Dr Mookerjee, a fearless Hindu nationalist

By: V Sundaram

April 05, 2006

-

Dr Shyama Prasad Mookerjee (1901-1953) was a great scholar, an ardent Hindu nationalist and an outspoken Parliamentarian. He was born on 6 July, 1901 in a Brahmin family with a very high social standing in Bengal. From his parents Sri Asutosh Mukerjee and Jogmaya Devi, Dr Shyama Prasad Mookerjee inherited a splendid saga of erudite scholarship and fervent nationalism. Both of them inspired him to live a pure, dedicated, selfless, totally fearless and manly life. His father who was perhaps the most distinguished Vice-Chancellor of Calcutta University gave him the following message early in his life: "To have lived long does not necessarily imply the gathering of much wisdom and experience. A man who has pedalled 25,000 miles on a stationary bi-cycle has not circled the globe. He has only garnered weariness". No wonder Dr Shyama Prasad Mookerjee packed into his short life of 52 years unsurpassed exertions and unremitting toil of several lives.

-

Dr Shyama Prasad Mookerjee had a brilliant academic record in Calcutta University, taking his Honours Degree in English and securing the first position in the first class from the Presidency College in 1921. He also took his M A degree in Indian vernaculars. In 1924 he took his B L degree from Calcutta University again topping the list. He went to England to pursue further legal studies and was called to the Bar in 1927 from Lincoln"s Inn. Though he was fully qualified for it, he never practiced law as a profession. He became the youngest Vice-Chancellor of Calcutta University in 1934 at the age of 33 and continued in that position till 1938. Calcutta University conferred on him D Litt and Benares Hindu University honoured him with LLD in 1938.

-

Dr Shyama Prasad Mookerjee's political career was marked by his deathless commitment to his ideals of burning patriotism and selfless service. His political career began in 1929 when he became a member of the Bengal Legislative Council.

-

He was elected as a Congress candidate from the university constituency. He acted as a watchdog for the Calcutta University in the Council. But in response to the Congress call for boycott of Council, he resigned, but later re-entered it as an independent member for the sake of the university when he was re-elected in 1937. As a firm believer in Hindutva and Sanatana Dharma, he became president of All India Hindu Mahasabha in 1939. That did not come in the way of his becoming the Finance Minister of Bengal in 1941 in the hectic days of the II World War. Even while remaining in the government, he actively opposed the British government when the leading Congress leaders were arrested after the Quit India Resolution was passed in Bombay on 9 August, 1942. When his views on the patriotism of the Congress leaders went unheeded, he resigned from the Ministry as a protest against the British policy of oppression and suppression of civil liberties in India.

-

The great Bengal famine of 1943, generally referred to as Panchasher Manvantar by the Bengalis (the famine of fifty, ie the Bengal year 1350), was a great calamity. During the period 1943-46, 38 lakhs of people died as a result of the famine and the epidemic diseases that accompanied it. When this issue came up for debate in the Bengal Legislative Assembly, Dr Shyama Prasad Mookerjee indicted both the Food Minister of Bengal H S Suharawardy and his business friend Ispahani in these words: "IN THE NAME OF THE STARVING MILLIONS OF BENGAL I CONDEMN YOU. ON BEHALF OF THE HELPLESS FAMILIES OF RURAL BENGAL WHO HAVE LOST THEIR BREADWINNERS, CHAMPIONS AND PROTECTORS I CONDEMN YOU. BENGAL HAS NOT SEEN GREATER ACTS OF OFFICIAL CRIME IN ITS LONG HISTORY".

-

Dr Shyama Prasad Mookerjee covered himself with glory by his Himalayan relief efforts during the deathly days of Bengal famine. Government of Bengal appointed an apex relief organisation called Relief Coordination Committee with Badridas Goenka as president and Dr Shyama Prasad Mookerjee as vice-president. Dr Shyama Prasad Mookerjee saw to it that 5000 relief kitchens were opened in Bengal for catering to the needs of famine-stricken people. He rose above narrow party alignments and in the process emerged as the most shining symbol of Bengali protest against the arrogance of British imperial authorities and the misdeeds of the Bengal government. -

Dr Shyama Prasad Mookerjee was initially a strong opponent of the partition of India. But following the communal riots of 1946 organised by H S Suharawardy, Prime Minister of Bengal, Dr Shyama Prasad Mookerjee strongly advocated against Hindus living in a Muslim- dominated State government controlled by the Muslim League. He supported the partition of Bengal in 1946 in order to prevent the inclusion of the Hindu majority areas in a Muslim-dominated East Pakistan.

-

On the advice of Mahatma Gandhi, Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru inducted Dr Shyama Prasad Mookerjee in the interim Central government in New Delhi as a Minister for Industry and Supply. He came to be widely respected by many Indians and also by members of the Indian National Congress and Sardar Vallabhai Patel.

-

But on the issue of Nehru's 1949 Delhi Pact with Pakistan Prime Minister Liyakat Ali Khan, Dr Shyama Prasad Mookerjee resigned from the Central Cabinet on 6 April, 1950. He was firmly against Nehru"s invitation to the Pakistani Prime Minister and their pact to establish Minority Commissions and guarantee minority rights in both countries. He wanted Nehru to hold Pakistan directly responsible for the terrible influx of millions of Hindu refugees from East Pakistan, who had left the State fearing religious suppression and violence aided by the State. Dr Shyama Prasad Mookerjee described Nehru"s action as "abject Muslim appeasement", and was hailed as a great hero by the people of West Bengal.

-

On 21 October, 1951, after a long and detailed discussion with Sri Guruji Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar, Leader of the RSS, Dr Shyama Prasad Mookerjee founded "Bharatiya Jan Sangh" (Indian People"s Union) at Delhi and became its first president. Dr Shyama Prasad Mookerjee, with his legal background, also strongly advocated a Uniform Civil Code for both Hindus and Muslims. He wanted a ban on cow slaughter. He pointed out the paramount political necessity of ending the special status of Muslim majority Jammu and Kashmir in the larger interest of India"s integrity and national unity. Dr Shyama Prasad Mookerjee defined the contours of the Hindutva agenda which later became the wider political expression of India"s Hindu majority in the 1990s. Deen Dayal Upadyaya, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, L K Advani and several other latter-day BJP stalwarts were inspired by the personality and example of Dr Shyama Prasad Mookerjee.

-

In the 1952 general elections to the Parliament of India, Dr Shyama Prasad Mookerjee and the BJS won 3 seats. When he was proceeding to Kashmir in 1953 in order to go on a hunger strike on reaching there to protest against the law prohibiting any Indian citizen from settling in that State (which was in their own country) and the need to carry I D cards, he was arrested on 11 May, 1953 while crossing the Jammu & Kashmir-India border. Although the I D card rule was revoked on account of his efforts, he died as a political detenu on 23 May, 1953. Even before he had set out from Delhi, Sri Guruji Golwalkar had advised him not to go to Jammu & Kashmir and warned him about the possibility of his not returning back alive from Kashmir. Sri Guruji had also sent a letter to the same effect through a special messenger which failed to reach him on time. According to many well-informed people, he was politically assassinated with the full political blessings of Sheik Abdullah and Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru.

-

At a time when all the Congress leaders including Pundit Nehru found themselves in the mire of triple "secular" synchronisation, conceptual confusion, political incompetence and human failure to deal with the Muslim problem in India, Dr Shyama Prasad Mookerjee spoke these prophetic words in his last speech in Parliament on 15 November, 1952:

-

"I remember I saw a number of Congress leaders and especially Gandhiji and some of us begged of him to appreciate the real point of view whether it will be possible for the minorities to live in Pakistan, in view of the circumstances under which that new country was taking its birth. AND WE SUGGESTED A PLANNED EXCHANGE OF POPULATION AND PROPERTY AT GOVERNMENTAL LEVEL AS PART OF THE PARTITION SCHEME. He was not willing to accept it because their view point was that what they were agreeing to was not a communal division of India, but a territorial division of India".

-

Today we are having not only a communal division but also a territorial division of votebank politics in every State in India today. In 1947 we were dealing with only one reasonable and responsible statesman like Jinnah. Today we are constrained to deal with hundreds of self-proclaimed "Jinnahs" not knowing what they want and not allowing anybody else also to understand what they want. If only our countrymen had listened to the advice of Dr Shyama Prasad Mookerjee at that time, there would have been no problem whatsoever between Hindus and Muslims either in Pakistan or in India after 1947.

-

V Sundaram

-

-

Source: http://www.ivarta.com/columns/OL_060405.htm

Separatism is Unacceptable

Claude Arpi
-
In the past fortnight, several senior commentators have decided it is time to accept the separatists' demand for self-determination in the Kashmir Valley. One commentator has written, "As a liberal, I dislike ruling people against their will... Let Kashmiris decide the outcome, not the politicians and Armies of India and Pakistan... The parallels between British rule in India and Indian rule in Kashmir have become too close for my comfort."
-
Such reasoning is fallacious. To "dislike ruling people against their will" is not reason enough to let parts of India secede. Don't you think that the people of Arunachal Pradesh often feel neglected by the rulers in Delhi who decide their future without consulting them and 'against their will'? Any 'liberal' (if he/she is honest) will apply the same reasoning to the entire North-East. Should these States also secede? In the 1980s, the Khalistanis in Punjab also felt that Delhi was ruling them 'against their will'. Should Punjab have become independent?
-
As for the 'promised' plebiscite, which is being resurrected by 'liberal' commentators, the UN resolutions of August 1948 and January 1949 were clear and specific. The proposed plebiscite was for all the regions of Jammu & Kashmir. Further it was conditional to the Pakistani troops withdrawing from all the areas it had occupied in the State; and, second, Pakistan withdrawing its tribesmen and nationals not ordinarily resident in these areas from the entire State.
-
For the UN, there was no question of first changing the demography of the occupied areas. To hold a plebiscite after the Kashmir Valley has been cleansed of its Hindu population will only encourage secessionists and terrorists to use similar tactics in other parts of India.
-
Another eminent columnist has written, "If you believe in democracy, then giving Kashmiris the right to self-determination is the correct thing to do... This is India's century. We have the world to conquer -- and the means to do it. Kashmir is a 20th century problem. We cannot let it drag us down and bleed us as we assume our rightful place in the world." This merits only one comment: If India is further dismembered, it is doubtful that the 21st century will be India's century. Allowing Kashmiris to secede is certain to become a precedent for others in India to 'democratically' ask for their right to self-determination.
-
Similar to the position taken by our 'liberals' has been that of the foreign media which has reacted to the recent troubles with its old prediction that 'Kashmir will soon be lost for India". Le Monde quotes Ahmed, a young Kashmiri, as saying, "I prefer to die in the streets shouting 'Long Live Free Kashmir' than in an isolated confinement after being tortured (by the Indian Army)." Ahmed's friends, says Le Monde, threw stones at security forces while screaming, "Indians are dogs." Then, referring to Abhinav Bindra's gold medal, Ahmed says, "But it is in Kashmir that Indians are the best shooters."
-
Le Figaro, in an article headlined "Kashmir bye-bye?", its correspondent spoke of the "beauty of the Valley which nobody questions, though some in India have nonetheless begun to ask themselves if the future of their great democracy is to keep four million Kashmiris against their will. It is a new tune!" The correspondent, however, asked a relevant question: "Why has the Government in New Delhi kept silent and inactive for so long when the tension had already started mounting in July?"
-
The problem is not only the poor leadership of the rulers in Delhi, though nobody can deny that the present crisis has been created by the inept handling of the situation, but also the wily leadership in the Kashmir Valley.
-
If one looks at the history of Jammu & Kashmir, one realises that whenever the Valley has been stricken by famine, war or invasion, it was due to the poor leadership and despotism of its kings, sultans and maharajas. The Chinese pilgrim Hsuan-tsang has described Kashmiris thus: "They are volatile and timid; they are good-looking, but deceitful."
-
The history of Kashmir is a succession of alternating periods when just and fair rulers made the Valley a 'Paradise on Earth' and times when "people were treated as grass", to quote the historian Srivara, one of the authors of Rajatarangini. He describes one of these periods during the 15th century when "accepting bribes was considered by the officers as virtue, oppressing the subjects was regarded as wisdom and the addiction to wine and women was reckoned as happiness".
-
Take the more recent example of Sheikh Abdullah, described by historian S Gopal as "Nehru's old friend, colleague and blood-brother." Sheikh Abdullah was chosen by Jawaharlal Nehru in January 1948 to plead India's case in the UN. Though a member of the official Indian delegation to Lake Success, Abdullah had a secret meeting with US Ambassador Austin, who reported to the US Secretary of State, "It is possible that the principal purpose of Abdullah's visit was to make clear to US that there is a third alternative, namely independence... He made quite a long and impassioned statement on the subject. He said in effect that whether Kashmir went to Pakistan or India, the other dominion would always be against a solution... (Kashmir) is a rich country. He did not want his people torn by dissension between Pakistan and India. It would be much better if Kashmir were independent and could seek American and British aid for development of the country" Thus was the seed 'azadi' planted by Nehru's 'blood-brother'.
-
Adlai Stevenson came to Srinagar to meet Abdullah in May 1953. The creation of an independent 'Sheikdom of Kashmir' was the purpose of the visit. This would perfectly suit American interests by checking the advances of the Chinese in Xinjiang and the Russians in Afghanistan. A 'non-aligned' Nehru could not be considered a reliable ally. At that time, The New York Times published a map hinting at an independent status for the Valley and a few days later, Abdullah asserted in a speech, "It is not necessary that our State should become an appendage of either India or Pakistan."
-
This habit of saying something one day and doing the opposite the next has been characteristic of most of the leaders of Jammu & Kashmir for the past 60 years. Sheikh Abdullah's grandson, Mr Omar Abdullah, recently said in Parliament, "We fought for our land and will continue to fight for our land till our last breath." This same person shamelessly sides with those who say that Hindus are trying to change the demography of the Kashmir Valley by erecting some temporary structures for pilgrims.
-
With a vacillating Centre, a weak Governor, a father-and-daughter duo always ready to pull the carpet from under their partner's feet and the secessionists back in the news after several years, the State of Jammu & Kashmir seems doomed. But not if India were to stand firm and resist those who wish to see the country disintegrate.
-
-
Source: The Pioneer
URL: http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=EDITS&file_name=edit3%2Etxt&counter_img=3