Afont>
By G.S. Bhargava
Forty years ago, in 1966 to be precise, I had close acquaintanceship with Peter Stursberg. He was in India as a visiting correspondent of the British Labour party daily, Daily Herald, and I had been working for the French newsagency Agence France Presse, AFP. Peter presented me with an autographed copy of his book, Agreement in Principle, which I have treasured since then. It is a fascinating account of the working of the United Nations, first in San Francisco, then at the ‘sprawling’ Sperry Gyro Works at Lake Success, New York, and finally at the 38-storey glass tower, which became the permanent home of the United Nations on 42nd Street in New York city. Even if it sounds cynical, Peter’s definition of Agreement in Principle is ‘disagreement down the line’.
The reference is to open diplomacy, which became the stock in trade of the United Nations, as distinct from secret diplomacy regarded as the bane of the League of Nations and earlier concerts of European nations in the 19th century. It was thought that open agreements openly arrived at lend transparency to international relations. But thanks to the raging East-West cold war, it degenerated into sparring and scoring of points at the cost of professed objectives of promoting peace in the war-ravaged world.
Peter vividly and faithfully describes the opportunism and worse indulged in by the United States and its allies, some of which like the UK and Canada, had to be whipped sometimes into conformity, and the matching cynicism of the Soviet Union and its far fewer fellow-travellers. The Korean war phase of the Cold War when some American Generals, including General Douglas McArthur rattled atom bombs, hustling, at it were, the Soviet Union to test its first hydrogen bomb is graphically retold. Peter, incidentally, is an unashamed fan of Krishna Menon whom he describes as ‘the magician who squared the circle’.
The purpose of revisiting Peter Stursberg’s superb chronicle here is not so much to dwell on his insight into international relations, which is unquestionably perspicacious, but to bring out his unique perspective on the Partition of India and the role of Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah and his Muslim League in the run up to the emergence of Pakistan as a separate sovereign State. He poses the question:
How did the idea of Pakistan, which the British Cabinet Mission had rejected in so many words, become a reality within weeks? How did the Quaid-e-Azam, who had virtually retired from politics and set up legal practice in London become the architect of Pakistan with a larger than life image?
How did the idea of Pakistan, which the British Cabinet Mission had rejected in so many words, become a reality within weeks? How did the Quaid-e-Azam, who had virtually retired from politics and set up legal practice in London become the architect of Pakistan with a larger than life image?
In Peter’s own words, the answers are: “There had been a chance in the spring and early summer of 1946 that the Indian Empire, which had been one country for so long, could be left as one country, but it was a slender chance. The policy of ‘divide and rule’, which the British had practised for so long, might have resulted in actually dividing the country; if so, the Cabinet Mission could not have kept it together, try as it might. The purpose of the notorious communal electoral system was to split the population and keep the communities apart. (It was called separate electorates and was sought to be introduced at the municipal level also.) It was this electoral system that so greatly aided Jinnah in spreading his doctrine of discord. The catastrophe of India’s division was a result of imperialism.”
The analysis has been repeated several times by scholars at home and abroad since then. But for a Canadian journalist, however insightful, to have put his finger on the spot in 1946 was remarkable. It reflected unblinkered vision and moral courage. Peter’s account continues: “Once the British cabinet ministers had rejected Pakistan in any form, as they did, there should have been no going back. There could be no halfway land between one country and two countries. That was the time for decision, the time for coming down firmly on one side. At least the Congress represented all communities and the vast majority of Indians. However, the British Labour ministers were not the men to make such a decision; they were the inheritors of Western liberalism whose main precept was compromise; they were well-meaning men so much concerned over the fate of a minority that they were inclined to forget about the majority.”
The wheel has turned the full cycle in the last half century and more. For reasons not so lofty as liberalism the majority is ignored in the name of ‘concern’ for a minority. For instance, in Andhra Pradesh, where the Muslims constitute no more than 11 per cent of the population, the Congress party-led government has decided in favour of separate electorates and ‘quota’ for Muslims. The Supreme Court has, no doubt, struck down the decision, even if on procedural grounds. Lal Krishna Advani has perhaps a point in likening his party to the Congress of the pre-Partition period which was dubbed a Hindu organisation by the Muslim League and, indirectly, by the British government. As Dr. S. Radhakrishnan has said, “plurality of religions is the crux of secularism just as plurality of political parties is the essence of democracy.” That should be the definition of secularism added to the Preamble of the Constitution during the 1975 period of Emergency.
That is what makes Peter’s book so relevant today. I would have liked to convey the assessment to him if I could reach him. He had settled down in Ottawa with his wife and two children and was working as a freelance journalist. But there is no means of contacting him. The loss in mine; I have only his book to treasure.
