AMU-Jinnah portrait row: Clueless govt seeks papers on Independence, Partition as RTI petitioner seeks certified copies

New Delhi: Amid the row over Muhammad Ali Jinnah portrait in Aligarh Muslim University, the officers in Prime Minister’s Office(PMO), Ministry of External Affairs and Ministry of Culture are busy in tracing the documents related to India’s independence and Partition of Pakistan. While political parties are at each other’s throat, babus are struggling to answer simple questions – how did we get the freedom and who signed on the Partition papers. The government machinery was startled by an RTI application filed by Madan Lal Narula, who had asked the PMO to provide certified copies of all written documents and allied information pertaining to Partition of India on 14th and 15th August 1947, certified copies of official papers bearing signatures of all the authorities, freedom fighters, politicians before Pakistan came into existence. The PMO replied no such documents were available and the matter was escalated to the Central Information Commission (CIC). The government has argued that only document they could think of related to Independence and Partition, was ‘Indian Independence Act, 1947’ that was passed by the British Parliament.

The government said it is still looking to reasonably respond to the questions – ‘who granted us freedom? Did Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru sign any papers? Is there any pact regarding the Independence of India? How was the power transferred from the British queen to India and personalities associated with the process?

Sources in the PMO said they have asked concerned departments and ministries including Ministry of Culture to trace the documents that could address the issue of Independence and Partition raised by the applicant.

The CIC in its ruling has directed the PMO and Ministry of External Affairs to find out the documents that could satisfy these important questions and seek help from India office in the UK or with UK authorities in tracking the valuable piece of documents. The CIC also observed that independence could not have been achieved through a pact and appellant (RTI Applicant) request for information needs serious attention.

“The people who question who gave us independence, that independence means really ‘independence’ and it does not mean ‘grant’ or ‘pact’ etc. People of India are proud that their leaders achieved it, and not begged for anybody’s grant. The appellant raised an important issue of tracing documents regarding the transfer of power, which is an interesting research question that should have been authentically answered,” the CIC said directing the PMO and Ministry of External Affairs to collect all authentic documents.

When contacted by the Firstpost, applicant Narula, a resident of Ferozepur Punjab said he has also asked for the certified copies related to Kashmir and correspondence of then prime minister Nehru with other concerned personalities on the issue.

“It is important to know what transpired behind the scene. What communications took place within the British government machinery before freedom fighter Bhagat Singh was hanged? The freedom was achieved by our leaders and there was a long process which must have been documented and we need to know about it,” Narula said.

Independence Act

Independence Act passed in the UK Parliament partitioned British India into the two new independent dominions of India and Pakistan. The act received the royal assent on 18th July 1947. The act said: the dominion of India may be regarded as an expression of the desire for self-government of the all people in India, and the dominion of Pakistan as the expression of the demand for self-government by the Muslims and the 15th August was declared as the appointed day for the Partition. The act further said the legislature of each dominion was given full powers to make laws for that dominion, including laws having extraterritorial operation.

“No act of Parliament of UK passed after the appointed date would be extended to the territories of new dominions. The title of emperor of India was dropped from the titles of the British crown. The treaty relations between Britain and the Indian states would come to an end, and on 15th August 1947 the suzerainty of the British crown was to lapse. They would be free to accede to one or the other of the new dominions,” salient features of the act said.

Subsequently, the India Independence Act was repealed by the Article 395 of the Constitution of India and Article 221 of the Constitution of Pakistan of 1956 to obtain true independence for the new states. Though technically the new Constitutions did not have ‘authority’ to repeal this act, it was done to sever the legal chain of validity and establish the Constitution as an independent legal system. CIC said: “It is also mentioned in various sources that the legislation was formulated by the government of Prime Minister Clement Attlee and the governor general of India, Lord Mountbatten, after representatives of the Indian National Congress (Jawahar Lal Nehru, Vallabhbhai Patel and Acharya Kripalani), the Mulsim League (Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Liaqat Ali Khan and Abdul Rab Nishtar, and the Sikh Community (Sardar Baldev Singh) came to an agreement with the viceroy of India, Lord Mountbatten of Burma, on what has come to be known as the 3 June plan or Mountbatten plan. This plan was the last plan for the independence.”

Jinnah documents

On 6 December 1945, Jinnah made a speech, which is now part of the records with the UK government. Jinnah citing breakdown of the Simla Conference on 15 July 1945 invoked Stafford Cripps statement saying there will be no agreement possible till the Pakistan issue is solved. Jinnah said: “Muslim India will never accept any method of framing the Constitution of India by means of one Constitution-making body for all India, in which the Mussulmans will be in a hopeless minority and the conclusions are foregone in such an assembly. Nor will they agree to any united India Constitution, federal or otherwise, with one Centre, in which, again, they will be in a hopeless minority, and will be at the mercy of the perennial Hindu majority domination. Further, any attempt to set up a Provisional Government at the Centre, which would in any way prejudice or militate against the Pakistan demand, will not be acceptable to us, as the thin end of the wedge, as it is sought by Hindu India under the term of the Provisional “National” Government of India….it is high time that the British Government applied their mind definitely to the division of India and the establishment of Pakistan and Hindustan, which means freedom for both, whereas a united India means slavery for Mussulmans and complete domination of the imperialistic caste Hinduraj throughout this sub-continent, and this is what the Hindu Congress seeks to attain by constant threats to all and sundry, and this is what we are determined to resist with all that lies in our power.”

There is another letter available with the UK government, which throws light on Jinnah’s exercise for Partition. On 9 February 1946, Jinnah wrote to Stafford Cripps from his 10 Aurangzeb Road house seeking immediate resolution for a new state-Pakistan. Jinnah wrote: “The Government should, without any further delay, make a clear declaration of its policy accepting Pakistan as the only solution of India’s constitutional problem and I am hopeful that once the principle has been accepted the details can be adjusted…..the idea of a single Constitution-making body is fundamentally opposed to the basic principles that the Muslim League has declared times out of number. It will be perfectly futile to force such a measure upon Muslim India, as it must result in disaster, not to say that it will be a breach of the solemn declaration of August, 1940 and the repeated assurances of His Majesty’s Government to that effect, given from time to time.”

A speech of Jinnah is also part of the record that was made on 4 May 1947, just months before India was decolonised. Jinnah said: “the question of a division of India, as proposed by the Muslim League, is based on the fundamental fact that there are two nations- Hindus and Muslims- and the underlying principle is that we want a national home and a national state in our homelands which are predominately Muslim and compromise the six units of the Punjab, the N.W.F.P., Sind, Baluchistan, Bengal and Assam.”

A month later on 4 June 1947 Lord Mountbatten, the Viceroy came on the radio to announce the Partition saying the transfer of power is to be effected in a peaceful and orderly manner, every single individual must bend all his efforts to the task.

“This is no time for bickering, much less for the continuation in any shape or form of the disorders and lawlessness of the past few months. Do not forget what a narrow margin of food we are all working on. We cannot afford any toleration of violence. All of us are agreed on that.”

There is also excerpts from Stafford Cripps earlier statement on Britain’s position on India that was made on 27 July 1942, who argued that Muslims are opposed to Hindu domination. “The Moslems, of whom there are at least 80 million, are deeply opposed to Hindu domination as are also the tens of millions of the depressed classes. To have agreed to the Congress party or to Mr. Gandhi’s demands would have meant inevitable chaos and disorder. This is not merely my assertion, it is stated by Mr. Gandhi himself. Quite recently he has said: “Anarchy is the only way. Someone asked me if there would be anarchy after British rule. Yes, it will be there, but I tell the British to give us chaos.””