from his school days was familiar with the happenings reported therein. Tilak
Jinnah and Savarkar 165

believed in Hindu identity and Hindu Sanghatan. His political strategy was based on
‘Shatham prati shthyam’ and ‘Sadhananam Anekata’. Savarkar was influenced by both
the nationalist and Hindu sanghatan motivations.
Savarkar had, while at school in Nashik, started several groups. Rashtrabhakta Samooha
was a secret society. Its public face ‘Mitra Mela’ was started in January 1900. Soon
there were many Mitra Melas in Maharashtra. Savarkar wove these members into
‘Abhinav Bharat’, a secret society on the lines of Mazzini’s ‘Young Italy’.
When he joined Fergusson College in Pune, Savarkar had an opportunity to inspire
revolutionaries among the students and to work with Tilak in the Swadeshi Movement;
and started to protest against Viceroy Curzon’s Partition of Bengal in 1905. A bon fire
of foreign clothes was organised by Savarkar and Tilak addressed the procession. Tilak
recommended Savarkar for a scholarship to study in London that was arranged by Pandit
Shyamaji KrishnaVarma (1857-1930).

14.3.2 Savarkar in London (1906-1910)

Krishna Varma was a Sanskrit scholar who was deeply influenced by the founder of Arya
Samaj Maharshi Dayanand, Lokmanya Tilak and the sociologist Herbert Spencer. He had
started a journal Indian Sociologist, founded the Indian Home Rule League and set up
India House as a hostel for the young students.
Savarkar reached England in July 1906 ostensibly to study law but really in search of
revolutionaries from Russia, Ireland, Egypt and China, to learn how to organise a
revolutionary movement. Krishna Varma welcomed the young revolutionary with open
arms. Savarkar immediately set for himself certain tasks. He presented Mazzini’s philosophy
to the Marathi readership through translation and a long preface. He started a number of
Hindu and Sikh festivals in London, as also celebration of the Golden Jubilee of 1857
uprising. He set up Free India Society, which was open to all, but was meant to be a
conduit for Abhinav Bharat. He sent delegates to the International Socialist Union at
Stuttgart who unfurled India’s flag designed by him. Krishna Varma, while supporting all
these activities preferred the safety of France and left London’s India House in charge of
Savarkar. In the first issue of Talwar, an organ of the Abhinav Bharat, Savarkar had
predicted a war in Europe in 4 or 5 years. The liberation of India was to be achieved
by a preparation for war, which included:
i) The teaching of Swadeshi and boycott, imparting national education and creating a
national spirit;
ii) Purchasing and storing of weapons in neighbouring states;
iii) Opening of small bomb factories;
iv) Purchasing weapons in foreign countries and smuggling them into India;
v) Adopting guerrilla tactics whenever possible;
vi) Waiting for a favourable opportunity to rise in revolt; and
vii) Carrying patriotism and politics into the ranks of the Indian military forces and
seducing them.
Savarkar favoured the use of bombs and selective assassinations to terrorise the British.
When such events took place in India, Lord Morley authorised suppressive measures.
Tilak was sentenced to six years in jail and sent to Mandalay. This came as a thunderbolt
to the Indians in London.
166 Gandhi: The Man and His Times

One of Savarkar’s associates, Madanlal Dhingra, asked his leader, “whether the time for
martyrdom had really come.” Savarkar’s epigrammatic reply was: “If a martyr is
determined and ready, that fact by itself generally implies that the time for martyrdom must
have come.” Dhingra’s attempt to kill Lord Curzon, just returned from India, failed. But
he was successful in killing William Curzon-Willey, ADC to Lord Morley. This was just
a few days before Gandhi arrived in London for negotiations with the British Government.
Dhingra’s trial was a formality. He did not defend himself except through a written
statement that was drafted by Savarkar.
In 1906, Gandhi had visited India House and met Shyamaji and Savarkar. He visited
Savarkar even after the Dhingra episode. As they discussed the political situation, even
Gandhi’s lieutenants from South Africa were converted by Savarkar to his school of
violence. Savarkar clarified his position in Talwar started from Paris in November 1909:
“We feel no special love for secret organizations, or surprise and secret warfare. We feel
that whenever the open preaching and practicing of truth is banned by enthroned violence,
then alone secret societies and secret warfare are justified as the inevitable and indispensable
means to combat violence by force.”
Gandhi believed in total openness even with his oppressors. Despite their differences,
Gandhi presided over the Dussehra celebrations in London that Savarkar addressed. It
was agreed upon that neither side would refer to the controversial issues.
Consequently, Gandhi wrote Hind Swaraj, as an answer to the Indian School of Violence
and its prototype in South Africa. “I came in contact with every known anarchist in
London. Their bravery impressed me, but I felt that their zeal was misguided. I felt that
violence was no remedy for India’s ills.” Hind Swaraj can be read as a narration of
dialogue between Savarkar as the ‘Reader’ and Gandhi as the ‘Editor’.
The British Collector of Nashik, Jackson, was killed in December 1909. It was found
that the Brownie pistol that was used was sent by Savarkar from India House in London.
This led to Savarkar’s arrest. Savarkar’s strategy was to avoid a trial in India. The British
Court ruled otherwise. While he was being taken to India for the trial, Savarkar tried to
escape at Marseilles by jumping out of the porthole of the ship. He was rearrested on
the French soil and handed over to the British guard on the ship. Savarkar tried to make
‘jurisdiction’ an issue at his trial. The International Court of Justice in The Hague gave a
verdict in favour of Britain. Savarkar was ultimately sentenced to transportation for two
terms of life imprisonment, a total of 50 years in jail and sent to the Andaman Islands.
This marked the end of Savarkar’s revolutionary phase.

14.3.3 Savarkar in Andamans (1911-1920)

The hard life in the cellular jail transformed Savarkar in several respects. He discovered
that the Jail Administration had chosen Muslim warders over the largely Hindu prisoners.
He also found that religious conversions were being encouraged. Savarkar started
Shuddhi. This led to continuous confrontation. Finally, a truce had to be called. But such
events led to hardening of Savarkar’s attitude towards Muslims.
The second major change took place when the Secretary of State for India Montague
proclaimed the Government’s intention of gradual introduction of Responsible Government.
Then followed Montague’s Report in 1919. Savarkar sensed an opportunity to fight for
India’s freedom by constitutional means.
Jinnah and Savarkar 167

Savarkar was anxious to join the mainstream struggle in India. He made repeated
attempts to secure release, promising assistance in war effort and then in working the
proposed Reforms. In the May 26, 1920 Gandhi wrote in Young India pleading for the
release of Savarkar on the ground that he was no longer carrying on revolutionary activity.
Savarkar brothers were brought to India but kept in jail until 1924.
14.3.4 Savarkar and Hindutva (1920-1924)
While in Jail, Savarkar wrote the Essentials of Hindutva. He made a distinction between
various terms Hinduism, Hindutva and Hindudom. Hindutva, he defined, as far more
comprehensive, referring not only to the religious aspects of the Hindu people as the word
‘Hinduism’ does, but also their cultural, linguistic, social and political aspects. He mentions
two important criteria: India as a Pitrubhumi and India as a Punyabhumi. He shows
how the Bauddhas, Jains, Sikhs, Lingayats and the so-called untouchables and tribals, all
fall within this category. He replaced the Veda-oriented definition of Tilak (to include non-
vedic sects and religions) and the territorial definition of an Indian as assumed by the
Congress (to exclude the Muslims). He defined India as a territory indicated by the river
Indus on the one hand and the Oceans on the other (Asindhusindhu paryantah).
Further, he reasoned out how the Christians, the Parsis and the Jews are not antagonistic.
He viewed Muslims as owing extra-territorial loyalty to the Turkish Khalifa. At the end
of the War, when the British ill-treated Turkey, most Indian leaders, for different reasons,
supported the Khilafat. Gandhi’s support, in particular, upset Savarkar.
He enunciated Hindu Nationalism as the basis of the Indian nation. He disliked the special
privileges that were granted to Muslims by the British and endorsed by the Congress in
association with the Muslim League in the Tilak-Jinnah Lucknow Pact of 1916.

14.3.4 Savarkar and the Hindu Sanghatan (1924-1937)

Savarkar was released from jail, but kept under detention in Ratnagiri, on condition that
he would not indulge in any political activity; he decided to devote himself to Hindu
Sanghatan. He began working for the Hindu Sabha, started by his elder brother Babarao,
as a non-political body.
Savarkar wanted to integrate the untouchables into Hindu fold as a part of the Hindu
Sanghatan. He spent most of his time for this and used innovative methods. He started
a restaurant to be run by the Untouchables; he built Patit Pavan Mandir as a pan-Hindu
temple, he found new professions for them such as playing in a band and arranged for
sahabhojan cutting across castes. He restarted Shuddhi movement to reconvert those
who had been converted to Islam or Christianity by inducement, coercion or deception.
Despite his pride in the Hindu religion, Savarkar identified seven shackles that have tied
up Hindu community socially: Vedoktabandi, Sindhubandi, Shuddhibandi, Vyavasyabandi,
Sparshabandi, Rotibandi and Betibandi, which he wanted to fight against.
In March 1927, Gandhi visited Ratnagiri and met Savarkar. Gandhi sensed the latter’s
revolutionary zeal and felt it could be used for some constructive purpose under the
changed circumstances. While there was some congruence in their views on social issues,
there was considerable divergence on issues like shuddhi. Gandhi was as much against
re-conversion as against conversion.
During the Ratnagiri period, Savarkar was continuously warned that his sentence of life
transportation was not lifted. This prevented him from anti-British political activity. To
168 Gandhi: The Man and His Times

some extent, the British were able to tame Savarkar. Now, his political writings were
directed more against the Muslims and against Gandhi, whom he treated as a British
loyalist and a Muslim apologist. Savarkar did not endorse the ‘Salt Satyagraha’ movement
called by the congress.

14.3.5 Savarkar and the Hindu Rashtra (1937-1943)

Savarkar’s younger brother, Dr. Narayan was active in the Congress, and invited
Vinayakrao to join it but the latter chose not to. Babarao’s ‘Hindu’ influence became
more significant for him. In his presidential addresses to the Hindu Mahasabha, Savarkar
explained his Hindutva thesis elaborately. He mentioned that two antagonist nations were
living in India, side by side. He pointed out that Gandhi’s Congress was assuming that
the two communities had actually merged while it was only their dream. He felt that
acceptance of ‘Hindutva’ was essential for Indians.
He appealed to his followers to join the military. When the Second World War started
in 1939, he was happy at the opportunity for Hindus to learn military skills at the expense
of the British rulers, to be used against them later. He equally welcomed the opportunity
offered by the Japanese through the Indian National Army.

14.4 JINNAH: TWO NATION RESOLUTION 1940 AND

AFTER
In Sind, Bengal and the Punjab, the Muslim League formed ministries with the help of
other parties, including Hindu Mahasabha and the Congress, but where the Congress had
won majority they formed their own ministries. In the United Provinces, there was an
understanding that the Congress and the League would collaborate. But the Congress
preferred to go ahead and formed its own ministry. There developed a feeling that this
ministry was unfair to the Muslims.
When the Viceroy brought India into the war without consulting the provincial ministries,
the Congress decided to give up office and resigned from the Legislature. Jinnah asked
the Muslims to observe Friday, December 22, 1939 as the Day of Deliverance.
At the 1940 Lahore session of the Muslim League, Jinnah’s presidential address was
emphatic and the Muslim League passed the Pakistan resolution. India, which was one
country, and the people of India who constituted one nation till then, was as per Jinnah
becoming two separate nations.
With Jinnah and Savarkar talking of the Two Nations in India, the problem was getting
aggravated. In various attempts to solve the problem raised by Jinnah’s demand of
Pakistan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad and Jinnah had reached an agreement. But Jinnah insisted
on its being approved by the Hindu Mahasabha, which promptly vetoed it.
During the War period, there were different views propagated by different leaders. There
were those who wanted to take advantage of the problems the British were facing.
Subhash Bose escaped from detention, and, with the help of Germans and the Japanese,
built up the Indian National Army to fight the British. Some others wanted to help the
British in the war effort against the Japanese, making Freedom a post-war condition. In
1942, Stafford Cripps came to India with proposals that assured ‘Freedom’ on termination
of the War. These also included seeds of autonomy for provinces, enabling the Provinces
to opt out. Gandhi described Cripps Proposals as ‘Post-dated cheques on a crashing
Jinnah and Savarkar 169

Bank.’ Gandhi’s view was that the Japanese had no reason to eye India except the British
presence. He wanted the British to ‘Quit India’ and let the Indians handle the Japanese
threat and all other problems.
In August 1942, Gandhi decided on a mass movement. Jinnah’s reaction was against the
movement. He viewed it as an attempt to coerce the British to hand over the transfer of
power to the Hindu majority, leaving the minorities and others at the mercy of the
Congress rule.
Jinnah’s strategy was to call Congress a party of the Hindus and Savarkar accused
Gandhi of being pro-Muslim; Ambedkar would not let Gandhi speak for the Untouchables.
That Gandhi represented large masses of Indians, irrespective of religion or caste or class,
was conveniently ignored by the British, who had their own interests to protect.
Gandhi and its important leaders were imprisoned. This gave an opportunity to Jinnah and
the Muslim League to consolidate their position and win the post-war elections. The same
could not be said of the Hindu Mahasabha. In spite of repeated appeals by Savarkar for
Hindus to vote against the Congress and for the Hindu Sanghatan, the Hindu Mahasabha
was unsuccessful.
Though there were numerous efforts at negotiations that would lead to smooth transfer of
power, various political and communal groups stuck to their rigid stance. This enabled the
British to monitor the events to serve their own ends. At the end of the War and with
the Labour party coming to power in Great Britain, India’s independence could be taken
for granted. The problem was to whom the power be transferred. The clumsy negotiations,
the communal riots and the impatience of the leaders, who had taken part in a long
drawn freedom struggle finally led to the partition of the country.
Freedom meant different things to different leaders and parties. For Gandhi, it meant self-
rule and self-control for all Indians. For Savarkar it was ‘Hindu-hita’ (Welfare of the
Hindus). For Ambedkar social justice for the Depressed Classes was more important than
political freedom for India, to restrain the tyranny of caste Hindus. For Jinnah formation
of Pakistan out of Muslim majority seemed to define India’s Freedom.
Gandhi was insistent that even if the country is to be partitioned, it should be done
voluntarily by a free India. He hoped that the British policy of ‘Divide and Rule’ would
fail and that Indians would prefer to live together.
After intense negotiations, it was decided to partition the country and Pakistan was
founded few hours before India’s ‘Tryst with Destiny’ on the midnight of 14-15 August
1947. Jinnah became the first Governor General of the new Nation Pakistan. He died the
next year.

14.5 SAVARKAR: POSTSCRIPT (1948-1966)

What led to India’s freedom will always be a debatable issue. Did the armed efforts
made by revolutionaries and the threat posed by the Indian National Army and the Naval
Mutiny play a part? Savarkar and his admirers like to believe this. The Constitutionalists
think that this is a natural culmination of the Queen’s Declaration of 1857 and Montague’s
Proclamation of 1917. There can be little doubt that the mass movement spearheaded by
Gandhi and the Congress not only led to a smooth transfer of power but also to a
continuity in administration that has proved unique amongst all the colonies.
170 Gandhi: The Man and His Times

For Savarkar and Gandhi, ‘Akhanad Hindusthan’ was important for different reasons.
Savarkar remarked that “From ‘Quit India’ the Congress has inevitably landed on ‘Split
India’. The story of Partition of India is too complicated to apportion the blame. Jinnah,
as father of Pakistan, would proudly claim credit for it. Savarkar‘s followers put the
blame at the doorstep of the Congress. However, it was also Savarkar’s own inability to
influence the course of events.
When freedom came on 15 August 1947, Savarkar unfurled the new National flag along
with the ‘Bhagwa jaripataka’ on his terrace, all alone. The grief of Partition kept
gnawing at Savarkar’s followers. Few months later, on 30 January 1948 Gandhi was
killed by Nathuram Godse. In the Trial, Savarkar too figured as one of the eight accused.
Apart from the approver Badge, Savarkar was the only person acquitted since there was
no evidence against his role. The matter did not end there. Some legal matters were not
thoroughly explored. Efforts were made officially and unofficially to fill the gaps. A
commission was appointed by notification of March 22, 1965 and the enquiry conducted
by Justice Jivanlal Kapur. Savarkar’s role became highly contentious and remains so to
this day. The later part of his life was spent in giving intermittent speeches and writings.
He died on 26th February, 1966 due to ill-health.

14.6 SUMMARY
Jinnah and Savarkar represented two different ideologies that had a profound influence on
some of the sections of their communities. While the former stood for Muslim assertion,
the latter sought a Hindu Rashtra. Gandhi was opposed to both the stands as he felt it
was the amalgamation of these communities that would ensure the existence of a peaceful
society. Nonetheless, they did play a significant role in shaping the history of the nation.
These influences resonate to this day though not to the extent of inflicting irreparable
damages. The only common thread that tied all the communities together was the
achievement of freedom in a non-violent, peaceful manner and this mode of leadership
was successfully spearheaded by Gandhi.

14.7 TERMINAL QUESTIONS

1. Briefly examine Jinnah’s early political career and his efforts to forge Congress-
Muslim League unity.
2. Discuss briefly Jinnah’s parting way with Congress and his demand for a separate
nation.
3. Examine the early influences on Savarkar that shaped his ideological leanings.
4. Elucidate Savarkar’s scheme of a Hindu Rashtra.

SUGGESTED READINGS
1. ‘Vinayak Damodar Savarkar: Samagra Savarkar’ Volumes 1 to 10, 1993-1994,
Savarkar Prakashan, Mumbai
2. Keer, Dhananjay., Veer Savarkar, Popular Prakashan, Mumbai, 1966
3. Walport, Stanley., Jinnah of Pakistan, Oxford University Press, Mumbai, 2000
4. Majumdar, A.C., Jinnah and Gandhi, Minerva Publications, Kolkata
5. Pyarelal and Sushila Nayar., Mahatma Gandhi, Volumes 1 to 10,Navajivan Publishing
House, Ahmedabad (1956-1995).