Can The Real Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Ever Stand Up?

| Kafila

https://kafila.org/2013/07/02/can-the-real-shyama-prasad-mu...

media | politics | dissent

Can The Real Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Ever

StandUp?
JULY 2, 2013
tags: Article 370, Bharatiya Jan Sangh, BJP, Hindu Mahasabha, L K Advani, Narendra Modi, RSS,
Sardar Patel, Savarkar
by subhash gatade

(https://kafilabackup.files.wordpress.com/2013/07
/syama_prasad_mookerjee.jpg)
It has been more than two years that A G Nooranis important book Article 370 : A Constitutional
History of J and K (OUP, 2011, Pages 480) has hit the stands and has been able to clear many a
confusions about the tumultuous era in post independence times pertaining to Jammu and Kashmir.
Basing himself on authentic documents, letters, memorandums, white papers, proclamations and
amendments the author, a constitutional expert himself, has not only provided new insights about
the period but has also tried to bring forth an important summary of the developments then and the
role played by different stakeholders. While we have been witness to a process of erosion of the
article 370 today, the book underscores the politics behind its erosion, which was negotiated between
Prime ministers Jawaharlal Nehru and Sheikh Abdullah and had a stamp of approval from Sardar
Patel and Shyama Prasad Mukherjee.
For the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which daily invokes name of Shyama Prasad Mukherjee,
founder of Bharatiya Jan Sangh percursor to its present incarnation namely BJP to oppose Article
370 which guarantees special status to Jammu and Kashmir this exposure that the said Article had
full approval from Mukherjee as well as then Home Minister Sardar Patel is nothing but
1 of 6
07/07/16 2:15 am
blasphemous. Despite its important bearing on its overall posturing, one is yet to come across
any

Can The Real Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Ever Stand Up? | Kafila

https://kafila.org/2013/07/02/can-the-real-shyama-prasad-mu...

strong rebuttal from the saffron quarters to this claim barring its usual rhetoric which says that it is
an [a]ttempt to distort history at the behest of separatist friendly pseudo-secularists and pseudointellectuals. Interestingly while lashing out at the contents of the book, Mr Jitendra Singh, the then
spokesperson of BJP for J & K and its National Executive member had rather indirectly
acknowledged what the author wanted to convey by stating that [T]he late leader had suggested to
first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru to put a time-bound rider on Article 370 and specify for how
long it was being envisaged, (http://www.siasat.com/english/news/shyama-prasad-mukherjeenever-endorsed-article-370 (http://www.siasat.com/english/news/shyama-prasad-mukherjee-neverendorsed-article-370)).
It is worth emphasising that this is not for the first time that Dr Mukherjees consent to full autonomy
to Kashmir has come up. In his write-up in The Greater Kashmir (http://www.greaterkashmir.com
/news/2010/aug/8/leaf-from-the-past-4.asp (http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2010/aug/8/leaffrom-the-past-4.asp)) Mr Balraj Puri, the veteran journalist from the state had provided further
details about the same:
[S]hyama Prasads prolonged triangular correspondence with Nehru and Sheikh Abdullah on the
status of the State, which was published at that time by the party, is the most authentic evidence of
his stand on the issue. In his letter dated January 9, 1953 to both of them, for instance, he wrote: We
would readily agree to treat the valley with Sheikh Abdullah as the head in any special manner and
for such time as he would like but Jammu and Ladakh must be fully integrated with India. While
Nehru rejected the idea straightway warning against its repercussions in Kashmir and its
international implications, Abdullah sent a detailed reply in which he, inter alia, said. You are
perhaps not unaware of the attempts that are being made by Pakistan and other interested quarters to
force a decision for disrupting the unity of the State. Once the ranks of the State people are divided,
any solution can be foisted on them.
He further adds that the prolonged correspondence is concluded with Dr. Mukherjees letter to
Pandit Nehru on February 17, 1953, in which he suggested.
1. Both parties reiterate that the unity of the State will be maintained and that the principle of
autonomy will apply to the province of Jammu and also to Ladakh and Kashmir Valley.
2. Implementation of Delhi agreementwhich granted special status to the Statewill be made at
the next session of Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly.
Nehru replied that proposal for autonomy to the three provinces had been agreed by him and
Abdullah in July 1952. If Mukerjee had realised his mistake, he should withdraw the agitation
unconditionally. Mukherjee was unwilling to do it as it amounted to surrender. The deadlock
prolonged over some way which could provide, what may be called, a face saving to the Jana Sangh.
It is important to note that after the sudden death of Mukherjee, Nehru had appealed to the people of
Jammu to withdraw their agitation as their demand for regional autonomy had been conceded. The
State government endorsed the appeal on July 2, when Praja Parishad leaders were released who
went to Delhi where they met Nehru on July 3. Thus the Praja Parishad agitation was withdrawn on
the assurance of regional autonomy and immediate implementation of the Delhi Agreement.
But there are number of ifs and buts. One factor which prevented its implementation was that Praja
Parishad and Jana Sangh backed out of it. According to Balraj Madhok, who later on became the
president of the Jana Sangh, the party withdrew its commitment to the State autonomy and regional
autonomy under the directive from Nagpur (the RSS headquarters).The party continued a ceaseless
campaign against regional autonomy and Article 370.
2 of 6

((http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2010/aug/8/leaf-from-the-past-4.asp

07/07/16 2:15 am

Can The Real Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Ever Stand Up? | Kafila

https://kafila.org/2013/07/02/can-the-real-shyama-prasad-mu...

(http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2010/aug/8/leaf-from-the-past-4.asp)))
Anyway, it is upto the dedicated followers of late Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, to either refute the facts
mentioned by Mr Noorani and Mr Balraj Puri and many others or go on peddling hagiography as
history as they have been doing for the last umpteen years. Not some time back while addressing
meetings on Mr Mukherjees sixteeth death anniversary L K Advani the ex Deputy Prime Minister
of India and Narendra Modi Chief Minister of Gujarat, and many of their fellow travelers repeated
the same thing about him and even emphasised if the government then had heeded to Mukherjees
opposition to the said Article, Kashmir would have been in a different situation right now.
Definitely in a democracy everybody has a right to have her/his opinion and it is not possible or
even expected that there would be consensus on every other issue. One expects that sooner or later
wisdom will dawn upon them or to put it otherwise they will rise up from the collective amnesia
with which they seem to be inflicted with today and get ready to confront the acts of omission and
commission on part of their leaders.
Looking at the fact that there is a very weak tradition of reading (as well as writing) within the larger
Hindutva fraternity which believes more in action the possibility seems very remote. In fact any
student of the trajectory of Hindutva brigade in our country would provide many examples where
members of the BJP and the larger fraternity have been found to be not reading literature prepared by
their own people in a state where they themselves were holding reins of power and were compelled
to withdraw books when they found themselves in uncomfortable situation.
An example from then NDA ruled Orissa is quite illustrative where the prescribed textbook prepared
under the guidance of the education minister who was himself its own member had clubbed BJP
with Lashkar-e-Toiba (In NDA Orissa, a textbook equates BJP with Lashkar, JEEVAN MUKUNDAN :
BHUBANESWAR, FEB 1, Sat Feb 02 2008, 01:23 hrs)
The chapter on the Existence of Terrorist Organisations in a textbook on Indian Polity for
second-year degree students in Orissa says: Terrorist organizations create tension in in the country.
Communal parties like the BJP, RSS, Bajrang Dal, Hurriyat Conference and Laskhar-e-Taiba are
responsible for fermenting violence leading to the killing of hundreds in the country and especially
Kashmir.
The BJP is part of the ruling coalition in the state and its leader Samir Dey is the minister for higher
education. Worse, the textbook has been taught here since 2003. The textbook is written by
Amarendra Mohanty and Shyama Charan Mohanty and published by a Cuttack-based publisher
Kitab Mahal.
It may be noted here that it took five years for the BJP to notice this comparison and thats only when
a party worker in Salepur first lodged a FIR. A highly embarrassed government immediately
announced a monitoring committee to screen all textbooks while BJP workers took to the streets and
burnt copies of the book.
(http://www.indianexpress.com/news/in-nda-orissa-a-textbook-equates-bjp-with-lashkar/268172/
(http://www.indianexpress.com/news/in-nda-orissa-a-textbook-equates-bjp-with-lashkar/268172/))
Or, look at this mysterious withdrawal of one of the 16 volumes of an official account of the Jana
Sangh-BJP history, four months after it was released as part of the silver jubilee celebrations. (A
volume of Jana Sangh-BJP history account withdrawn, Express news service , Express news service :
NEW DELHI, MAY 8, Tue May 09 2006, 02:33 hrs)
..The series, written by historian Makhan Lal under the supervision of senior BJP leader J P Mathur,
07/07/16 2:15 am
carry a foreword by Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha L K Advani.

3 of 6

Can The Real Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Ever Stand Up? | Kafila

https://kafila.org/2013/07/02/can-the-real-shyama-prasad-mu...

While no one has come forward to object to the sixth volume of The History of Jana Sangh or
pin-point the objectionable portions, sources claimed the book was withdrawn after senior leaders
noticed some controversial references to Muslims. There was confirmation of the sale of the
controversial volume having been stopped.
Makhan Lal told The Indian Express he had no knowledge of the volume being withdrawn or any
of its contents meeting with an objection. Sources close to Advani claimed that he had written a
general foreword for the whole series obviously without reading every single volume.
(http://www.indianexpress.com/news/a-volume-of-jana-sanghbjp-history-account-withdrawn
/4063/ (http://www.indianexpress.com/news/a-volume-of-jana-sanghbjp-history-accountwithdrawn/4063/))
One can just have just best wishes for Mr Advani, ex Prime Minister in waiting as well as Mr Modi,
would be Prime Minister in waiting, that they are able to dust off some history books, from their
otherwise busy schedule.
II.
If at all the saffrons are able to undertake this arduous journey they will be confronted with another
set of troubling questions regarding Shyamaprasad Mukherjees political journey before
independence and their continuous valorization of his legacy.
Born in 190, Shyamaprasad Mukherjee started his political leader in 1929 and became a member of
the Bengal Legislative Council. He joined the Hindu Mahasabha in 1939 to espouse the cause of the
Hindus in India and was a close associate of Savarkar. He was the opposition leader in the state when
a coalition government led by Krishak Praja Party Muslim League coalition was in power 1937-41.
Later he joined the Ministry headed by Fazlul Haq as a Finance Minister and continued sharing
power during the tumultuous times of the Quit India movement when the Britishers faced mortal
challenge to their rule. The experiment to share power with Muslim League then was not limited to
Bengal alone, it extended to Sind and as well as NWFP (North West Frontier Province) and was part
of a conscious policy adopted by the Hindu Mahasabha.
Defending this power sharing Savarkar had said :
..in practical politics also the Mahasabha knows that we must advance through reasonable
compromises. Witness the fact that only recently in Sind, the Sind Hindu Sabha on invitation had
taken the responsibility of joining hands with the League itself in running coalition government.The
case of Bengal is well known. Wild Leaguers whom even the Congress with all its submissiveness
could not placate grew quite reasonably compromising and socialble as soon as they came in contact
with the Hindu Mahasabha and the Coalition government , under the premiership of Mr Fazlul Haq
and the able lead of our esteemed Mahasabha leader Dr. Shyama Prasad Mookerji, functioned
successfully for a year or so to the benefit of both the communities.
( V.D.Savarkar, Samagra Savarkar Wangmaya Hindu Rasthra Darshan ( Collected works of
V.D.Savarkar) Vol VI, Maharashtra Prantik Hindusabha, Poona, 1963, p 479-480)
Prof Shamsul Islam, in his well researched book Religious Dimensions of Indian Nationalism : A
Study of RSS (Media House, Delhi, 2006) describes how [H]indu Mahasabha and the Muslim
League had a coalition government in the North Western Frontier Province (NWFP) also. (Page 313)
He quotes Baxter : In the Frontier, Sardar Aurangzeb Khan formed a ministry which combined
Muslim Leaguers, Sikh Akalis and Mahasabhaites, and placed the Congress led by Dr Khan Sahib
temporarily in the opposition. The Mahasabha member of the Cabinet was Finance Minister Mehar
4 of 6
Chand Khanna. (Craig Baxter, The Jan Sangh : A Biography of an Indian Political Party, 07/07/16 2:15 am

Can The Real Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Ever Stand Up? | Kafila

https://kafila.org/2013/07/02/can-the-real-shyama-prasad-mu...

(Philadelphia : University of Pennysylvania Press, 1969, P. 20).

It is now history how in 1942 when the Britishers were engaged in the World War II and the
Congresss call for Quit India reverberated throughout India, thousands of people engaged in
government jobs including police and military left their jobs to protest continuation of British regime,
the formations espousing the cause of Hindutva adopted a compromising attitude. While the RSS
preferred to keep itself aloof from the Quit India Movement, Savarkar, then Supremo of Hindu
Mahasabha went one step further. At that time Savarkar preferred to tour India asking Hindu youth
to join the military with a call Militarise the Hindus, Hinduise the nation .. thus strengthening
British efforts to suppress the rising tide of peoples movement.
Savarkars address to the twenty fourth session of Hindu Mahasabha at Kanpur is worth quoting
where he outlined Hindu Mahasabhas policy of responsive cooperation with the British rule.
The Hindu Mahasabha holds that the leading principle of all practical politics is the policy of
responsive cooperation. And in virtue of it, it believes that all those Hindu Sangathanists who are
working as councillors, ministers, legislators and conducting any municipal or any public bodies
with a view to utilise those centres of government power [] are rendering a highly patriotic service
to our nation. [..] The policy of responsive cooperation which covers the whole gamut of patriotic
activities from unconditional co-operation right up to active and even armed resistance, will also
keep adapting itself to the exigencies of the time, resources at our disposal and dictates of our
national interest.
( V.D.Savarkar, Samagra Savarkar Wangmaya Hindu Rasthra Darshan ( Collected works of
V.D.Savarkar) Vol VI, Maharashtra Prantik Hindusabha, Poona, 1963, p 474)
In fact, Savarkar was of the opinion that with banning of Congress in 1942 and its removal from
..[t]he political field as an open organisation..the Hindu Mahasabha alone was left to take up the
task of conducting whatever Indian National activities lay within its scope. (do Page 475)
As a close associate of Savarkar, Shyamaprasad Mukherjee, who later became President of Hindu
Mahasabha in 1944, was a party to all these decisions and had no qualms in British efforts to suppress
peoples movement against the British rule. In his book History of Modern Bengal Ramesh Chandra
Mazumdar provides details of his letter to the then Bengal Governor on suggesting measures against
the Quit India Movement. According to him
[S]hyam Prasad ended the letter with a discussion of the mass movement organised by the
Congress. He expressed the apprehension that the movement would create internal disorder and will
endanger internal security during the war by exciting popular feeling and he opined that any
government in power has to suppress it, but that according to him could not be done only by
persecution. In that letter he mentioned item wise the steps to be taken for dealing with the
situation . (Ramesh Ch. Mazumdar, History of Modern Bengal, Part II, pp 350-351).

from Bad ideas

5 Comments leave one
1. Jagjit Singh Sidhoo PERMALINK
July 2, 2013 1:36 PM
Whatever Nehru or Patel or Mukherjee said the concept of any state or community having a
special status is flawed . In any case 370 has harmed the state because it has kept the state out of
the mainstream and hence not partaking in the development that the rest of the country has . And
if one is to talk of promises made to the Maharaja well what about the other states princes being
5 of 6
07/07/16 2:15 am
deprived of their privy purses ? These are arrangements which are supposed to have a shelf life

Can The Real Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Ever Stand Up? | Kafila

https://kafila.org/2013/07/02/can-the-real-shyama-prasad-mu...

nothing in this world is permanent other than GOD.

REPLY
2. Gowhar Fazili PERMALINK
July 2, 2013 2:44 PM
Clearly the Hindutuva forces have a long history of being collaborators of the imperium and
enemies of peoples movements for liberation. No wonder they hate Azadi!
REPLY
3. winsarthak PERMALINK
July 4, 2013 1:18 PM
In any case it was for him that West Bengal was carved out of East Pakistan. Otherwise we would
have to live in East Pakistan now. So no thanks. He was a great leader and all your opinions are
ultimately not going to strike a chord here
REPLY
subir PERMALINK
September 20, 2013 3:46 PM
Shayma Prasad Mukherjee, was in no way creditable for carving out of West Bengal from East
Pakistan. The foundation of WB lay in Lor Curzons divisive Partition of Bengal in 1905.
REPLY

Trackbacks
1. 2nd OCTOBER 1951 BHARTIYA JANSANGH ESTABLISHED BY SYAMA PRASADMUKHERJEE
(6th JULY 1901 23rd JUNE 1953) | Shivaji Raje

Blog at WordPress.com.
The Vigilance Theme.

6 of 6

07/07/16 2:15 am