M.C. Davar's Behind-the-Scenes Role in Trying to Stop Partition
Why the Shimla Conference failed is recorded by [then Viceroy Lord] Wavell: 'He (Jinnah ) refused even to discuss names unless he could be given the absolute right to select all Muslims and some guarantee that any decisions which the Muslims opposed in Council could only be passed by a two-thirds majority – in fact a communal veto. I said these conditions were entirely unacceptable.'
Praveen Davar
He Almost Prevented Partition: The Life and Times of M.C. Davar
Speaking Tiger, 2025
Dr [M.C.] Davar, who was so passionately devoted to the prevention of Partition, made sure that he was present in Shimla for the entire duration of the Conference which lasted for almost 15 days in June-July 1945. While he was there, staying at the house of Sanjiva Roy, Chairman of the Federal Public Service Commission, one day at 11 PM, he got a telephone call from Mrs Rajen Nehru asking him to reach the Grand Hotel. When Dr Davar reached within less than twenty minutes, he found her hotel room packed: it was full of a dozen frontline leaders of the Muslim League – all members of the League Working Committee. They included Khaliq-ur-Rahman, Mohd. Ismail and Abdul Majid Sindhi. Rajen Nehru wanted Davar to convey to Pt Nehru that these Muslim League members were prepared to resign from the working committee of their party if Jinnah remains adamant on his condition of having only Muslims from the League. On being asked by Davar why she couldn't speak to Jawaharlal herself being a close relative, Rajen replied that 'your work in this field is well known and you will be able to convince Panditji.'
So under tremendous pressure from Rajen Nehru, Davar after speaking to the League leaders left for Armsdale, where Nehru was staying. When he reached there at almost twenty minutes past midnight, he found Dharam Yash Dev, a local personal assistant of Nehru's, waiting for Panditji to return from dinner at Mashobra from where he was, as per his habit, walking back. It was thirty minutes past midnight when Panditji reached, he asked Dharam the purpose of being awake so late. Dharam replied pointing towards Davar that 'Doctor Sahib's business seems to be more important.' Panditji then said: 'Davar, come in' while entering the house. But he could not find the switch to put on the light. Then Dharam Yash Dev came to his rescue and found the switch at the bottom of a wall while Nehru and Davar were trying to locate the switch on the middle of the wall.
Davar narrates: 'Now Panditji said, 'sit down Davar.' We sat down on the sofa, and he asked what brought me here to which I replied 12 League members are at Grand Hotel and want to meet you… 'What for do they want to meet me? ' asked Panditji. I said: 'Jinnah is pressing for 5 seats as Liaqat Ali got in writing from Bhulabhai Desai that League will get 5, Congress 5 and others 3. Now Maulana Azad is demanding one seat for Nationalist Muslims as also the Unionist Party of Khizar Hayat Khan. So Jinnah is adamant…he wants all five Muslim seats…that is why this Conference seems to fail and that is why they want to meet you.'
Then Panditji asked why should they not meet Maulana? (Davar narrated to Panditji details of his meeting with Azad five years ago at Kolkata wherein Maulana after great persuasion had agreed to bless his efforts for Congress-League unity but now seemed to be backing out.) But Panditji, though partially convinced, kept insisting that they must Maulana and that 'I will not interfere in Maulana's work.' (Despite Davar telling Nehru that Muslims of India had more faith in him than any leader, and these 12 League leaders were ready to ditch Jinnah provided he 'holds their hand ', Nehru refused to listen). [Davar says,] 'When I told him that I was the original author of the Liaqat-Desai formula, which actually is Davar -Sultan formula, Panditji remarked: 'Oh, then you are the person who has put us in trouble.' After I left I rang up Dharam Yash as I had left my umbrella there. Dharam told me Panditji had guessed it was your umbrella which is lying safely, but your discussion with him created a deep impression on him, and he kept asking me about you, though he appeared to know about your homoeopathic and revolutionary background.'
Deeply disappointed, Davar left Simla in the morning, but before doing so dropped a line at Wavell's house telling the Viceroy about his meeting with Pt Nehru who did not agree to his suggestion of meeting the Muslim League members. He therefore concluded that the Simla Conference would fail. That it failed was not only due to Jinnah's intransigence, equally it was because of Wavell's lack of firmness. HV Hodson, who was the Reforms Commissioner in 1941-42, wrote in his memoirs, The Great Divide : 'Lord Wavell had in effect capitulated to Jinnah… Mr Jinnah's control of the Muslim League was at that time far from complete. The Unionist Party was still strong, and Mr Liaqat Ali Khan favoured a settlement. There were still many uncommitted Muslims in the country. It is arguable that if the Viceroy had been as adamant as Mr Jinnah, the latter would have been obliged to give in; that the destruction of the Unionist Party, which paved the way for partition of Punjab,would have averted.'
But probably Wavell also could not forget so soon that it was the Congress which had challenged the Empire with the Quit India Movement during the period when he, as the Commander-in-Chief himself, had to bear the brunt, and hence he let Jinnah sabotage the Conference which would also please Churchill who was, naturally, in sympathy towards the 'enemy's enemy'. But within two weeks, Churchill's Conservative Party lost elections, displaying the maturity of the British electorate that victory in war was no passport to better governance in peace times.
The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Wire
an hour ago
- The Wire
A Hindu-Muslim Story of Betrayal, Healing, and Hope
Communalism In a world shaken by fear and fractured by hate, quiet acts of care endure. I find proof that humanity's heart beats stronger than its wounds. On May 22, 2025, terror tore through the Baisaran meadow in Pahalgam, Kashmir, where attackers killed 26 civilian after allegedly demanding their religions. Among the fallen was one Muslim – a grim reminder that hatred, though perpetrated in the name of religion, spares no one. In Srinagar, the spring air grew heavy with grief, the valley's famed beauty dulled by the weight of mourning. For the first time in 35 years of conflict, Muslim voices rose from beneath the iconic Clock Tower in Lal Chowk, crying out: ' Kashmir se awaaz aayi… Hindu Muslim bhai bhai (A voice rises from Kashmir… Hindus and Muslims are brothers)." Yet, tragically, that voice echoed only within the bounds of the valley, unable to reach places where it was needed most. Amid this sorrow, my phone buzzed. It was Monika, a Hindu friend from Jammu I'd known for years. Her words pierced deeper than I expected: 'All you Muslims are terrorists who harbour and feed them.' Moments later, she blocked me, cutting off all contact. What I thought was an enduring friendship dissolved into silence. It felt like betrayal. But life has its way of stitching together what pain rips apart. As I wrestled with her words, a call came from Sushanta Bishal, a Hindu from West Bengal I had never met. " Bhaya, come to London. Stay with us," he urged. His brother Prashanta lives near IIT Kharagpur, where my son, Mehran, studies. Over time, Prashanta and his wife, Sunita, had embraced Mehran like their own – inviting him to birthdays, Durga Puja celebrations, and dinners. Their six-year-old daughter, Aavya – affectionately called 'Mother India' – refuses to eat if Mehran doesn't show up at least once a week. Two winters ago, Prashanta visited our Srinagar home bringing with him two more families we had never seen before. They skipped hotels, choosing instead to sleep on bedding spread across our drawing room – trusting us without hesitation. Sushanta's call rekindled my shelved dream of visiting London, delayed since December. Encouraged, I booked a roundtrip ticket and informed him of my arrival. Busy with work, he sent his brother-in-law, Surojit, to receive me at Heathrow. We visited a pilot friend, before taking the tube to Woodford Green, where Sushanta lives with his wife, Moumita, and mother-in-law, Smita. At the station, Sushanta greeted me with a warm embrace. Moumita bent to touch my feet, a gesture of respect that soothed the ache of Monika's rejection. Their home became a quiet refuge. But on my second night, news broke of India's military strike in response to the Pahalgam attack. The air grew tense. Still, Sushanta's family didn't waver. Smita, barely older than me, cared for me with maternal grace, undeterred by my Muslim identity. Back home, when missiles and drones were flying across the India-Pakistan border, Sushanta drove me around London – from the iconic bridge to the quiet English countryside. He read my articles and discussed them thoughtfully. Despite political differences, our disagreements only deepened our bond. Craving familiarity, I reached out to some Muslim friends in London, including a few Pakistanis I'd known since my first visit to the United Kingdom in 1998. But the conflict had hardened even them. One snapped, 'Don't compare me to Hindus,' after I jokingly said, 'The Hindus here are taking such good care of me – and I haven't even heard from you yet.' His words echoed Monika's prejudice, revealing how division poisons even the gentlest hearts. Weeks later, healing found its way back. Monika, after seeing my photos with Sushanta's family on social media, messaged me with regret: 'I was overwhelmed by disturbing WhatsApp messages and videos portraying Muslims as terrorists. I got caught up momentarily.' I realised instantly how 'WhatsApp University' – with its barrage of forwarded videos, memes, and half-truths – can poison even soft hearts like Monika's. In a gesture of reconciliation, she spoke with Sushanta and even invited him to visit Mata Vaishno Devi, the sacred Hindu shrine in Jammu. Her transformation mirrored my own journey from betrayal to renewed trust. After a month, Sushanta's family drove me to Heathrow. Moumita touched my feet once more, a quiet promise of enduring connection. Back in Kashmir, my phone rang. ' Bhaya, when will you visit again?' Sushanta asked, his voice carrying the warmth of Woodford Green. The tragedy of Baisaran had shaken my faith in humanity, but London's kindness restored it. In a world shaken by fear and fractured by hate, it was quiet acts of care that endured. In those moments, I found proof that humanity's heart beats stronger than its wounds. Farooq Shah is a veteran journalist from Kashmir. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
Indian Express
13 hours ago
- Indian Express
‘What can we do if our names are cut out, what will we do?'
A LANDLOCKED region comprising Purnia, Katihar, Kishanganj, Supaul and Araria districts, the Muslim-dominated Seemanchal ranks the lowest on almost all development indices in Bihar. Around this time of the year, its foremost concern is the weather, with the rains bringing annual floods and distress. This time, there is another concern weighing Seemanchal down – the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, which requires voters to produce documents that few here own, or know how to go about procuring. With the poor and marginalised likely to be the most affected by the EC drive, as the only official documents most of them hold are not valid for enrolment, political parties based in Seemanchal have taken the lead in slamming the poll panel. Purnia MP Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav, an Independent, has told people 'not to cooperate with BLOs', the Booth Level Officers conducting the revision exercise on the ground. In Katihar, the CPI (ML-Liberation) MLA from Barsoi, Mehboob Alam, has also told voters in his constituency 'not to entertain BLOs' till he tells them to do so. With both Pappu Yadav and the CPI (ML-Liberation) allies of the RJD, its national vice-president Shivanand Tiwari tells The Indian Express: 'We all need to resist this tooth and nail.' Tiwari puts Seemanchal, where Muslims form over 40% of the population in four districts (with their numbers over 70% in Kishanganj), as 'central to the debate' around the EC move, which comes just ahead of the Assembly elections. The fact that Seemanchal borders West Bengal and Nepal, with Bangladesh not far away – inviting claims of illegal immigration – adds another dimension to the issue, the RJD leader adds. Calling the EC drive part of 'a sinister design to implement the RSS agenda', Tiwari says it cannot be used to weed out illegal migrants, as 'the Centre has no data or wherewithal' for it. The 11 documents the EC wants from those who don't figure in the 2003 electoral rolls (when the EC says it carried out its last Special Intensive Revision) are akin to seeking proof of citizenship. Among those hoping for clarity is Pranuffinisa Khatoon. The 37-year-old still wears her sari 'the Bengali way', but for years now, life for her has meant tilling the fields of her landlord at Rampur Kothi Ghat village in Purnia. For 15 of those years, she says, she has been a registered voter in Bihar. Aware of the new EC requirement for those who do not feature in the 2003 electoral rolls, Khatoon has applied for a domicile certificate. She has heard it requires only an Aadhaar card, which she possesses. But as no BLOs have made their way to Rampur Kothi Ghat yet, she is not sure. Khatoon and members of about 20 families like her in the village are also unsure about whether they will get the certificates on time to complete the process, even though departments have been told to expedite the issue of certificates needed for the EC exercise. As per the EC deadline, a draft electoral roll, based on the new enumeration forms, is to be readied by August 1. 'If Aadhaar, PAN, MNREGS cards don't count among the 11 documents the EC wants for enrolment, why were they issued in the first place,' asks Mohammed Afsar Ali, a daily wager in Dhamdaha, in another part of Purnia. At Jamunigarhi village in Kishanganj, Shariq, 42, also a daily wager, says he is in the clear as his name is in the 2003 voters' list. However, for his two brothers, both born after 1987, the family hopes to procure domicile certificates. These certificates normally take 15 days, Shariq says. 'The BLOs have not told us anything so far.' 'Shaken' by the EC's drive, an agitated Shariq says all of them voted as recently as last year's Lok Sabha polls. 'This is the NRC (National Register of Citizens) via the backdoor, with the EC playing proxy for the Centre,' he says. However, his aggression soon gives way to resignation. 'What can we do if our names are cut from the electoral rolls? What will we do?' Kishanganj district Congress president Ali Imam Chintu says there are no BLOs around to address people's concerns. 'We are hitting the streets. This revision must be withdrawn as it lacks transparency.' BLO Naushad Ahmad is among those collecting enrolment forms at Ward No. 4 of Nagar Panchayat in Bahadurganj in Kishanganj district. All around are people waving their Aadhaar cards at him, and Ahmad's irritation rises as he keeps repeating that they are not valid. 'Get a domicile certificate fast,' he tells those in the queue. Ahmad admits he is racing against time. 'Of the 1,456 voters in this booth, I have been able to upload filled-up forms of only 20 as the word of the EC exercise has reached late and people are yet to realise the importance of the exercise. The relatives of over 20% of the voters who do not live in the village are the most worried about how they would get enrolled.' Rosy Begum, 25, says her husband Badruddin works in Russia and 'comes back to the village during the elections'. The BLO tells her he has the option to apply online, but Rosy doesn't look too reassured. Over 60 km away, in Hardar village in Araria, the news of the EC revision has barely reached. Once, Araria carried weight in Bihar politics for being the turf of the late RJD leader Mohammed Taslimuddin, but now it ranks low in the priority list. Mohammed Shamim, 40, a madrasa teacher, says no one he knows has been approached by a BLO so far. 'We do not know what to do. We only have Aadhaar cards.' Mohammed Yasin says he never got birth certificates made of his two sons. 'We are anxious about what would happen if we lose our votes,' he says, wondering about 'the government's intentions'. Requesting anonymity, at least three BLOs in Purnia, Araria and Kishanganj districts say that even if it is an exercise to remove illegal voters, very little planning appears to have gone into it. 'The process of revision will leave out a fair number of voters, genuine or otherwise,' says one of them. The Mahagathbandhan has given a call for Bihar Bandh on July 9 on the issue. But fear that their voters may find themselves unable to vote has also left unease in NDA ranks. While JD(U) and Lok Janshakti Party workers talk of a 'negative fallout' in private, Rashtriya Lok Morcha (RLM) chief Upendra Kushwaha has said publicly that the EC must address 'people's concerns and apprehensions'. In the Kasba and Dhamdaha blocks of Purnia district, close to the Bengal border, Bengali is spoken commonly, besides the local Surjapuri dialect. At Mallik Rampur village here, Mohammed Naushad, 21, who takes up odd jobs for a living, says he has no papers to show, and is done caring. 'Koi kaagaz nahin hain. Zyada se zyada kya hoga, Bangladesh bhej dega (I have no papers. What is the worst that can happen? They will send me to Bangladesh),' he says. As the elders around him try to reassure him, Mohammed Yusuf, sitting some distance away, says the EC's move has changed the political discourse. 'People were discussing Nitish Kumar, Lalu Prasad or Prashant Kishor all these days. Now we are discussing if we are voters or not.' The joy of Mohammed Shamsher, 60, a daily wager at Idgah Chowk, among the few to have procured an enrolment form, proves short-lived as he realises that neither Aadhaar, nor his bank passbook or MNREGS card can help him fill it. 'I have no other papers, no domicile certificate. Everyone asks for bribes to issue these papers,' Shamsher says. 'We are better off without voting.' In Khataghat village in another part of the district, Mohammed Rizwan, 25, has decided to take matters in his own hands. He has been sharing all information received on the exercise on a WhatsApp group of their Shersabadi community. 'We know the power of our vote, and want to ensure genuine voters don't get left out.'
Hans India
14 hours ago
- Hans India
Citizens' right to be communal but the State's duty is to be secular
The Indian Constitution enshrines secularism as a cornerstone of political governance, mandating state neutrality in religious matters, while guaranteeing citizens the right to express communal identities. Yet, a paradox has emerged: the state engages in practices favouring Muslims and Christians, while citizens, particularly Hindus, face pressure to suppress their collective religious expressions. This article argues that Indian secularism has strayed from its constitutional moorings, undermining citizens' communal rights, especially of Hindus. By dissecting communalism and secularism, analysing constitutional provisions, and exposing state violations, it defends communalism as a legitimate constitutional right and calls for restoring the state's secular mandate to nurture India's pluralistic ethos. Communalism and secularism: Communalism and secularism, often misunderstood in Indian discourse, diverge from their original meanings. Communalism, from the Latin communis (shared), denotes collective religious or cultural activities that foster solidarity and cultural continuity, serving as both a unifying and divisive force, and a natural expression of human social bonds. Secularism, from saecularis (worldly), mandates state neutrality in governance, ensuring equidistance from all religions without favour or discrimination, and excluding religious considerations from public policy. These concepts are complementary: communalism reflects citizens' rights to collective religious expression, while secularism obliges the state to remain impartial. In India, communalism is stigmatised as divisive, particularly for Hindus, while secularism is distorted as appeasement of Muslims and Christians and deliberately misconstrued as a mandate for citizens—especially Hindus—to suppress their religious and communal identities. This wilful distortion disrupts the constitutional balance between citizens' communal rights and the state's secular obligations, precipitating a crisis for the Hindu religion and civilisation. Constitutional framework-A blueprint for balance: The Preamble of the Indian Constitution declares India a 'sovereign socialist secular democratic republic,' emphasizing the state's commitment to impartiality in religious matters while guaranteeing citizens 'liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith, and worship.' This foundational statement sets the tone: the state must remain secular, while citizens are free to engage in communal activities promoting their religious and cultural identities. Citizens' rights to communalism: Articles 25 and 26 explicitly protect citizens' rights to communal expression. The former ensures freedom of religion, both individually and collectively, subject to reasonable restrictions. Article 26 allows religious denominations to establish and manage their own institutions, conduct religious affairs, and maintain charitable organizations. These constitutional provisions enshrine communal activities as fundamental rights. State's duty is to be secular: Conversely, Articles 14, 15, 16 and 27 mandate state neutrality. Article 14 ensures equality before the law, Article 15 prohibits discrimination based on religion, Article 16 guarantees equal opportunity in public employment, while Article 27 bars the use of public funds to promote any religion or interests of any religious group. Together, these articles establish that the state must treat all religious communities impartially, refraining from policies that favour one religious group over another. This framework creates a clear division of roles: citizens are free to express their communal identities, while the state is obligated to uphold secular governance. State's communal practices-A betrayal of secularism: Despite this constitutional clarity, the Indian state has deviated from its secular mandate, engaging in practices that favour specific religious communities—particularly Muslims and Christians—while discriminating against Hindus. This betrayal manifests in several ways, undermining the principles of equality and neutrality enshrined in the Constitution. Religion-based welfare schemes: One of the most glaring violations is the allocation of public funds, drawn from taxpayers of all faiths to welfare schemes targeting specific religious communities, namely Muslims and Christians. Yet, no equivalent schemes are designed for Hindus based on their religious identity. This selective allocation violates Article 27, which prohibits the use of public funds to promote any religion or religious group, and Article 14, which mandates equality before the law. Over the past decade, central and state governments have allocated approximately Rs one lakh crore towards welfare schemes targeting Muslims and Christians, to the exclusion of Hindus. These schemes are justified as addressing socio-economic disparities among minorities, but this rationale does not withstand scrutiny. Socio-economic challenges affect all communities, including Hindus. A secular state should aid all citizens in need based on economic criteria, not religious identity. By tying benefits to religion, the state violates its secular mandate, fostering resentment among Hindus, who feel unfairly excluded and question whether their only fault is being Hindu. Control of Hindu temples: The state's control over Hindu temples exemplifies its anti-secular bias. Over two lakh temples across India are managed or controlled by state governments, while mosques and churches operate with complete autonomy, free from similar interference. This disparity violates Article 26, which grants all religious communities equal rights to manage their institutions. How can a state that selectively controls Hindu religious bodies claim to uphold secularism? Biases in education and public discourse: The public education system exacerbates this imbalance by perpetuating anti-Hindu biases. Textbooks often portray Hindu practices as regressive or superstitious, while presenting the practices of other communities as culturally progressive or inclusive. This selective framing violates Article 28, which mandates that publicly funded education remain free of religious bias. Beyond education, media and political narratives frequently stigmatise Hindu communal expression as divisive or backward, while celebrating similar expressions by Muslims and Christians as being vibrant or progressive. These double standards erode the constitutional protection of Hindu communal rights under Articles 25 and 26. This practice of favouring Muslims and Christians while discriminating against Hindus under the guise of neutral governance, which erodes the Constitution's guarantee of equality and fuels resentment, is denounced as pseudo-secularism. Mischaracterisation of communalism: The stigmatisation of communalism in Indian discourse is a legacy of historical distortions, particularly tied to the 1947 Partition, which, driven by demands for a separate Islamic state, was marked by unprecedented violence and displacement of Hindus. Yet, post-independence narratives have often shifted blame to Hindus, fostering a pervasive anti-Hindu bias in public discourse and governance. This policy of favouring Muslims and Christians while discriminating against Hindus under the guise of neutral governance pressures Hindus to suppress their religious identities and communal rights in the name of secularism, as if only Hindus bear the responsibility to uphold it, while Muslims and Christians reap its benefits at Hindus' expense. Religion is inherently communal, fostering collective expression that is not divisive unless the religion itself promotes division, as often seen in Abrahamic faiths but not in indigenous Indian religions. Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution explicitly protect these communal expressions, recognising religion as both a personal and public endeavour and expression. Mischaracterizing communalism as synonymous with violence or divisiveness distorts its constitutional rights. Religion is inherently communal, fostering collective expression that is not divisive unless the religion itself promotes division, as often seen in Abrahamic faiths but not in indigenous Indian religions. Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution explicitly protect these communal expressions, recognising religion as both a personal and public endeavour. Mischaracterizing communalism as synonymous with violence or divisiveness distorts its constitutional legitimacy and undermines the Constitution's pluralistic vision. Policy recommendations: To restore constitutional balance, the state must: eliminate religion-based welfare schemes, allocating resources based on socio-economic need; relinquish control over temples, enacting legislation for transparent, community-led management of all religious institutions with dispute resolution mechanisms; and celebrate communal activities across faiths without stigmatisation. The judiciary and civil society must uphold these principles, ensuring a pluralistic society where citizens freely exercise communal rights, and the state remains steadfastly secular. Conclusion: India's Constitution envisions a pluralistic society where citizens freely express communal identities, and the state upholds impartial governance. Yet, discriminatory policies favouring Muslims and Christians, and state control of only Hindu religious institutions have disrupted this balance. By eliminating religion-based public expenditure and policies, ensuring autonomy for all religious institutions, and fostering unbiased discourse, India can restore its secular mandate. The judiciary and civil society must champion equality, nurturing a society where communal rights thrive under a truly secular state. (The author is a retired IPS officer and former Director, CBI. Views are personal)
