Nehru's Treachery in derailment of Cabinet Mission Plan in 1946

[Pakistanisage]

I would like to hear Member's view of the reasons behind Nehru's reversal on first approving the Cabinet Mission Plan and few weeks later pulling the rug from under it. I ask members to give their candid and objective view and refrain from emotional outburst.

 

[arslan_treen]

Since Nehru is considered a national hero of nearly a billion people i would recommend a bit politically correct heading of "Nehru's part" rather then treachery this will help you in getting reasonable response !!

 

[debottam]

Congress's objection was on the nature of the plan. While it did talk about a united India in terms of defense and foreign policy, there were supposed to be two autonomous Muslim majority province groupings at the North West and Eastern part of the country. But both areas demarcated in the plan had large non-Muslim population. In the eastern group comprising of present day Bangladesh, most of North East India and Indian Bengal, 45% of the total population was non-Muslim. In the North-Western group roughly comprising of Pakistan minus Kalat, Indian Punjab, Hariyana and Himachal Pradesh 38% of the population was non-Muslim. In this situation there was strong opposition within Congress against allowing Muslim League full control over these territories particularly when League didn't even win the electoral majority in the North-Western states except in Sindh in the 1946 elections.

Moreover the plan allowed the provinces and even the Princely states the right to secede after a period of 10 years. This was an absolute threat to the unity of the country and League's propensity to exploit the communal divide in the previous years raised the fear that eventually the League will indeed demand a separate country and non-Muslims in the two territories will be jeopardized.

Despite these objections the Congress leadership initially accepted the plan to keep the country in one piece. But the counter currents within Congress remained and they eventually came out when on 10th July 1946 Nehru commented that the terms and conditions of the plan were flexible and may be changed in the future. This practically amounted to disapproval of the plan and it prompted Jinnah to withdraw.

It's the points mentioned above that drove Nehru to make that comment.

 

[Tshering22]

Since Nehru is considered a national hero of nearly a billion people i would recommend a bit politically correct heading of "Nehru's part" rather then treachery this will help you in getting reasonable response !!

Are you kidding me? !! Nehru is considered the lowest, cheapest, characterless scum in this country by almost everyone. The only people who used to consider him as an icon are Congressis (to this day), leftists/secularists and innocent villagers and farmers who are given a false image.

Any common modern educated Indian other than these (which are only a small minority in numbers) would be rolling on the floor with laughter if you ask him or her that Nehru was a "hero".

 

[Speaker]

Are you kidding me? !! Nehru is considered the lowest, cheapest, characterless scum in this country by almost everyone. The only people who used to consider him as an icon are Congressis (to this day), leftists/secularists and innocent villagers and farmers who are given a false image.

Any common modern educated Indian other than these (which are only a small minority in numbers) would be rolling on the floor with laughter if you ask him or her that Nehru was a "hero".

That may be an exaggeration. A lot of his policies were conservative and held India back (socialism, lack of population control) but they did provide the foundation from which India has built itself in the last 20 years. But this topic is on his so called "treachery" in which both him, Jinnah and many other politicians were equally complicit.

 

[desiman]

Are you kidding me? !! Nehru is considered the lowest, cheapest, characterless scum in this country by almost everyone. The only people who used to consider him as an icon are Congressis (to this day), leftists/secularists and innocent villagers and farmers who are given a false image.

Any common modern educated Indian other than these (which are only a small minority in numbers) would be rolling on the floor with laughter if you ask him or her that Nehru was a "hero".

Nehru is a hero and you cant deny it, what he did for India is truly great. Without him India would have suffered the same fate as Pakistan, end up in the hands of a few feudals and the army. Without a socialistic and communistic base, India would have been run over by corporations and would never have been stable, its government would have become a mere puppet. Its because of the leadership of Nehru that India is where it is today, please do some research before you speak on behalf of a billion Indians.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

Are you kidding me? !! Nehru is considered the lowest, cheapest, characterless scum in this country by almost everyone. The only people who used to consider him as an icon are Congressis (to this day), leftists/secularists and innocent villagers and farmers who are given a false image.

Any common modern educated Indian other than these (which are only a small minority in numbers) would be rolling on the floor with laughter if you ask him or her that Nehru was a "hero".

Lets consider 3 cases.

Case 1 : Nehru existed and he was the man we knew.
The one who chased Mountbatten wife, screwed the army, screwed the economy , naive etc etc.But also upheld one our pillars which integrates India :secularism.

Case 2 : Nehru was the man we excepted him to be, a strong, shrewd and belligerent leader
The closest analogy is his daughter. who despite 1971 has her share blunders like:economic policy, Bluestar, supporting insurgents etc.

Case 3: Nehru never got a chance to lead India at the beginning.
Closest example look at Pakistan , what happened because of premature death of Jinnah, they could have developed like Turkey under him


We can't choose from the above as it all past. we learn from the above to choose for our future wisely.

 

[debottam]

Are you kidding me? !! Nehru is considered the lowest, cheapest, characterless scum in this country by almost everyone. The only people who used to consider him as an icon are Congressis (to this day), leftists/secularists and innocent villagers and farmers who are given a false image.

Any common modern educated Indian other than these (which are only a small minority in numbers) would be rolling on the floor with laughter if you ask him or her that Nehru was a "hero".

India without Nehru -
1. A Hindu theocracy with re-instituted child marriage and polygamy
2. Non-Hindi speaking people declared traitors for not speaking the 'Rashtra Bhasha'
3. Widespread violence against minorities. Lower caste and tribals declared subhuman
4. And India now consists of only North Indian states. The South and Bengal seceded in 1965 after USA intervened

Now if you please, lets get back to the topic. I agree Nehru did make mistakes in economic and foreign policies but those warrant a separate post.

 

[acetophenol]

i won't consider Nehru as a scum.

 

[Meengla]

Most Pakistanis, like me, are brought up to believe that indeed the Congress Party committed treachery. In a way, it was: Going back on your commitment to an agreed plan.
My understand is that what the Muslim League wanted was far more than the Muslim population ratio could have given to the Muslim League. And initially the Congress, in order to preserve the Union, agreed to those rather over-ambitious demands. It's all water under the bridge. But had the Congress continued with their agreement then today their wouldn't be two separate countries at each other's throats.
We in the Sub-continent like to blame the Britishers for their 'Divide and Rule'. Valid to an extent but I think our own leaders could be blamed for far more than that.

As to Nehru, I wish Pakistan had Jinnah or Liaqat Ali Khan or some other founding father survived and be in power like Nehru for at least ten years. Despite all the errors of Nehru, India had a unity of policies and governance. However wrong they were. Much like in China where even the wrong policies of the Great Leap Forward or the Cultural Revolution etc did not cause too much instability. In Pakistan's case there were simply too many rulers in the 50's alone.

 

[alphamale]

the position of congress was right because they were fighting for unified india & it turned out to be a good decision coz if nehru had agreed then we would have faced a bloody civil war in india after 1947 which surely would have killed 10 times the ppl killed in 1947 riots.

 

[asad71]

1.Various books have been written on the events of the time. British Govt papers have been declassified. Maulana Azad, Khan Abdul Wali Khan and Jaswant Singh are only a few who have written on the events. Nehru was the WCC/British man on the spot. Because of his family background - from the time of his pro-British grand father Kotwal of Delhi during the 1857 Uprising to a very pro-Raj father, to an education enslaving him to British culture and customs, Nehru was very much a British stooge. The British Govt had planned to divide and leave Hindustan in a way that the new born nations would quarrel among themselves for ever. The British would then be able to exploit SA economically, culturally and even politically for their benefit.

2. The British Govt had sent a charmer Mountbatten with clear direction. That he had a promiscuous wife helped. All missions and plans and formulas circulated were false flag. The real plan of division was brought by Mountbatten's Secretary, Pethick Lawrence.

 

[Bhairava]

Lets consider 3 cases.

Case 1 : Nehru existed and he was the man we knew.
The one who chased Mountbatten wife, screwed the army, screwed the economy , naive etc etc.But also upheld one our pillars which integrates India :secularism.

I disagree..what binds India is NOT secularism but oneself identifying with the 5000+ year old culture of this land and the subcultures that derive from the common theme.. It is that "Bharat" ness that has kept India united and not any other thing. India is not just a political entity that arose out of blue 60 years ago...it is a culture spread over millenia that was given a political identity 60 years ago.

Infact the particular model of secularism that we follow is anything but a boon.

I'll give Nehru credit on one plane..he laid a solid foundation on the administrative model, did not allow the fledgling democracy to be overthrown and built many universities,dams that are the temples of a modern nation.

That's it. In all other cases he was nothing but a blunder upon blunder..especially in defence and foreign relations.

Case 2 : Nehru was the man we excepted him to be, a strong, shrewd and belligerent leader
The closest analogy is his daughter. who despite 1971 has her share blunders like:economic policy, Bluestar, supporting insurgents etc.

No one expected him to be a belligerent leader...but a strong leader...but he was not.

Case 3: Nehru never got a chance to lead India at the beginning.
Closest example look at Pakistan , what happened because of premature death of Jinnah, they could have developed like Turkey under him

The ideal case....Sardar Patel would have been the Prime Minister and one thing I know India would have been definitely better under him.

 

[debottam]

1.Various books have been written on the events of the time. British Govt papers have been declassified. Maulana Azad, Khan Abdul Wali Khan and Jaswant Singh are only a few who have written on the events. Nehru was the WCC/British man on the spot. Because of his family background - from the time of his pro-British grand father Kotwal of Delhi during the 1857 Uprising to a very pro-Raj father, to an education enslaving him to British culture and customs, Nehru was very much a British stooge. The British Govt had planned to divide and leave Hindustan in a way that the new born nations would quarrel among themselves for ever. The British would then be able to exploit SA economically, culturally and even politically for their benefit.

2. The British Govt had sent a charmer Mountbatten with clear direction. That he had a promiscuous wife helped. All missions and plans and formulas circulated were false flag. The real plan of division was brought by Mountbatten's Secretary, Pethick Lawrence.

Nonsense!!!

The guy spent years in British jail. Starting from early 30s from time to time. British stooge? Yeah right.

The British Govt had planned to divide and leave Hindustan in a way that the new born nations would quarrel among themselves for ever.

Yes British started the fight over Kashmir and asked the Pakistanis to exploit Bangladeshis and tempted Indian BSF to maintain a shoot at sight order at the border with BD.

The British Govt had sent a charmer Mountbatten with clear direction. That he had a promiscuous wife helped. All missions and plans and formulas circulated were false flag.

Now that you have access to the secret documents let me clear this up for you. The fact that so many people believe this absolute baseless propaganda that the British divided India really baffles me. The whole cabinet mission plan was indeed a serious attempt by the British to keep the country in one piece. How much else do you expect from an alien occupying power? And it was rejected by, guess who, Indians.

Put the blame where it lies. Blame the British for economic exploitation or Bengal famine, fine. But give it a break when it comes to partition.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

The ideal case....Sardar Patel would have been the Prime Minister and one thing I know India would have been definitely better under him.

But Iron man of India passed away 3 years after our independence.