Page 15 to 104, has been so confusing. That part of the Book has the author’s writing, but the it is so messed up that it is not clear what part is the view of the Author, and what part is just she quoting the writings of Lila Bhan (pages 123 onwards). This Book is primarily based on the writings of Smt Lila Bhan, and some portion is based on the quotes from VP Menon’s Book (IOIS), and some from the quotes from CWMG (Collected Works of MG).
But the point is, the beginning of the Book is so messed up.
Part 1 - Part 3 (i.e. Page 15-88) in particular, is so badly written. It quotes 3 different books/writings and mixes those up with author’s own views. And the commentaries are made in jumbled sequence numbering which is so confusing. For example, on page 27 is a section with title “section IV RCK paper”, it had point 38, 40, and it goes to Section I point 18,19 etc. On page 55, is “Section VI”, it has point 4,5,6,7, and after point 7, comes some other content with point 10,11,12….16, and next point is 26!! And lo and behold, “Section VI” point 8, makes it entry NOW on page 64! Now, on page 64, there is point 8,9 and then 12!! Page 65 has two sections titled “Section 1”!! And on page 70, there comes “Section V”, with point 41, 42.
Hope you get that. The writing is so messed up in this section. It is as if the author has taken an oath to play with the minds of readers. These serious stuffs of Historical matters, are anyway a bit difficult to understand, so effort should have been made to write about them in an easy to understand way, in stead, the author has put least effort in that direction.
Now, about the views expressed by the author in this part of the Book (uptil Page 104):- I found it a bit motivated against Gandhi and Nehru and also found it to have completely ignored Patel’s role.
The Book starts by putting the blame of partition on Gandhi (by alienating Muslims and by his flip-flop stand on the Cabinet Mission plan). It then moves on to putting the blame of the J&K’s delayed accession on Gandhi. The basic premise is that PM of J&K opposed the accession due to Congress and Gandhi’s support and propping of Sheikh Abdullah (termed “Jihadi” Abdullah at times). The author has primarily contested the issue on J&K historically being a Hindu region, even though at the time of partition having over 75% Muslims. The author has also claimed that Sheikh Abdullah actually had his own nefarious intentions, and that was realized by Nehru too in 1953 when he jailed him, by which time it was already too late, in the sense that had Congress not supported Sheikh Abdullah, J&K’s PM would have supported accession to India in 1946 itself.
What I found odd about the author’s views, is that it focusses too much on “India being a Hindu Rashtra” and trying to justify things based on that. The word “Jihadi” has been used so liberally in the Book that I am sure it must be the most repeated word in the book! The author also conveniently gives a free hand to Sardar Patel both on the issue of partition, as well as on the issue of J&K’s accession. The author does question the silence and inaction of Patel, but at one point it justifies it by associating a cause to it and at another, it just questions it but let it slide. So while it just questions Patel’s silence and inaction, it actively criticises and vilifies Gandhi and Nehru. The author also opined that Gandhi came out harshly against Princely states, which I think is an illogical argument. The author actually critiqued the “western ideas of secularism, democracy…” at one point, thereby supporting the Kingdom like rule over Democracy. So all those views of the author has come out so odd and archaic. She doesn’t seem to have analysed it in light of how Congress worked at that time- with thought on secularism, democracy, people’s participation etc.
The real content of the Book lies between page 123 to 158. That part contains “Print copy of the original document received from Smt. Lila Bhan”. That is the part, where Pandit Ramchandra Kak’s daughter has written her views in a sequential manner, and she has put forth her views based on the writings of her father only. That section has the actual content, the real content in understandable way. I wish the author had simply written in the beginning only, to just skip to page 123.
Talking of this section, so many facts come up, and Pandit RCK’s views have been presented via her daughter. The basic argument is that J&K’s ruling was all great, and Sheikh Abdullah just came in between to push his own agenda (to have his own separate “principality”, taking support of Congress). Pandit RCK’s side has been explained really well, though at times, I felt things have been dealt in a bit more simplistic ways. That said, the Book rightly blames Mountbatten for the J&K’s accession issue. Clearly, Mountbatten had his own agenda (British interests), as is clear by reading several other books too. But then Nehru and Patel had hardly any way out. The Book unjustifiable blames Nehru for keeping Mountbatten in India with all the vested power, even after independence. Other books on the matter explains why it was unavoidable.
Nevertheless, this Book throws lots of new facts, gives lot of new insights.
But the first part of the Book got spoilt by author’s motivated views and bad style of writing. Here are some examples:-
" Islamic separatism and jihad which is organized in Pakistan and launched across national borders into Jammu and Kashmir— in the exact same manner in which Congress-ruled provinces organized the destabilizing mission inside their borders and launched them across borders into the adjoining Princely States. "
"a triumphant Gandhi and the INC instigated civil unrest in several Princely States in the name of civil liberties, temple entry and "responsible government". There was Congress-triggered unrest in Mysore, Travancore, Kashmir, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Rajkot, Talcher and Dhenkanal."
"Gandhi decried western civilization in the much-touted Hind Swaraj but sought extinction of India's Hindu Princely States for western notions of democracy, secularism, civil liberties and "responsible governance". Hindu nationalists must begin to understand Gandhi's Indian National Congress for what it had become after the passing away of Tilak—a de-Hinduised social reform instrument driven by non-Hindu political ideas."
If someone reads this book in isolation, it may spread misinformation, it is very important to read this Book only after reading a few other books on India's partition. Just talking from the point of view of the then PM of J&K, the book presents a one-sided picture, since it tries to defend PM Ramchandra Kak so hard. Completely focussed on putting RCK's view, and in attacking Gandhi and Nehru, the Book fails to look at the issue with larger perspective. That said, it does throw some good insights, like how Congress got befooled by Sheikh Abdullah and how his friend Nehru himself ordered to jail him in 1953.
