MUMBAI, JAN 29: Mahatma Gandhi would have preferred civil war and anarchy instead of partition but was collectively done in by the British, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Patel and Mohammed Ali Jinnah, writes Dr Rafiq Zakaria, Islamic scholar and former Parliamentarian, in his latest book Gandhi And The Break-up Of India. The Muslim League and the Hindu Mahasabha also colluded with the British and their allies, concludes Zakaria.The volume, to be released on January 30 to mark Gandhi's death anniversary, was written to set the record straight about Gandhi's role in the Partition and his affinity towards Muslims. Drawing from a host of sources that included Gandhi's own writings, those of his critics and The Transfer of Power published by the British government, Zakaria infers that ``the charge that Gandhi facilitated or was responsible for the partition of the country is not only ridiculous, but beneath contempt.he struggled at every stage to prevent the break-up of India''.The book, made availableexclusively to The Indian Express, also debunks the accusation that Gandhi was pro-Muslim and anti-Hindu. It's not true that Gandhi fasted only for the Muslim cause; he fasted for Hindus also as he did in 1918, 1924, 1932 and 1933. Zakaria has addressed the Rs 55 crore payment to Pakistan saying that the Mahatma's insistence to pay ``has been deliberately misconstrued and misrepresented by his detractors. his motive was not to help fledgling Pakistan. but to honour the solemn commitment India had made''. The book succinctly shows that Nathuram Godse's reasons for assassinating Gandhi are hollow and not grounded in facts.The book was triggered off by the recent glorification of Godse in the Marathi play Mee Nathuram Godse Boltoy and subsequently in a section of the English media. The number of people who dare to come out in Godse's support is growing and this will impact on our younger generation; the book is a limited effort to reach the truth about the charges made against the Mahatma, says Zakaria.He was particularly perturbed by the cover story on Godse in the weekly newsmagazine India Today in August last year which he says distorted facts and gave ``exposure to (such) unbridled fanaticism''.That story could only mislead the misinformed; in the process, the guilty would be glorified and the innocent put in the dock, writes Zakaria in the first chapter titled `Early Stirrings'. Equally the play is an attempt to make Gandhi guilty of Partition and exonerate Godse of his heinous crime. in doing so, facts have been distorted and truth suppressed, he states. A simultaneously released Marathi volume, Shodh Mahatma Gandhincha (In Search of Mahatma Gandhi) by Arun Sarathi also extolled Godse's stand and got publicity.``Taken together, these instances and controversies alarmed not only Gandhians but a large number of intellectuals of different schools of thought. That's when I decided to find the truth and write a book,'' says Zakaria. It is published by the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. He cautions thatthe book is neither a biography nor history but a factually-based record to show that Godse, and those who believe his reasons and ideology today, are off the mark. The most dangerous untruth is that Gandhi helped to create Pakistan.``His talks with Jinnah were held in the hope that the unity of India could be saved, not in order to promote his divisive motive.as a last resort Gandhi conceded to Jinnah territorial self-determination with a weak Centre but only after the departure of the British. He was confident that once the third party quit, Muslims themselves would realise the division of the country was against their interests. He attempted to bring round Jinnah in every conceivable way; he tried to prevail upon successive Viceroys not to divide and quit but to quit first and leave India to God, even to anarchy, which he said would be better than division,'' writes Zakaria in Chapter 16 titled `What is the Truth?'Zakaria quotes from Gandhi's letter to Lord Mountbatten on the issue; Gandhistated: ``whatever may be said to the contrary, it would be a blunder of the first magnitude for the British to be a party in any way whatsoever to the division of India''. Zakaria believes that Gandhi would have rather had a civil war than surrender an inch of his motherland but Mountbatten was adamant and ``managed to prevail upon Jinnah to agree even to a truncated Pakistan. Patel and Nehru succumbed to the pressure of expediency''. Gandhi never reconciled to the Partition, says Zakaria.
