My reply to Moeed Pirzada
Moeed Pirzada is in my opinion the best journalist of Pakistan, brave, incorruptible, and totally independent, and I have been his admirer for long. He had to flee from Pakistan for his fearless criticism of the corrupt PDM government and the fascist minded Pakistan army, which has unleashed a reign of terror in Pakistan, and filed false criminal cases against him, accusing him of terrorism, sedition, and what not.
However, while I admire Moeed for his bravery and uprightness, I find his thinking totally flawed and superficial.
Moeed had interviewed me some time back, and in that interview I said that both Gandhi and Jinnah were British agents, giving my reasons.
An overwhelming number of Pakistanis agreed with me, which seems to have upset Moeed. Consequently, he posted a vlog, in which be expressed his view that Gandhi and Jinnah were not British agents, never wanted Partition, and had agreed to the Cabinet Mission proposal to keep India united, but the villain responsible for Partition was Nehru, who opposed the Cabinet Mission proposal.
Moeed is entitled to his opinion, but he overlooks the central point which I have been emphasizing over and over again, that developed countries will oppose tooth and nail underdeveloped countries becoming developed, for then wirh their cheap labour the latter will undersell the products of the industries of the former, which will not be able to face the competition from the industries of the latter, and will be forced to close down, throwing millions out of employment. This has been explained below :
Consequently, in my opinion the British rulers had pre-determined to partition India on religious lines so that Hindus and Muslims should keep fighting each other even after the British left India, and united India should not emerge as a modern industrial giant, like China today, thus becoming a big rival to British industries.
It was a typical technique of the Britishers to partition it’s colony on religious lines before quitting it, e.g. Palestine ( which was partitioned between Israel, a Jewish state, and Jordan, a Muslim Arab state ), Cyprus ( which was partitioned between a Christian Greek Cyprus and a Turkish Muslim Cyprus ), Ireland ( which was partitioned between a Protestant North and a Catholic South). This was done to keep the country weak, and thus susceptible to continued exploitation, even after vacating it.
The Cabinet Mission Plan was just a ploy, and the British Government knew it would not be accepted.
But let us assume the Britishers were serious about the Cabinet Mission Plan. This Plan, if accepted and implemented, would have resulted in creating a weak central government, with only foreign affairs, defence and communication in its hands, all other powers being with the provincial governments, which would become regional satraps.
Moreover, these provincial governments would be headed by the openly reactionary Muslim League, or the Congress Party whose leader was the reactionary Gandhi.
The 3 units the Cabinet Mission Plan proposed would be at loggerheads with each other on religious basis, which indeed was the British plan. Such a government created by the Cabinet Mission Plan would be a very weak government, whose units would be constantly fighting with each other, often on religious basis.
Moeed harps on the fact that if the Cabinet Mission Plan had been accepted there would have been no partition, and India would have remained united. But he refuses to go further and consider what kind of united India it would then be ? It would really be a balkanized India, an easy prey to foreign powers which would dominate and exploit it.
As regards Gandhi, I have already explained in my interview to Moeed that Gandhi was a British agent as he served the British policy of dividing India on religious lines by constantly propagating Hindu ideas in his public speeches and writings
Apart from that, Gandhi also acted as a British agent by diverting the Indian independence struggle from the revolutionary direction of armed struggle which great freedom fighters like Bhagat Singh, Surya Sen, Chandrashekhar Azad, Bismil, Ashfaqulla etc were taking it, to the harmless channel of gimmicks like satyagrah, hunger strike, etc.
Would the Britishers have given up the Indian Empire which they had conquered after shedding so much blood simply because Gandhi went on hunger strike ? Did the Americans wage their freedom struggle against British rule by going on hunger strike, a salt march, or offering lollipops or bouquets to the British, or by waging an armed struggle by raising a Continental Army under George Washington ?
Indian independence had nothing to do with Gandhi, as explained below :
As regards Jinnah, in his later years he was a staunch votary and proponent of the bogus two nation theory and got the Lahore Resolution passed in 1940 calling for partition of India on religious lines and creation of an Islamic State. His call in August 1946 for Direct Action Day, in which thousands were brutally killed in Calcutta, was clearly a call for Partition
Moeed is therefore being disingenuous and only trying to be oversmart when he claims that Jinnah did not want Partition
