What do you think?
Rate this book
India Wins Freedom: The Complete Version
One of the makers of modern India tells the story of the partition of India as never before, with intimate knowledge and feeling. India Wins Freedom has at last won its own freedom. The full text of this autobiographical narrative was confined, under seal, in the National Library, Calcutta, and in the National Archives, New Delhi, for thirty years. What we now have is the complete text, released in September 1988, by a court directive. Not only have all the words and phrases of the original been reproduced, the original tone and temper have been fully restored. The text now reveals that the controversy that has simmered for so long about the hitherto unpublished pages, was fully justified.
353 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1978
274 people are currently reading
3717 people want to read
About the author
Abul Kalam Azad
107 books138 followersMaulana Sayyid Abul Kalam Ghulam Muhiyuddin Ahmed bin Khairuddin Al-Hussaini Azad was an Indian scholar, Islamic theologian, independence activist, and a senior leader of the Indian National Congress during the Indian independence movement.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 146 reviews
September 4, 2021
I remember, many years back, when the complete version of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad’s book was released, it had aroused a lot of curiosity as there was new content which he had authorized for release only after 30 years. There is certainly material critical of other leaders (especially Sardar Patel towards the end of the book) though the treatment is fairly mature. The book is right on most aspects including the fact that partition was not progress towards peace. The main issue with the book though is that it has a “I know best” tone right through the entire book with blame laid on others –Patel, Jinnah, Nehru & Gandhiji.
The book covers the period in the late 1930s and 40s leading up to the freedom of India. Considerable part of the coverage is the period in the early 1940s when Maulana Azad was the President of the Indian National Congress. The second world war and whether Indians will participate is contentious, with most in the Congress wanting to tie to independence finds detailed discussion. The Quit India movement is launched in 1942. Maulana Azad holds that this was a mistake and all prominent Congress leaders ended up in jail, while the Muslim League grew during that time and built up a case for partition.
Maulana Azad makes the point that there was apprehension among the Muslims on their status if the leadership was largely Hindu. His reasoning here is spot on that rather than partition - constitutional safeguards, federal structure of states and strong leadership would have provided the safeguards and that is what he worked towards. He points to mistakes Nehru made on two occasions where he could not arrive at a power sharing in states (in 1937) with the Muslim league and later in 1946 mentioned in public that the cabinet plan will be improvised as needed. Mr Jinnah, already not too happy with the cabinet plan, promptly rejected the cabinet plan. The interim government was a turbulent affair with the Muslim League holding the Finance portfolio and entered into constant bickering and stonewalling proposals. This apparently led Patel and later Nehru to give up on the possibility of working with the League. At the same time Lord Mountbatten became an advocate of partition as well. While he is very critical of Patel here, he also opines that maybe Lady Mountbatten had a role in convincing Nehru. Maulana Azad now looks towards Gandhiji, who does try his best in convincing Mr Jinnah but had to lose hope finally.
Partition arrives, and with it, large scale violence and dislocation of people. As Maulana Azad points out, with mixed populations in so many places, partition could never have been a good solution (events completely bear him out with minorities in Pakistan facing intimidation and their numbers declining steeply). However, it was a genie which could not be put back in the bottle after the League went full steam with it. Gandhiji’s fast in Delhi to bring the communal violence to an end makes for very moving reading. Already very frail, he does it with great risks to his health, hardly able to move after a few days. He breaks his fast by sipping juice from Maulana Azad’s hands finally as communities meet him and work to end the violence and acrimony. Very soon, further tragedy strikes with Gandhiji’s assassination, and here again Maulana Azad feels more caution could have been taken as there was a bomb attack shortly before.
At the end as Maulana Azad writes, all were losers with an unstable Pakistan struggling to establish a functional democracy and constant animosity between the nations. This is entirely correct – the problems between the two nations is far greater than within a multi-cultural India which now has a larger Muslim population than Pakistan, other than all major world religions.
The only mistake which Maulana Azad says he personally made was not seeking re-election in 1946 as Congress President, instead proposing Nehru’s name. It is always somebody else who is to blame for all problems, and this is the most irritating aspect of the book. This is an important book, and in hindsight Maulana Azad makes all the right points with remarkable foresight on what partition would mean.
After every account that I read of the Indian Independence movement, my respect for Mahatma Gandhi only goes up further. With his selflessness, love for all and absolute commitment to non-violence, he is the role model the world needs to follow.
The book covers the period in the late 1930s and 40s leading up to the freedom of India. Considerable part of the coverage is the period in the early 1940s when Maulana Azad was the President of the Indian National Congress. The second world war and whether Indians will participate is contentious, with most in the Congress wanting to tie to independence finds detailed discussion. The Quit India movement is launched in 1942. Maulana Azad holds that this was a mistake and all prominent Congress leaders ended up in jail, while the Muslim League grew during that time and built up a case for partition.
Maulana Azad makes the point that there was apprehension among the Muslims on their status if the leadership was largely Hindu. His reasoning here is spot on that rather than partition - constitutional safeguards, federal structure of states and strong leadership would have provided the safeguards and that is what he worked towards. He points to mistakes Nehru made on two occasions where he could not arrive at a power sharing in states (in 1937) with the Muslim league and later in 1946 mentioned in public that the cabinet plan will be improvised as needed. Mr Jinnah, already not too happy with the cabinet plan, promptly rejected the cabinet plan. The interim government was a turbulent affair with the Muslim League holding the Finance portfolio and entered into constant bickering and stonewalling proposals. This apparently led Patel and later Nehru to give up on the possibility of working with the League. At the same time Lord Mountbatten became an advocate of partition as well. While he is very critical of Patel here, he also opines that maybe Lady Mountbatten had a role in convincing Nehru. Maulana Azad now looks towards Gandhiji, who does try his best in convincing Mr Jinnah but had to lose hope finally.
Partition arrives, and with it, large scale violence and dislocation of people. As Maulana Azad points out, with mixed populations in so many places, partition could never have been a good solution (events completely bear him out with minorities in Pakistan facing intimidation and their numbers declining steeply). However, it was a genie which could not be put back in the bottle after the League went full steam with it. Gandhiji’s fast in Delhi to bring the communal violence to an end makes for very moving reading. Already very frail, he does it with great risks to his health, hardly able to move after a few days. He breaks his fast by sipping juice from Maulana Azad’s hands finally as communities meet him and work to end the violence and acrimony. Very soon, further tragedy strikes with Gandhiji’s assassination, and here again Maulana Azad feels more caution could have been taken as there was a bomb attack shortly before.
At the end as Maulana Azad writes, all were losers with an unstable Pakistan struggling to establish a functional democracy and constant animosity between the nations. This is entirely correct – the problems between the two nations is far greater than within a multi-cultural India which now has a larger Muslim population than Pakistan, other than all major world religions.
The only mistake which Maulana Azad says he personally made was not seeking re-election in 1946 as Congress President, instead proposing Nehru’s name. It is always somebody else who is to blame for all problems, and this is the most irritating aspect of the book. This is an important book, and in hindsight Maulana Azad makes all the right points with remarkable foresight on what partition would mean.
After every account that I read of the Indian Independence movement, my respect for Mahatma Gandhi only goes up further. With his selflessness, love for all and absolute commitment to non-violence, he is the role model the world needs to follow.
June 12, 2013
Maulana Abul Kalam Azad has always been a person of interest to me. He could be the best premise to test the secular credentials of Indian National Congress. And he was successful in portraying that the communal tensions experienced by pre-independent India had nothing to do with religion but everything to do with politics. A staunch supporter of united India, kept to his word till his last breath and openly criticized Gandhi, Nehru and Patel for diluting their stands which resulted in the partition of India, "The end of a dream".
The book deals in detail with his Congress President-ship period of 1940-1945 and continues with the partition story and ends with Gandhi's death. His differences with major Congress leaders especially with Gandhi have been clearly highlighted. His assertion that for him- Non-Violence was a matter of policy, not of creed gave answers to my apprehensions regarding the concept of Non-Violence.
He didn't shy away from openly criticizing a few re owned leaders as those without a perspective of their own and as puppets of Gandhi. He analyzed the political blunders committed by others as much as those committed by himself.
His predictions about the future of a special state for Muslims came to be very true as we see it today.
Maulana Azad is perhaps next to Gandhi in influencing the freedom movement and it is sad that he is eclipsed by Nehru and Patel in terms of popularity. Though ‘India wins freedom’ is a regular auto-biography, it is a must read for everyone to understand a man whose dream of India got shattered cause of various political transactions. My interest in knowing the ideas of Maulana regarding the criticism that INC used him as a symbolic instrument to woo Indian Muslims to gain their support is not served though.
The book deals in detail with his Congress President-ship period of 1940-1945 and continues with the partition story and ends with Gandhi's death. His differences with major Congress leaders especially with Gandhi have been clearly highlighted. His assertion that for him- Non-Violence was a matter of policy, not of creed gave answers to my apprehensions regarding the concept of Non-Violence.
He didn't shy away from openly criticizing a few re owned leaders as those without a perspective of their own and as puppets of Gandhi. He analyzed the political blunders committed by others as much as those committed by himself.
His predictions about the future of a special state for Muslims came to be very true as we see it today.
Maulana Azad is perhaps next to Gandhi in influencing the freedom movement and it is sad that he is eclipsed by Nehru and Patel in terms of popularity. Though ‘India wins freedom’ is a regular auto-biography, it is a must read for everyone to understand a man whose dream of India got shattered cause of various political transactions. My interest in knowing the ideas of Maulana regarding the criticism that INC used him as a symbolic instrument to woo Indian Muslims to gain their support is not served though.
July 22, 2022
প্রায় দুশো বছরের ব্রিটিশ শাসনের অবসান ঘটলো যেদিন, ভারতবর্ষ সেদিন দ্বিধাবিভক্ত। দীর্ঘদিনের অমানুষিক সংগ্রাম শেষ হওয়ার পরে দেখা গ্যালো, সারা দেশে আনন্দের আতশবাজি নয়, সাম্প্রদায়িক ঘৃণার আগুন জ্বলছে। দেশমায়ের কর্তিত শরীর থেকে গলগল করে বেরিয়ে আসছে রক্ত। ভারতের স্বাধীনতা আন্দোলনের অন্যতম অগ্রণী ব্যক্তিত্ব মৌলানা আবুল কালাম আজাদের স্মৃতিচারণামূলক বইটির একদম অন্তিম বাক্যটি হলো : History alone will decide whether we had acted wisely and correctly.
তারপর পঁচাত্তর বছর কেটে গেছে। ইতিহাসের রায় এখন কী বলছে? গান্ধীজির নেতৃত্বে স্বাধীনতা আন্দোলনের সঙ্গে সবচেয়ে প্রত্যক্ষভাবে জড়িত ছিলেন যাঁরা, কতটা সঠিক ছিলো তাঁদের নেওয়া বিভিন্ন সিদ্ধান্ত? কতটা দূরদৃষ্টিসম্পন্ন ছিলেন তাঁরা? অকল্পনীয় অত্যাচার ও অপমানের বদলে "স্বাধীনতা" নামের যে-বস্তুটি লাভ করেছিলো দেশের সাধারণ মানুষ, তারা আস্থা রেখেছিলো এই নেতাদের উপর। আস্থার কতটুকু দাম দিতে পেরেছিলেন সেই নেতৃবৃন্দ?
মৌলানা আজাদের বইটি পড়ে মালুম হয়, দূরদৃষ্টি থাকা তো অনেক দূরের কথা, সমসাময়িক দেয়াললিখনটাও তাঁরা ভালোভাবে পড়তে পারেননি। স্বাধীনতা-পরবর্তী ভারতীয় রাজনীতির যেটা সবচেয়ে বড় বৈশিষ্ট্য, আমজনতাকে "মুরগি" বানানো, সাধারণ মানুষের জীবন ও ভবিষ্যত নিয়ে ছিনিমিনি খেলার প্রবণতা, এই ট্র্যাডিশনের সূত্রপাত অনেক আগেই ঘটিয়ে ফেলেছিলেন মহান জননায়করা। খুব খুব স্পষ্ট ভাষায় সেই বৃত্তান্ত তুলে ধরেছেন মৌলানা আজাদ। বইটির সবচেয়ে বড় কৃতিত্ব এখানেই।
কাউকে ছেড়ে কথা বলেননি মৌলানা। গান্ধীজি, পণ্ডিত নেহরু, সর্দার পটেল এবং তাঁদের আরো যত কংগ্রেসী সাঙ্গপাঙ্গ, সক্কলের বিচ্যুতিকে, ব্যর্থতাকে, অপদার্থতাকে, সোজাসুজি আঙুল তুলে দেখিয়েছেন। দেশভাগ কিংবা পাকিস্তান-সৃষ্টির ট্র্যাজেডি, যেটা আজকের দিনেও কুরে কুরে খাচ্ছে উপমহাদেশের মানুষকে, তার জন্যে এককভাবে দায়ী করা হয় জিন্নাহ এবং মুসলিম লীগকে। কিন্তু আরো কয়েকজন মানুষ এর জন্যে দায়ী ছিলেন। পাইকারি হারে স্তব-স্তুতির আড়ালে ঢাকা পড়ে গেছে সেই নামগুলো। এই বই খোঁজ দিয়েছে তাদের।
বইটির তিনটি ত্রুটি চোখে পড়েছে আমার। এক, স্বাধীনতা আন্দোলনে সুভাষচন্দ্র বসুর অবদানকে খুব হাস্যকরভাবে এড়িয়ে গেছেন লেখক। দুই, সকলের দোষত্রুটি দেখিয়েছেন, কিন্তু নিজের ব্যাপারে কেবল ভালো ভালো কথা বলেছেন— "সব্বাই ভুল, শুধু আমি ঠিক"। তিন, বইটি আদপে মৌলানা নিজে লেখেননি। মৌলানার সঙ্গে বিস্তারিত কথাবার্তা-সাক্ষাৎকার নেওয়ার পরে বইটি লিখেছিলেন হুমায়ুন কবীর। হুমায়ুনের লেখার ভাষা আমার কাছে বেশ নিরস ও বিরক্তিকর ঠেকেছে। বিষয়বস্তু আকর্ষণীয় ছিলো, তাই পড়ে শেষ করতে পেরেছি। কিন্তু এই ত্রুটিগুলো থাকা সত্ত্বেও বইটির সামগ্রিক মূল্য অপরিসীম।
কংগ্রেসের অন্যান্য নেতাদের বাদ দিয়ে, শুধুমাত্র সর্দার বল্লভভাই পটেলকে কেজি কেজি ভালোবাসা এবং শ্রদ্ধার মোড়কে ক্যানো ঢেকে দিচ্ছে নরেন্দ্র মোদি অ্যান্ড কোম্পানি, বিপুল টাকা খরচ করে পটেলের বৃহদাকার মূর্তি প্রতিষ্ঠা করা হলো ক্যানো (পৃথিবীর উচ্চতম স্ট্যাচু), এইসব জটিল প্রশ্নের সহজ উত্তরও পেয়েছি বইটা থেকে। ভারতের স্বাধীনতা আন্দোলনের শেষ বারোটা বছরকে একটা নির্লজ্জ রাজনৈতিক প্রহসন বললে একটুও বাড়িয়ে বলা হবে না!
তারপর পঁচাত্তর বছর কেটে গেছে। ইতিহাসের রায় এখন কী বলছে? গান্ধীজির নেতৃত্বে স্বাধীনতা আন্দোলনের সঙ্গে সবচেয়ে প্রত্যক্ষভাবে জড়িত ছিলেন যাঁরা, কতটা সঠিক ছিলো তাঁদের নেওয়া বিভিন্ন সিদ্ধান্ত? কতটা দূরদৃষ্টিসম্পন্ন ছিলেন তাঁরা? অকল্পনীয় অত্যাচার ও অপমানের বদলে "স্বাধীনতা" নামের যে-বস্তুটি লাভ করেছিলো দেশের সাধারণ মানুষ, তারা আস্থা রেখেছিলো এই নেতাদের উপর। আস্থার কতটুকু দাম দিতে পেরেছিলেন সেই নেতৃবৃন্দ?
মৌলানা আজাদের বইটি পড়ে মালুম হয়, দূরদৃষ্টি থাকা তো অনেক দূরের কথা, সমসাময়িক দেয়াললিখনটাও তাঁরা ভালোভাবে পড়তে পারেননি। স্বাধীনতা-পরবর্তী ভারতীয় রাজনীতির যেটা সবচেয়ে বড় বৈশিষ্ট্য, আমজনতাকে "মুরগি" বানানো, সাধারণ মানুষের জীবন ও ভবিষ্যত নিয়ে ছিনিমিনি খেলার প্রবণতা, এই ট্র্যাডিশনের সূত্রপাত অনেক আগেই ঘটিয়ে ফেলেছিলেন মহান জননায়করা। খুব খুব স্পষ্ট ভাষায় সেই বৃত্তান্ত তুলে ধরেছেন মৌলানা আজাদ। বইটির সবচেয়ে বড় কৃতিত্ব এখানেই।
কাউকে ছেড়ে কথা বলেননি মৌলানা। গান্ধীজি, পণ্ডিত নেহরু, সর্দার পটেল এবং তাঁদের আরো যত কংগ্রেসী সাঙ্গপাঙ্গ, সক্কলের বিচ্যুতিকে, ব্যর্থতাকে, অপদার্থতাকে, সোজাসুজি আঙুল তুলে দেখিয়েছেন। দেশভাগ কিংবা পাকিস্তান-সৃষ্টির ট্র্যাজেডি, যেটা আজকের দিনেও কুরে কুরে খাচ্ছে উপমহাদেশের মানুষকে, তার জন্যে এককভাবে দায়ী করা হয় জিন্নাহ এবং মুসলিম লীগকে। কিন্তু আরো কয়েকজন মানুষ এর জন্যে দায়ী ছিলেন। পাইকারি হারে স্তব-স্তুতির আড়ালে ঢাকা পড়ে গেছে সেই নামগুলো। এই বই খোঁজ দিয়েছে তাদের।
বইটির তিনটি ত্রুটি চোখে পড়েছে আমার। এক, স্বাধীনতা আন্দোলনে সুভাষচন্দ্র বসুর অবদানকে খুব হাস্যকরভাবে এড়িয়ে গেছেন লেখক। দুই, সকলের দোষত্রুটি দেখিয়েছেন, কিন্তু নিজের ব্যাপারে কেবল ভালো ভালো কথা বলেছেন— "সব্বাই ভুল, শুধু আমি ঠিক"। তিন, বইটি আদপে মৌলানা নিজে লেখেননি। মৌলানার সঙ্গে বিস্তারিত কথাবার্তা-সাক্ষাৎকার নেওয়ার পরে বইটি লিখেছিলেন হুমায়ুন কবীর। হুমায়ুনের লেখার ভাষা আমার কাছে বেশ নিরস ও বিরক্তিকর ঠেকেছে। বিষয়বস্তু আকর্ষণীয় ছিলো, তাই পড়ে শেষ করতে পেরেছি। কিন্তু এই ত্রুটিগুলো থাকা সত্ত্বেও বইটির সামগ্রিক মূল্য অপরিসীম।
কংগ্রেসের অন্যান্য নেতাদের বাদ দিয়ে, শুধুমাত্র সর্দার বল্লভভাই পটেলকে কেজি কেজি ভালোবাসা এবং শ্রদ্ধার মোড়কে ক্যানো ঢেকে দিচ্ছে নরেন্দ্র মোদি অ্যান্ড কোম্পানি, বিপুল টাকা খরচ করে পটেলের বৃহদাকার মূর্তি প্রতিষ্ঠা করা হলো ক্যানো (পৃথিবীর উচ্চতম স্ট্যাচু), এইসব জটিল প্রশ্নের সহজ উত্তরও পেয়েছি বইটা থেকে। ভারতের স্বাধীনতা আন্দোলনের শেষ বারোটা বছরকে একটা নির্লজ্জ রাজনৈতিক প্রহসন বললে একটুও বাড়িয়ে বলা হবে না!
October 9, 2019
For the most part this is not a biography in the traditional sense, but Maulana Azad's description of the last days of British India. The key question of this period was Partition, and it is one that continues to interest me. Azad was on the side of the Indian nationalists and against the Muslim League. The League did not participate in any organized fashion in the freedom struggle against the British. Nonetheless many prominent Muslims did take part, including Azad, Abdul Ghaffar Khan and others. The Muslim League failed to achieve electoral prominence among Muslims until the very last days of the Raj.
Although Jinnah is often depicted in Indian historiographies as the villain who sundered the country, the reality is more complex. Under his leadership the League actually accepted the British Cabinet Mission proposal for a united federal India. This proposal had been created with strong input from Azad as it turns out. It was Nehru who, after the League's acceptance, made a stunning statement apparently promising to disregard the agreement upon Indian independence. Sardar Patel, who had sectarian sentiments towards Muslims, took similar steps to call the agreement into question. It was this break of faith at a decisive moment that then made Partition inevitable and severed any possible reconciliation between the League and Congress. It never fails to outrage me how the troubled interpersonal relations between a small group of people can end up destroying the lives of millions.
Azad refused to give up what he saw as his right as a Muslim and as an Indian to partake in the social and political life of a united India. My sympathies are with him in this. Even with the most generous interpretation the concept of Partition suggested that Muslims somehow did not belong in India and did not have rights to it, despite living there for over a thousand years. This highly contentious idea was reified in the form of nation-state borders that continue to exist today. The consequences for Indian Muslims, who actually outnumber Pakistanis today, have been very dire. This book contains a very stirring address by Azad in which he outlines his opposition to Pakistan as a Muslim. It is difficult to deal in counterfactuals and what is done is done. Nonetheless I find Azad on all accounts to be a much more formidable figure than the Muslim League members who went on to create Pakistan. Having said that I wouldn't mind reading a book from their perspective.
Although Jinnah is often depicted in Indian historiographies as the villain who sundered the country, the reality is more complex. Under his leadership the League actually accepted the British Cabinet Mission proposal for a united federal India. This proposal had been created with strong input from Azad as it turns out. It was Nehru who, after the League's acceptance, made a stunning statement apparently promising to disregard the agreement upon Indian independence. Sardar Patel, who had sectarian sentiments towards Muslims, took similar steps to call the agreement into question. It was this break of faith at a decisive moment that then made Partition inevitable and severed any possible reconciliation between the League and Congress. It never fails to outrage me how the troubled interpersonal relations between a small group of people can end up destroying the lives of millions.
Azad refused to give up what he saw as his right as a Muslim and as an Indian to partake in the social and political life of a united India. My sympathies are with him in this. Even with the most generous interpretation the concept of Partition suggested that Muslims somehow did not belong in India and did not have rights to it, despite living there for over a thousand years. This highly contentious idea was reified in the form of nation-state borders that continue to exist today. The consequences for Indian Muslims, who actually outnumber Pakistanis today, have been very dire. This book contains a very stirring address by Azad in which he outlines his opposition to Pakistan as a Muslim. It is difficult to deal in counterfactuals and what is done is done. Nonetheless I find Azad on all accounts to be a much more formidable figure than the Muslim League members who went on to create Pakistan. Having said that I wouldn't mind reading a book from their perspective.
February 11, 2014
“INDIA WINS FREEDOM” is the best book to study the process of transfer of power from British to Indian hands. The book gives detailed description of political activities happened during 1935-1947 from an insider’s point of view Maulana Abul Kalam Azad.
The book was narrated by Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, first education minister of independent India, very low profile politician, and written by Professor Humayun Kabir.
On Azad’s request initial version of the book was published in 1958 leaving portion of the book related to a “personal character” due to political gravity of the situation. The complete version was kept in National Library, Calcutta and the National Archives, New Delhi for thirty years and then published in 1988 with court’s order. Over 30 million copies have been sold already of this book.
Azad has shared very little information about his personal life but has given detail of political life. Book begins with election held after the introduction of provincial autonomy in 1935 and congress’s overwhelming victory. Then he tells differences in congress about assumption of office.
In 1939 II world war began and Congress decided not to participate in war until and unless India was given complete independence. In 1940 Azad took over the post of Congress President and he remained there until 1946. This was the critical time for India, during this period there was many negotiations between Congress and British Govt. like Cripps Mission, Simla Conference, The British Cabinet Mission. As president of congress he was the representative of India in all these negotiations.
He had differences with GANDHIJI,Nehru & Patel and he has elaborated these incidents in details.He has also written about Two Faced Character of Jinnah.
Partition is the worst moment in India’s history.Book gives details of the factors and characters responsible for partition.Characters include Jinnah,Mountbatten,Sardar Patel & many more.
This is a worth reading book for knowledge of History as well as Politics of pre independent India as well as for competition exam like IAS.
The book was narrated by Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, first education minister of independent India, very low profile politician, and written by Professor Humayun Kabir.
On Azad’s request initial version of the book was published in 1958 leaving portion of the book related to a “personal character” due to political gravity of the situation. The complete version was kept in National Library, Calcutta and the National Archives, New Delhi for thirty years and then published in 1988 with court’s order. Over 30 million copies have been sold already of this book.
Azad has shared very little information about his personal life but has given detail of political life. Book begins with election held after the introduction of provincial autonomy in 1935 and congress’s overwhelming victory. Then he tells differences in congress about assumption of office.
In 1939 II world war began and Congress decided not to participate in war until and unless India was given complete independence. In 1940 Azad took over the post of Congress President and he remained there until 1946. This was the critical time for India, during this period there was many negotiations between Congress and British Govt. like Cripps Mission, Simla Conference, The British Cabinet Mission. As president of congress he was the representative of India in all these negotiations.
He had differences with GANDHIJI,Nehru & Patel and he has elaborated these incidents in details.He has also written about Two Faced Character of Jinnah.
Partition is the worst moment in India’s history.Book gives details of the factors and characters responsible for partition.Characters include Jinnah,Mountbatten,Sardar Patel & many more.
This is a worth reading book for knowledge of History as well as Politics of pre independent India as well as for competition exam like IAS.
February 14, 2015
"Can anyone deny that the creation of Pakistan has not solved the communal problem but made it more intense and harmful?"
Being someone who had always been against the Partition of 1947,i've never met anyone from my country,Pakistan,that agrees with me. Mr. Abul Kalam Azad's views concur with me on this point.
We have been taught in school and college that all Indians ever want to do is to undermine Pakistanis in any way they can. Some common sense and reflection made me realize that perhaps the Congress' agenda and image was intentionally painted very incorrectly and inaccurately in the textbooks that are part of the curriculum in Pakistan's education system: a bunch of evil hindus looking to crush muslims at the first chance and that there were muslims in Congress as well,but,they were just puppets of the British government.
And Mr. Jinnah is painted as almost the perfect human being. Not even his enemies could say he didn't have integrity. But,surely,everyone has critics. No one exists that has said or done something that somehow antagonized some people at some point in their lives. Mr. Jinnah's critics are never mentioned in the revised-for-political-reasons textbooks that we are taught to think are an authority on the subject.
Being sensibly aware enough to be aware of all this,i had always wanted to know the other side of the story. I wanted to read about criticism against the great Quad-e-Azam and Muslim League.This book served my purpose and i loved reading it. Mr. Abul Kalam Azad's efforts were very important in liberating the people of the Indian subcontinent and i found myself agreeing to a lot of his personal convictions and viewpoints.
Being someone who had always been against the Partition of 1947,i've never met anyone from my country,Pakistan,that agrees with me. Mr. Abul Kalam Azad's views concur with me on this point.
We have been taught in school and college that all Indians ever want to do is to undermine Pakistanis in any way they can. Some common sense and reflection made me realize that perhaps the Congress' agenda and image was intentionally painted very incorrectly and inaccurately in the textbooks that are part of the curriculum in Pakistan's education system: a bunch of evil hindus looking to crush muslims at the first chance and that there were muslims in Congress as well,but,they were just puppets of the British government.
And Mr. Jinnah is painted as almost the perfect human being. Not even his enemies could say he didn't have integrity. But,surely,everyone has critics. No one exists that has said or done something that somehow antagonized some people at some point in their lives. Mr. Jinnah's critics are never mentioned in the revised-for-political-reasons textbooks that we are taught to think are an authority on the subject.
Being sensibly aware enough to be aware of all this,i had always wanted to know the other side of the story. I wanted to read about criticism against the great Quad-e-Azam and Muslim League.This book served my purpose and i loved reading it. Mr. Abul Kalam Azad's efforts were very important in liberating the people of the Indian subcontinent and i found myself agreeing to a lot of his personal convictions and viewpoints.
January 6, 2021
What a ride!
February 18, 2019
A must read book on Indian freedom struggle and to understand the process of power transfer from the British to the Indian hands.
Maulana Azad, who devoted his political struggle for Hindu-Muslim unity, details the events that led to the partition of India and his prediction about the future of newly born Muslim state, Pakistan, seems to be true as we see it today (Hopefully future would be better for Pakistan).
Being a keen student of Indo-Pak history, I am still bemused if the decision of partition was right or wrong but one thing is sure, Pakistan is far behind the goals it gained the independence for.
A perplexing fact that hounds me is that if India had not been divided, today there would have been more than 33 percent Muslims which is a huge number for any democracy. In any case they would have formed their own governments in the Muslim majority provinces and would have had high stake in the federation. Today there are about 19 crores of Muslims in India, 3rd largest Muslim population . Another interesting fact is the change in the religious demographics over time i.e. in the year 1951, Muslim Population accounted for 9.8% of the Indian Population which has been increased to 14.23% in the year 2011. Further, among all religious groups, Islam has the highest population growth in India.
With all the statistics mentioned above, Muslims are still a minority and face several problems as a minority and also have to carry the guilt — wrongly of course — of having partitioned the country.
Maulana Azad, who devoted his political struggle for Hindu-Muslim unity, details the events that led to the partition of India and his prediction about the future of newly born Muslim state, Pakistan, seems to be true as we see it today (Hopefully future would be better for Pakistan).
Being a keen student of Indo-Pak history, I am still bemused if the decision of partition was right or wrong but one thing is sure, Pakistan is far behind the goals it gained the independence for.
A perplexing fact that hounds me is that if India had not been divided, today there would have been more than 33 percent Muslims which is a huge number for any democracy. In any case they would have formed their own governments in the Muslim majority provinces and would have had high stake in the federation. Today there are about 19 crores of Muslims in India, 3rd largest Muslim population . Another interesting fact is the change in the religious demographics over time i.e. in the year 1951, Muslim Population accounted for 9.8% of the Indian Population which has been increased to 14.23% in the year 2011. Further, among all religious groups, Islam has the highest population growth in India.
With all the statistics mentioned above, Muslims are still a minority and face several problems as a minority and also have to carry the guilt — wrongly of course — of having partitioned the country.
May 13, 2021
Last year, I was introduced to Maulana Abul Kalam Azad when I first started reading the works of Irfan Habib. In his book ‘Essential Writings on Indian Nationalism’, Habib compiled the speeches and essays from Maulana Abul Kalam Azad which left a profound impact on me. John Baez once said, “I’ve never had a humble opinion. If you’ve got an opinion, why be humble about it?” I have an opinion that, if reading Maulana Abul Kalam Azad had made me realise anything, it is that today, some Muslims of India had been driven into a sense of quandary in choosing their heroes and end up idolizing deviants, separatists and communal bigots. It would be unfair to solely blame them for taking such radical stand, but in such predicament, revisiting Maulana Abul Kalam Azad’s work is need of the hour.
Hailing from Kolkata, Azad was an intellectual par excellence who was formally educated in Urdu, Persian, English, Turkish, History and Philosophy. Though he was a proud Muslim, Azad and Jinnah had different worldviews and both went on to espouse an ideology different from the one they initially propagated (Jinnah was initially with Congress while Azad was member of Muslim League). After parting ways with the Muslim League under the influence of Gandhi, Azad with his precocious journalistic skills, propagated the idea of secularism, cultural harmony, freedom and national unity. Unlike Jinnah, Azad out rightly rejected the idea of nationality around a communitarian identity. If Gandhi had two field marshals in Patel and Nehru, Nehru had two lieutenants in VK Krishna Menon and Abul Kalam Azad, who had a very warm feeling and mingled affection for him, all their life.
Azad’s learning and training in the traditional Islamic sciences and his strong intellect earned him prominence even among his towering contemporaries. With tint of modernism and realism, Azad understood the perils of traditionalism, which was no different from Nehru’s outlook. Azad believed:
“If there are any Muslims who wish to revive their past civilization and culture, which they brought a thousand years ago from Iran and Central Asia, they dream also and the sooner they wake up the better. These are unnatural fantasies which cannot take root in the soil of reality. I am one of those who believe that revival may be a necessity in a religion but in social matters it is a denial of progress.”
One could find a stark similarity between Azad’s and Nehru’s approach towards religious dogmatism. Nehru in his Autobiography wrote in a similar tone:
“I must say that those Hindus and Muslims who are always looking backward , always clutching at things which are slipping away from their grasp, are a singularly pathetic sight. I do not wish to damn the past or to reject it, for there is so much that is singularly beautiful in our past. That will endure I have no doubt. But it is not the beautiful these people clutch at, but something that is seldom worthwhile and is often harmful.”
It was not so surprising that Azad’s idea of indivisible nationalism was a product of his admiration towards Nehru. All through his life, he stood steadfast against the idea of partition by invoking the very tenets of Islam in defending his position. He writes:
“I must confess that the very term Pakistan goes against my grain. It suggests that some portions of the world are pure while others are impure. Such a division of territories, into pure and impure is un-Islamic and is more in keeping with orthodox Brahmanism which divides men into holy and unholy – a division which is a repudiation of the very spirit of Islam. Islam recognises no such division and the prophet says, ‘God has made the whole world a mosque for me’. ”
Maulana Azad was a strong disciple of MK Gandhi and was elected thrice as Congress President serving six years (youngest leader to become President at age of 35), navigating through most crucial political decision be it the Simla conference, Cripp’s mission, the British cabinet mission, formation of interim government or the final partition led by Mountbatten. Azad’s contribution in Constitution is often overlooked. The very idea of the 7th schedule in our constitution which lists subjects on which the central and state governments can enact legislation was conceived by him during the British cabinet mission. It is noteworthy that how when states are slowly realising the concept of federalism today, Azad wanted the centre to deal with merely three subjects after Independence, in order to ensure that diversity of Indian subcontinent is conserved.
For the conservative Muslims who are tempted by the idea of ‘Ummah’, Abul Kalam Azad’s foresight on dismissing such integration as a fallacy proves that Azad is one rational leader Indian Muslims should look up to. Way back in 1950s itself, Azad was critical in the concept of unification based on religious ties:
“It is one of the greatest frauds on people to suggest that religious affinity can unite areas which are geographically, economically, linguistically and culturally different. It is true that Islam sought to establish a society which transcends racial, linguistic, economic and political frontiers. History has however proved that, Islam was not able to unite all the Muslim countries on the basis of Islam alone.”
Azad would later serve as independent India’s first education minister, and established institutions such as the University Grants Commission, Jamia Millia Islamia and IIT Kharagpur He strongly advocated education for women and free and compulsory primary education for children up to the age of 14. The Sacchar committee of 2004 reported that 50 per cent of Muslim women are illiterate in India (overall literacy rate much worse than SC/STs). Reading Azad who was champion of education rights and progress would serve as a guiding light for the minorities at this crucial juncture.
This book is first of the three volume personal biography, which deals with India’s freedom struggle starting from 1935 until partition. Chapters in this book also acutely touch upon the right wing forces which prevailed in the Congress and his chequered relationship Patel and Rajendra Prasad and his criticism on and disagreements with Nehru as well. More than half a century later, Azad’s visionary take expressed with honesty and courage and the clarity with which he predicted the outcome of partition and the paths chosen by two countries from thereon, provide the readers a compelling read.
Hailing from Kolkata, Azad was an intellectual par excellence who was formally educated in Urdu, Persian, English, Turkish, History and Philosophy. Though he was a proud Muslim, Azad and Jinnah had different worldviews and both went on to espouse an ideology different from the one they initially propagated (Jinnah was initially with Congress while Azad was member of Muslim League). After parting ways with the Muslim League under the influence of Gandhi, Azad with his precocious journalistic skills, propagated the idea of secularism, cultural harmony, freedom and national unity. Unlike Jinnah, Azad out rightly rejected the idea of nationality around a communitarian identity. If Gandhi had two field marshals in Patel and Nehru, Nehru had two lieutenants in VK Krishna Menon and Abul Kalam Azad, who had a very warm feeling and mingled affection for him, all their life.
Azad’s learning and training in the traditional Islamic sciences and his strong intellect earned him prominence even among his towering contemporaries. With tint of modernism and realism, Azad understood the perils of traditionalism, which was no different from Nehru’s outlook. Azad believed:
“If there are any Muslims who wish to revive their past civilization and culture, which they brought a thousand years ago from Iran and Central Asia, they dream also and the sooner they wake up the better. These are unnatural fantasies which cannot take root in the soil of reality. I am one of those who believe that revival may be a necessity in a religion but in social matters it is a denial of progress.”
One could find a stark similarity between Azad’s and Nehru’s approach towards religious dogmatism. Nehru in his Autobiography wrote in a similar tone:
“I must say that those Hindus and Muslims who are always looking backward , always clutching at things which are slipping away from their grasp, are a singularly pathetic sight. I do not wish to damn the past or to reject it, for there is so much that is singularly beautiful in our past. That will endure I have no doubt. But it is not the beautiful these people clutch at, but something that is seldom worthwhile and is often harmful.”
It was not so surprising that Azad’s idea of indivisible nationalism was a product of his admiration towards Nehru. All through his life, he stood steadfast against the idea of partition by invoking the very tenets of Islam in defending his position. He writes:
“I must confess that the very term Pakistan goes against my grain. It suggests that some portions of the world are pure while others are impure. Such a division of territories, into pure and impure is un-Islamic and is more in keeping with orthodox Brahmanism which divides men into holy and unholy – a division which is a repudiation of the very spirit of Islam. Islam recognises no such division and the prophet says, ‘God has made the whole world a mosque for me’. ”
Maulana Azad was a strong disciple of MK Gandhi and was elected thrice as Congress President serving six years (youngest leader to become President at age of 35), navigating through most crucial political decision be it the Simla conference, Cripp’s mission, the British cabinet mission, formation of interim government or the final partition led by Mountbatten. Azad’s contribution in Constitution is often overlooked. The very idea of the 7th schedule in our constitution which lists subjects on which the central and state governments can enact legislation was conceived by him during the British cabinet mission. It is noteworthy that how when states are slowly realising the concept of federalism today, Azad wanted the centre to deal with merely three subjects after Independence, in order to ensure that diversity of Indian subcontinent is conserved.
For the conservative Muslims who are tempted by the idea of ‘Ummah’, Abul Kalam Azad’s foresight on dismissing such integration as a fallacy proves that Azad is one rational leader Indian Muslims should look up to. Way back in 1950s itself, Azad was critical in the concept of unification based on religious ties:
“It is one of the greatest frauds on people to suggest that religious affinity can unite areas which are geographically, economically, linguistically and culturally different. It is true that Islam sought to establish a society which transcends racial, linguistic, economic and political frontiers. History has however proved that, Islam was not able to unite all the Muslim countries on the basis of Islam alone.”
Azad would later serve as independent India’s first education minister, and established institutions such as the University Grants Commission, Jamia Millia Islamia and IIT Kharagpur He strongly advocated education for women and free and compulsory primary education for children up to the age of 14. The Sacchar committee of 2004 reported that 50 per cent of Muslim women are illiterate in India (overall literacy rate much worse than SC/STs). Reading Azad who was champion of education rights and progress would serve as a guiding light for the minorities at this crucial juncture.
This book is first of the three volume personal biography, which deals with India’s freedom struggle starting from 1935 until partition. Chapters in this book also acutely touch upon the right wing forces which prevailed in the Congress and his chequered relationship Patel and Rajendra Prasad and his criticism on and disagreements with Nehru as well. More than half a century later, Azad’s visionary take expressed with honesty and courage and the clarity with which he predicted the outcome of partition and the paths chosen by two countries from thereon, provide the readers a compelling read.
June 24, 2015
Very informative, it presents a detailed and neutral account of the events that led to the partition of the sub-continent. A must read for anyone interested in the history of sub-continent. It covers events after the passage of Government of India Act in 1935. This book became more interesting to me as I had read only the history that is taught to us in schools and at college level, I only had a cursory idea that in Pakistan, the history was greatly distorted in favor of Muslim League but what these distortions were, I was unaware. This was the first instance that I read the history of the partition from a Congress perspective. I maintain that in order to form any judgments, one must be well aware of the story from both sides, this is not to say that I am now fully aware of the issue from both perspectives. There's always room to discover more dimensions. The good thing about this book is that while pointing out the mistakes made by the British Government and The Muslim League, Maulana Azad has not shied away from admitting his individual mistakes and that of his colleagues at Congress, which makes this book a credible and objective historical account.
October 10, 2010
Maulana's very personal, at times moving account of some of the fateful days and encounters he ended up having as the president of All India Congress in the 40s. His tone somewhat reminded me of St. Augustine's off the pages of Confessions.
Here is Maulana Sahib talking about his friend and colleague, the first prime minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru (also affectionately known as Nehru Chaacha or Uncle Nehru post-1940s):
Here is Maulana Sahib talking about his friend and colleague, the first prime minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru (also affectionately known as Nehru Chaacha or Uncle Nehru post-1940s):
"Jawaharlal's nature is such that, when there is some tension in his mind, he talks even in his sleep. The day's preoccupations come to him as dreams. When I came out, Shrimati Rameshwari Nehru told me that for the last two nights Jawaharlal had been talking in his sleep. He was carrying on a debate and was sometimes muttering and sometimes speaking loudly. She had heard Cripps's name, sometimes references to Gandhiji and sometimes my name. This was added proof of how great was the strain under which his mind was working. "
September 13, 2021
I just finished this and from the get go I can say if Maulana Azad hadn't refused to continue for presidency the outcome of the subcontinent's independence wouldve been extremely different(something he admits in the book). And the same could be said if Lord Wavell hadn't resigned only to be replaced by Mountbatten. The Muslim League in my opinion was terrible and only fanned the flames of communalism, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh still feel the after effects of partition.
Pakistan wasn't made because of existing conditions in india, the situation was created for Pakistan by the League.
Pakistan wasn't made because of existing conditions in india, the situation was created for Pakistan by the League.
July 10, 2024
India Wins Freedom is an autobiography of Moulana Abul Kalam Azad. He was born in November 1888 & died in Feb 1958.He was descended of a family which came from Herat to India in Babar's time.
His early education began at his home and his political awakening was expedited by the partition of Bengal in 1905. He became president of Congreee in 1923 again in 1940.
In his autobiography he has described the politics of himself and Indian Leaders including Jawaharlal Nehru, who was Moulanas best friend, Moulana also dedicated his book to his comrade Jawaharlal.
Moulana was against the partion till the end he always opposed the partion as Gandhiji did.
Moulana further writes about his two major political mistakes
First was to handover the president ship of Congress to his comrade Jawaharlal, Moulana says it was his biggest political blunder later on which led to partion because Jawaharlal took some wrong decision and Mr Jinnah took benefit of those decisions and then partion took place.
Second mistake was that he opposed Sardar Patel to succeed him as president of Congress.
Overall Moulana Abul Kalam Azad was a great leader. This book will provide you a blueprint of the politics and leadership of India during the partition.
There is a lot to learn in this book I'm just giving an overview. It's a book to read.
It's an amazing book
I rate this book 10/10.
His early education began at his home and his political awakening was expedited by the partition of Bengal in 1905. He became president of Congreee in 1923 again in 1940.
In his autobiography he has described the politics of himself and Indian Leaders including Jawaharlal Nehru, who was Moulanas best friend, Moulana also dedicated his book to his comrade Jawaharlal.
Moulana was against the partion till the end he always opposed the partion as Gandhiji did.
Moulana further writes about his two major political mistakes
First was to handover the president ship of Congress to his comrade Jawaharlal, Moulana says it was his biggest political blunder later on which led to partion because Jawaharlal took some wrong decision and Mr Jinnah took benefit of those decisions and then partion took place.
Second mistake was that he opposed Sardar Patel to succeed him as president of Congress.
Overall Moulana Abul Kalam Azad was a great leader. This book will provide you a blueprint of the politics and leadership of India during the partition.
There is a lot to learn in this book I'm just giving an overview. It's a book to read.
It's an amazing book
I rate this book 10/10.
February 14, 2021
There are hundreds of books on Indian Freedom Movement written by so many writers but a book written by one of the makers of modern India and one of the most influential leader India has ever seen, overshadows those hundred books by miles.👀
Meant to be his autobiography, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad writes about the last 12 years of Indian Freedom Struggle from 1935-1947. The book wasn't released completely in the beginning as Maulana Sahab wrote some really controversial comments on his closed colleagues like Gandhi Ji, Nehru, Sardar Patel etc. As per his wishes the complete version released 30 years after his death.
This book gives the insight view of the Freedom Struggle, uncovers many untold truths about the Partition of India, Indians in Second World War etc. Written in first person account, it's a fairly easy read and gets really interesting.
It's a gem for history lovers and even if one doesn't like history this book will still keep you engaged.
Meant to be his autobiography, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad writes about the last 12 years of Indian Freedom Struggle from 1935-1947. The book wasn't released completely in the beginning as Maulana Sahab wrote some really controversial comments on his closed colleagues like Gandhi Ji, Nehru, Sardar Patel etc. As per his wishes the complete version released 30 years after his death.
This book gives the insight view of the Freedom Struggle, uncovers many untold truths about the Partition of India, Indians in Second World War etc. Written in first person account, it's a fairly easy read and gets really interesting.
It's a gem for history lovers and even if one doesn't like history this book will still keep you engaged.
March 1, 2016
* spoiler alert ** This book comprehesniviely covers the period from 1937-1947 which sadly has been scarcely covered in our history books. I for one always been interested in this part of history as it was one of the crucial phase of path to Freedom. Moreover rather than listening from any Historian, reading a memoir's of someone who was at the helm of affairs gives a reader much deeper insights.
This was supposed to be a part 2 of 3 memoirs but because of unfortunate and sudden death of Abul Kalam in 1958 before his 70th birthday( the day which was decided for launch of this book) we will never get an opportunity to read those and only after reading this memoir, one will realise what a great loss it has been for voracious Indian history readers.
Unfortunately Our History books have been unjust to him by giving him place in just foot notes inspite of he being the president of congress from 1940-1946 and sole representative of congress in Cripps Mission, Shimla conference and Cabinet Mission while dealing with British government and therefore we never get the sense of important role played by him during that critical period.
He comes as a person who candidly expresses his opinion in his book without thinking about how the people will judge him and therefore also concede his blunders too. ( also being practical, he knew that some of them could create some dissent or tensions, he asked a full version which had 30 extra pages to be released 30 years later where he candidly and rationally criticised Nehru, Gandhi and Sardar for their wrong doings at different parts of history)
Some of the blunders he did which he conceded in the book that he did at the crucial juncture
(1) Did not give his nomination for reelection in 1946 Prez election
(2) Not forwarding Name for Sardar Patel for President during the crucial period of 1946
(3) Not accepting any position in interim government formed in 1946 ( which he took later after Gandhi's pursuance)
Gandhi
He does mince his words in voicing his opinion when Gandhi was wrong ( like for him non-violence was a mean to get Indian Freedom unlike Gandhi for whom it was creed irrespective of we get independence or not ) and Gandhi's fierce opposition against India joining hands for the war even if it assured India's freedom ( Gandhi even suggested British Government that instead of a war against Hitler, Britishers should give Hitler some spiritual lessons!!) He also talks about uncharacteristic subordination specially of Sardar Patel, Rajendra Prasad and Kriplani towards Gandhi even when they themselves were not confident of Gandhi's decision( Before Partition) .
Sardar Patel
It's also give some insights about vices of Sardar too which lately has only been painted as person who could not do any wrong
(1) Sardar's persistence and fear for not letting go Home Ministry in Interim government which lead to Liyaqat Ali getting Finance Ministry and with power of finace able to succeed in interfering in every ministry.
(2) Sardar's falling for Mountbaton
(3) His alleged conspicuous inactivity after the independence during the time when Muslims were being Killed in Delhi .
(4) His indifference towards Gandhi during the last years specially after independence
Nehru
(1) Nehru's mistake of refusing Cabinet Mission's proposal soon taking over the Congress president of 1946 when the working committee and AICC already accepted cabinet mission recommendation proposals in toto and therefore giving a chance for Muslim Legue to drifted apart more.
(2) Nehru weakness of being influenced by his admirers ( Krishna Menon and Lady Mount baton being some of the examples)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The book lucidly explains the reason behind the failure of Shimla conference failure i and surprisingly first time I have seen Lord Wavell in positive terms ( in text books most of the failure of Shimla talks is put on Lord Wavell )
He also wonderfully gives a nuance understanding of Muslim League, its ups and down period and the circumstances where Congress leaders did blunders which later were exploited By Jinnah for his goals. ( 1937 elections, Gandhi giving him title of Qayde-e-Azam and many more )
I have never read such a frank and forthright representation of the events priors to independence and for readers interested in that phase(1937-1947), this is a book not to be missed.
This was supposed to be a part 2 of 3 memoirs but because of unfortunate and sudden death of Abul Kalam in 1958 before his 70th birthday( the day which was decided for launch of this book) we will never get an opportunity to read those and only after reading this memoir, one will realise what a great loss it has been for voracious Indian history readers.
Unfortunately Our History books have been unjust to him by giving him place in just foot notes inspite of he being the president of congress from 1940-1946 and sole representative of congress in Cripps Mission, Shimla conference and Cabinet Mission while dealing with British government and therefore we never get the sense of important role played by him during that critical period.
He comes as a person who candidly expresses his opinion in his book without thinking about how the people will judge him and therefore also concede his blunders too. ( also being practical, he knew that some of them could create some dissent or tensions, he asked a full version which had 30 extra pages to be released 30 years later where he candidly and rationally criticised Nehru, Gandhi and Sardar for their wrong doings at different parts of history)
Some of the blunders he did which he conceded in the book that he did at the crucial juncture
(1) Did not give his nomination for reelection in 1946 Prez election
(2) Not forwarding Name for Sardar Patel for President during the crucial period of 1946
(3) Not accepting any position in interim government formed in 1946 ( which he took later after Gandhi's pursuance)
Gandhi
He does mince his words in voicing his opinion when Gandhi was wrong ( like for him non-violence was a mean to get Indian Freedom unlike Gandhi for whom it was creed irrespective of we get independence or not ) and Gandhi's fierce opposition against India joining hands for the war even if it assured India's freedom ( Gandhi even suggested British Government that instead of a war against Hitler, Britishers should give Hitler some spiritual lessons!!) He also talks about uncharacteristic subordination specially of Sardar Patel, Rajendra Prasad and Kriplani towards Gandhi even when they themselves were not confident of Gandhi's decision( Before Partition) .
Sardar Patel
It's also give some insights about vices of Sardar too which lately has only been painted as person who could not do any wrong
(1) Sardar's persistence and fear for not letting go Home Ministry in Interim government which lead to Liyaqat Ali getting Finance Ministry and with power of finace able to succeed in interfering in every ministry.
(2) Sardar's falling for Mountbaton
(3) His alleged conspicuous inactivity after the independence during the time when Muslims were being Killed in Delhi .
(4) His indifference towards Gandhi during the last years specially after independence
Nehru
(1) Nehru's mistake of refusing Cabinet Mission's proposal soon taking over the Congress president of 1946 when the working committee and AICC already accepted cabinet mission recommendation proposals in toto and therefore giving a chance for Muslim Legue to drifted apart more.
(2) Nehru weakness of being influenced by his admirers ( Krishna Menon and Lady Mount baton being some of the examples)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The book lucidly explains the reason behind the failure of Shimla conference failure i and surprisingly first time I have seen Lord Wavell in positive terms ( in text books most of the failure of Shimla talks is put on Lord Wavell )
He also wonderfully gives a nuance understanding of Muslim League, its ups and down period and the circumstances where Congress leaders did blunders which later were exploited By Jinnah for his goals. ( 1937 elections, Gandhi giving him title of Qayde-e-Azam and many more )
Abul Kalam also in detail gives us the clear picture of of how important leaders came into an acceptance with inevitability of partition and the events before it . Like Sardar Patel in 1947 became fervour supporter of partition ( after bitter experiences with Muslim League in the interim government specially with Liyaqat Ali) than even Jinnah. On the contrary Abul Kalam still believed that if his idea of the power distribution between centre and states ( which later reflected more or less in Cabinet Mission ) be implemented in letter and spirit, we could have avoided partition ( though I still believe that this was his wishful thinking ). Also decision about dividing the army ( which both Mount Baton and Kalam were not in favour and their premonition came true when it was reported that both divided Indian and Pakistan army willingly participated in killing of Hindus and Muslims and both end of the border during riots at the time of partition)
I have never read such a frank and forthright representation of the events priors to independence and for readers interested in that phase(1937-1947), this is a book not to be missed.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 5, 2019
Excellent narrative of the years leading up to the Indian independence. Written in a clear and expressive language, this book offers an honest insight into the political scenario of pre-1947 years from the point of view of someone who witnessed it all in person and also played a significant role in shaping it. Learned some interesting but lesser talked-about aspects of political leaders like Nehru, Gandhi, and Patel.
April 26, 2020
The partition of India into two separate entities - India and Pakistan - was the most devastating event of Indian history. It brought millions of deaths and hundreds of millions of injuries besides the loss of the property. How all those terrible events happened and how they could have been avoided and above all what would be the end of the resentment created on account of communal bases among the people of the two newly born countries? These questions and other many similar to these are discussed in this book with a great sense of understanding by the person who had witnessed all those events. That person was Maulana Abul Kalam Azad.
Maulana Azad had been the president of the All India National Congress twice and then after partition, he was elected Education Minister of India. This book is basically about his political journey. He began to describe history from his early education to his joining of Congress to the creation of the Muslim League and then discussing all the events one by one he ended up to the future possibilities that could lead both countries to destruction because of the hateful seeds they both sowed in the past.
Maulana Azad had been a staunch advocate of the unity of India. He opposed every measure that caused the division of India. But unfortunately, he could not avert history as he thought because he was alone who wanted India united. In this book, he has time and again blamed Mr. Jinnah and the Muslim League for inciting hatred among the people of India on communal and religious bases. However, he also recognized the fact that there were people like Rajindar Prasad, Sardar Patel, and Subash Chandra Boss in Congress who provoked hatred and resentment among Hindus against Muslims of India. Sardar Patel was the real founder of the partition of Indian, according to Azad. It was he who after the partition elected home minister and was liable to maintain law and order in Dehli where Muslims were being slaughtered and Gandhiji had to fast for the security of the Muslims. It was again his responsibility to protect Gandhiji as he was attacked and fortunately remained unharmed. But didn't pay any heed and Gandhiji was attacked the second time and eventually got killed. It Sardar Patel whose under Dehli administration and police was working at the time.
Maulana Azad has also shed some light on Pakistan's internal issues. The most interesting for me was the role of Khan brothers who ignited the issue of a separate state for the Pathans of the Frontier province. They got the opportunity to conduct a plebiscite in the province and let the people choose which state they wanted to their future country. But they denied categorically and said that they wanted a separate country and named it as Pakhtunistan. However, they were not given any intention, and later on, when a plebiscite held, the people of Frontier chose Pakistan as their country. They again turned their demand and said that they just wanted political autonomy for their province. The story was very interesting but I can't tell you all here because of the shortage of time.
The book as a whole is very interesting and brief that it doesn't let its readers to get bored particularly those who are interested in knowing about the Indian history and political struggle of the Indian people to seek a free country for themselves.
Maulana Azad had been the president of the All India National Congress twice and then after partition, he was elected Education Minister of India. This book is basically about his political journey. He began to describe history from his early education to his joining of Congress to the creation of the Muslim League and then discussing all the events one by one he ended up to the future possibilities that could lead both countries to destruction because of the hateful seeds they both sowed in the past.
Maulana Azad had been a staunch advocate of the unity of India. He opposed every measure that caused the division of India. But unfortunately, he could not avert history as he thought because he was alone who wanted India united. In this book, he has time and again blamed Mr. Jinnah and the Muslim League for inciting hatred among the people of India on communal and religious bases. However, he also recognized the fact that there were people like Rajindar Prasad, Sardar Patel, and Subash Chandra Boss in Congress who provoked hatred and resentment among Hindus against Muslims of India. Sardar Patel was the real founder of the partition of Indian, according to Azad. It was he who after the partition elected home minister and was liable to maintain law and order in Dehli where Muslims were being slaughtered and Gandhiji had to fast for the security of the Muslims. It was again his responsibility to protect Gandhiji as he was attacked and fortunately remained unharmed. But didn't pay any heed and Gandhiji was attacked the second time and eventually got killed. It Sardar Patel whose under Dehli administration and police was working at the time.
Maulana Azad has also shed some light on Pakistan's internal issues. The most interesting for me was the role of Khan brothers who ignited the issue of a separate state for the Pathans of the Frontier province. They got the opportunity to conduct a plebiscite in the province and let the people choose which state they wanted to their future country. But they denied categorically and said that they wanted a separate country and named it as Pakhtunistan. However, they were not given any intention, and later on, when a plebiscite held, the people of Frontier chose Pakistan as their country. They again turned their demand and said that they just wanted political autonomy for their province. The story was very interesting but I can't tell you all here because of the shortage of time.
The book as a whole is very interesting and brief that it doesn't let its readers to get bored particularly those who are interested in knowing about the Indian history and political struggle of the Indian people to seek a free country for themselves.
January 9, 2020
India wins freedom is a first person account by a person who should be much better known, respected and followed by us Modern Indians than he currently is – Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, whose patriotism, Indianness, and devotion to the national cause are clearly second to none. Further, this was a man whose situational reading of the events of Partition, specifically with relation to the new state of Pakistan, were stunningly accurate as history has proven, as also his passionate opposition to a divided India. He stands tall and resolute as one of the finest Freedom Fighters and Leaders to emerge out of this holy land.
This is an important contribution to the literature around Independence, and our Independence Struggle. In fact, it is my opinion that this book is one of the most significant contributions to the entire body of literature around the freedom struggle from the mid-1930s onwards. I cannot think of any other book that comes even close to this one in terms of the import it has on our understanding of the events that lead to independence, save one. That one book is the excellent treatise by Narendra Singh Sarila, titled – The Shadow Of The Great Game : The Untold Story of India’s Partition.
Suffice it to state that this book takes you head-on into the events leading to 15th August 1947, and gives you a seat at the table where everything was planned, negotiated, fought over, discussed threadbare, analysed, courses of action decided upon and acted on. This is an eye-witness account, and represents irrefutable evidence, as it is a memoir by one of the key players in the Independence struggle. I am not aware of any other eye-witness account from any of the key players involved, which gives this book a special place in our literature.
You may not like a few words, paragraphs, events – I know I didn’t; yet you have no choice but to accept them, as they are written by one of the key players, and are irrefutable evidence. You can question the opinions {where stated as such}, as opinions aren’t facts; these are easy to spot in the text. But you cannot question the facts and the events as stated – this is an eye-witness account. What is more, this represents the culture and society as it then existed, free from the bias of hindsight. All accounts of history suffer from the bias of hindsight – this book cannot be questioned on this score.
Read full review here : https://reflectionsvvk.blogspot.in/20...
This is an important contribution to the literature around Independence, and our Independence Struggle. In fact, it is my opinion that this book is one of the most significant contributions to the entire body of literature around the freedom struggle from the mid-1930s onwards. I cannot think of any other book that comes even close to this one in terms of the import it has on our understanding of the events that lead to independence, save one. That one book is the excellent treatise by Narendra Singh Sarila, titled – The Shadow Of The Great Game : The Untold Story of India’s Partition.
Suffice it to state that this book takes you head-on into the events leading to 15th August 1947, and gives you a seat at the table where everything was planned, negotiated, fought over, discussed threadbare, analysed, courses of action decided upon and acted on. This is an eye-witness account, and represents irrefutable evidence, as it is a memoir by one of the key players in the Independence struggle. I am not aware of any other eye-witness account from any of the key players involved, which gives this book a special place in our literature.
You may not like a few words, paragraphs, events – I know I didn’t; yet you have no choice but to accept them, as they are written by one of the key players, and are irrefutable evidence. You can question the opinions {where stated as such}, as opinions aren’t facts; these are easy to spot in the text. But you cannot question the facts and the events as stated – this is an eye-witness account. What is more, this represents the culture and society as it then existed, free from the bias of hindsight. All accounts of history suffer from the bias of hindsight – this book cannot be questioned on this score.
Read full review here : https://reflectionsvvk.blogspot.in/20...
October 30, 2017
ভারতবর্ষের স্বাধীনতা, দেশবিভাগ ও চতুর ব্রিটিশ বেনিয়া ঔপনিবেশিকদের থেকে মুক্তি ছিনিয়ে নেয়ার অহিংস আন্দোলনের শক্তি যে কতটা তা এই বইটি পড়লেই বোঝা যাবে।
সহজবোধ্য, সুখপাঠ্য, নিরপেক্ষ ও আনবায়াসড একটি রাজনৈতিক ইতিহাসিভিত্তিক রচনা।
বেশ কিছু বিখ্যাত বই পড়েছি ভারতের স্বাধীনতা নিয়ে। তবে এই বইটিই তন্মধ্যে সেরা।
পাশাপাশি মহাত্মা গান্ধীজির অসাম্প্রদায়িক দর্শন, অহিংসার মহান ব্রত আর তার আদর্শ বহনকারী এই বইটির লেখক, দ্বিতীয় বিশ্বযুদ্ধকালীন ইন্ডিয়ান ন্যাশনাল কংগ্রেস এর সভাপতি মৌলনা আবুল কালাম আজাদ আর কলকাতার প্রথম মেয়র দেশবন্ধু চিত্তরঞ্জন দাশ এই দুই ব্যক্তি যথাক্রমে একজন মুসলিম আর একজন হিন্দু ধর্মাবলম্বী হলেও অসাম্প্রদায়িকতার যে উদাহরণ রেখে গেছেন, তা ইতিহাসের উজ্জ্বল দৃষ্টান্ত।
আর মুসলিম লীগের ব্রিটিশদের পা চাটার নির্লজ্জ কাহিনী এই বইতে উঠে এসেছে পুরোপুরি সত্য হয়ে।
আর পাকিস্তান কেন টিকল না আর কেনই বা আজ ব্যর্থ রাষ্ট্র তা সহজেই অনুমেয় এই বইতে।
ভারত প্রতিষ্ঠিত হয়েছিল অসাম্প্রদায়িকতার ভিত্তিতে। আর পাকিস্তান ধর্মীয় সাম্রাজ্যবাদীদের গোঁড়ামিতে বোকার মত ব্রিটিশদের পদলেহন করে।
ফলে জনভিত্তির অভাবে সামরিক আর ধর্মের উপর নির্ভর করতে হয় পাকি শাসকদের। ভারতের বিভিন্ন প্রদেশ থেকে উড়ে এসে জুড়ে বসা গায়ে মানে না আপনি মোড়ল নেতারা ধর্ম আর সামরিক বাহিনীর সহায়তায় যে বেশিদিন টিকতে পারে না, তারই বাস্তব নমুনা পাকিস্তান।
অসাম্প্রদায়িক বাঙালী জাতীয়তাবোধে উদ্দীপ্ত হয়ে মুক্তিযুদ্ধের মাধ্যমে রক্তের বিনিময়ে অর্জিত স্বাধীন বাংলাদেশও যে অনিবার্য ছিল তা ১৯৪৭ এ ই বোঝা হয়ে যায়।
ধর্মীয় সাম্প্রদায়িকতার ভিত্তিতে মর্মান্তিক দেশভাগের বিনিময়ে অর্জিত ভারতের স্বাধীনতা। গান্ধীজির আদর্শে কংগ্রেসের আন্দোলনে জন্ম নেয়া ভারত যে একদিন বিশ্বের বুকে সগৌরবে দাঁড়াতই তাও ১৯৪৭ এ ই নিশ্চিত বুঝতে পেরেছিলেন প্রকৃত বুদ্ধিমানেরা।
বইটি অবশ্যপাঠ্য।
যদি ১ টা বই পড়তে শাজেশট করতে হয়, তবে এই বইটার কথাই বলব।
সহজবোধ্য, সুখপাঠ্য, নিরপেক্ষ ও আনবায়াসড একটি রাজনৈতিক ইতিহাসিভিত্তিক রচনা।
বেশ কিছু বিখ্যাত বই পড়েছি ভারতের স্বাধীনতা নিয়ে। তবে এই বইটিই তন্মধ্যে সেরা।
পাশাপাশি মহাত্মা গান্ধীজির অসাম্প্রদায়িক দর্শন, অহিংসার মহান ব্রত আর তার আদর্শ বহনকারী এই বইটির লেখক, দ্বিতীয় বিশ্বযুদ্ধকালীন ইন্ডিয়ান ন্যাশনাল কংগ্রেস এর সভাপতি মৌলনা আবুল কালাম আজাদ আর কলকাতার প্রথম মেয়র দেশবন্ধু চিত্তরঞ্জন দাশ এই দুই ব্যক্তি যথাক্রমে একজন মুসলিম আর একজন হিন্দু ধর্মাবলম্বী হলেও অসাম্প্রদায়িকতার যে উদাহরণ রেখে গেছেন, তা ইতিহাসের উজ্জ্বল দৃষ্টান্ত।
আর মুসলিম লীগের ব্রিটিশদের পা চাটার নির্লজ্জ কাহিনী এই বইতে উঠে এসেছে পুরোপুরি সত্য হয়ে।
আর পাকিস্তান কেন টিকল না আর কেনই বা আজ ব্যর্থ রাষ্ট্র তা সহজেই অনুমেয় এই বইতে।
ভারত প্রতিষ্ঠিত হয়েছিল অসাম্প্রদায়িকতার ভিত্তিতে। আর পাকিস্তান ধর্মীয় সাম্রাজ্যবাদীদের গোঁড়ামিতে বোকার মত ব্রিটিশদের পদলেহন করে।
ফলে জনভিত্তির অভাবে সামরিক আর ধর্মের উপর নির্ভর করতে হয় পাকি শাসকদের। ভারতের বিভিন্ন প্রদেশ থেকে উড়ে এসে জুড়ে বসা গায়ে মানে না আপনি মোড়ল নেতারা ধর্ম আর সামরিক বাহিনীর সহায়তায় যে বেশিদিন টিকতে পারে না, তারই বাস্তব নমুনা পাকিস্তান।
অসাম্প্রদায়িক বাঙালী জাতীয়তাবোধে উদ্দীপ্ত হয়ে মুক্তিযুদ্ধের মাধ্যমে রক্তের বিনিময়ে অর্জিত স্বাধীন বাংলাদেশও যে অনিবার্য ছিল তা ১৯৪৭ এ ই বোঝা হয়ে যায়।
ধর্মীয় সাম্প্রদায়িকতার ভিত্তিতে মর্মান্তিক দেশভাগের বিনিময়ে অর্জিত ভারতের স্বাধীনতা। গান্ধীজির আদর্শে কংগ্রেসের আন্দোলনে জন্ম নেয়া ভারত যে একদিন বিশ্বের বুকে সগৌরবে দাঁড়াতই তাও ১৯৪৭ এ ই নিশ্চিত বুঝতে পেরেছিলেন প্রকৃত বুদ্ধিমানেরা।
বইটি অবশ্যপাঠ্য।
যদি ১ টা বই পড়তে শাজেশট করতে হয়, তবে এই বইটার কথাই বলব।
March 10, 2020
A rather uncharitable account of one's own self
Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was one of the few Muslim leaders who achieved stature within the Indian National Congress and played a central role in the freedom struggle. Yet, very little has been written in popular literature or school history books about Maulana Azad.
India Wins Freedom, now the full text (Maulana Azad had reserved some 30 odd pages to be published 30 years after his death, ostensibly to avoid embarrassment to Pt Nehru), is Maulana Azad’s personal account of the freedom struggle.
The book is written in a “I did this” style, probably an attempt by him to set the record straight on his role in the freedom struggle. The book walks the reader through the key events during the freedom struggle where Maulana Azad had a role to play, providing a first person account of these events and offering an insight into his psyche.
In the book, Maulana Azad talks in detail about his role in internal Congress discussions, government formation in Punjab post the provincial elections, and his role as a key interlocutor with the British during the Cabinet Mission Plan discussions in 1945-46. As Congress President (1940-1945), he oversaw the launch of the Quit India Movement, the Cripps Missions, the Simla Conference and the Cabinet Mission Plan.
One thing which can be said unequivocally about the Maulana is that his spirit of service to the nation was unquestionable. Despite this being his autobiography, Maulana Azad keeps the headlights firmly on the freedom struggle and his role in the same. Even the death of his wife and mother are mere side-notes in the story. Nothing can underline his commitment to the country more than this.
He was the last to accept Partition (if at all he ever did) as a final solution to Independence and was willing to push independence out by a year or two to bring about agreement on communal issues. Maybe history would have been different if that had happened and Jinnah had died in the interim. Who knows?
Maulana’s greatest personal success and failure, in some sense seems to be the Cabinet Mission Plan where he took center-stage in negotiations with Lord Wavell and got the CWC to agree to the same. If implemented, the Cabinet Mission Plan might have resulted in a unified India with a highly federal form of government. That this plan didn’t go through and India got partitioned, seems to have left Maulana Azad a rather bitter and broken man.
That bitterness comes across through the book as he lavishes blame for this failure on the doorstep of various of his colleagues. He seems to be rather disappointed by Pt Nehru, who he considers a true friend, but whose blunders, he believes allowed Jinnah to push ahead with the plan for Pakistan. Similar is the treatment for Gandhiji who by addressing Jinnah as Qaid-e-Azam, lent legitimacy to the latter.
But Maulana Azad reserves the worst of his criticism for Sardar Patel. He calls Sardar Patel outright communal, holds him responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Muslims in Delhi during the partition riots, puts the responsibility of partition on his head as being the first Indian leader who bought into the two-nation theory.
As per the Maulana, Sardar Patel was a nobody but for Gandhiji’s support. His ostensible lack of strong views about WW II are portrayed as a character flaw. Maulana Azad’s constant (and sometimes patently absurd) criticism of Sardar Patel does tend to dilute the impact of the same e.g. he picks a bone with Sardar for being an avowed pacifist during WW II but for not wanting to disband the army post independence. After all, the integration of states and the Pak attack on Kashmir happened in Maulana Azad’s lifetime, and well before the book was written.
Probably what is the unkindest cut is when Maulana Azad shoots from Jaiprakash Narain’s shoulders to blame Sardar Patel for Gandhiji’s death. I think it’s a rather unfair characterisation of the person responsible for delivering a united India by bringing the princely states into the fold.
What makes this criticism lose its credibility is Maulana Azad’s unusually charitable treatment of the Muslim League. Maulana Azad lays the blame for the rise of the Muslim League purely on the doorsteps of the British, leaders like Gandhiji’s and Pt. Nehru’s blunders, and the actions of the Hindu right-wing elements. He totally absolves Jinnah and other League leaders on issues of their personal ambitions and political motives as well as their repeated attempts to sabotage any effort at unity made by the Congress.
He claims that the ‘Hindu’ opposition to the idea of Pakistan makes Muslims believe that Pakistan must be good for them. In the process he misses the point that if a large section of the Muslims believed that what’s bad for the Hindus must be good for them, it also indicates a certain psyche and mental make-up of this segment of population.
In an appeal to the Muslims to stay back in a united India, Maulana seems to betray himself when he implies that the Muslim minority needs to stick together to be able to carve out their place in a unified India under a Hindu majority. If the Muslim minority got divided between India and Pakistan, then it would make it more difficult for the remaining Muslims to stand up to a ‘purely Hindu government.’
The opposition of the socialists in the Congress to the Cabinet Mission Plan agitates him but the reluctant acceptance (only to look for opportunities to sabotage it later) by Jinnah and the League doesn’t perturb him as much.
The worst is Maulana’s Azad’s treatment of the Direct Action Day. He mentions that the attacks in Calcutta by the League supporters on Aug 16, 1946, were not unexpected. Even after seeing the violence on the streets, he thought it more important to travel to Delhi for a CWC meeting. The death of ordinary citizens (whether Hindu or Muslim) didn’t motivate him enough for him to stay back and bring sanity to the city. And despite the state-sponsored violence on D-A-D, he does not use the word communal for Jinnah or the League. To him, they were at best foolish.
Even for the complete breakdown between the Congress and the League post the D-A-D, he blames Pt. Nehru and his statement on the Cabinet Mission Plan rather than the League leaders who unleashed the reign of violence in Calcutta.
In summary, Maulana Azad does himself a lot of disservice through his autobiography. As a leader of the movement, he should have been far more forthcoming in taking blame for the failures of the freedom movement. Yet, his bitter attempt to deflect the blame onto all his colleagues and his handling of the League and Jinnah with kid gloves takes away the credibility of the memoir for me.
Would have preferred if this book hadn’t been written at all.
Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was one of the few Muslim leaders who achieved stature within the Indian National Congress and played a central role in the freedom struggle. Yet, very little has been written in popular literature or school history books about Maulana Azad.
India Wins Freedom, now the full text (Maulana Azad had reserved some 30 odd pages to be published 30 years after his death, ostensibly to avoid embarrassment to Pt Nehru), is Maulana Azad’s personal account of the freedom struggle.
The book is written in a “I did this” style, probably an attempt by him to set the record straight on his role in the freedom struggle. The book walks the reader through the key events during the freedom struggle where Maulana Azad had a role to play, providing a first person account of these events and offering an insight into his psyche.
In the book, Maulana Azad talks in detail about his role in internal Congress discussions, government formation in Punjab post the provincial elections, and his role as a key interlocutor with the British during the Cabinet Mission Plan discussions in 1945-46. As Congress President (1940-1945), he oversaw the launch of the Quit India Movement, the Cripps Missions, the Simla Conference and the Cabinet Mission Plan.
One thing which can be said unequivocally about the Maulana is that his spirit of service to the nation was unquestionable. Despite this being his autobiography, Maulana Azad keeps the headlights firmly on the freedom struggle and his role in the same. Even the death of his wife and mother are mere side-notes in the story. Nothing can underline his commitment to the country more than this.
He was the last to accept Partition (if at all he ever did) as a final solution to Independence and was willing to push independence out by a year or two to bring about agreement on communal issues. Maybe history would have been different if that had happened and Jinnah had died in the interim. Who knows?
Maulana’s greatest personal success and failure, in some sense seems to be the Cabinet Mission Plan where he took center-stage in negotiations with Lord Wavell and got the CWC to agree to the same. If implemented, the Cabinet Mission Plan might have resulted in a unified India with a highly federal form of government. That this plan didn’t go through and India got partitioned, seems to have left Maulana Azad a rather bitter and broken man.
That bitterness comes across through the book as he lavishes blame for this failure on the doorstep of various of his colleagues. He seems to be rather disappointed by Pt Nehru, who he considers a true friend, but whose blunders, he believes allowed Jinnah to push ahead with the plan for Pakistan. Similar is the treatment for Gandhiji who by addressing Jinnah as Qaid-e-Azam, lent legitimacy to the latter.
But Maulana Azad reserves the worst of his criticism for Sardar Patel. He calls Sardar Patel outright communal, holds him responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Muslims in Delhi during the partition riots, puts the responsibility of partition on his head as being the first Indian leader who bought into the two-nation theory.
As per the Maulana, Sardar Patel was a nobody but for Gandhiji’s support. His ostensible lack of strong views about WW II are portrayed as a character flaw. Maulana Azad’s constant (and sometimes patently absurd) criticism of Sardar Patel does tend to dilute the impact of the same e.g. he picks a bone with Sardar for being an avowed pacifist during WW II but for not wanting to disband the army post independence. After all, the integration of states and the Pak attack on Kashmir happened in Maulana Azad’s lifetime, and well before the book was written.
Probably what is the unkindest cut is when Maulana Azad shoots from Jaiprakash Narain’s shoulders to blame Sardar Patel for Gandhiji’s death. I think it’s a rather unfair characterisation of the person responsible for delivering a united India by bringing the princely states into the fold.
What makes this criticism lose its credibility is Maulana Azad’s unusually charitable treatment of the Muslim League. Maulana Azad lays the blame for the rise of the Muslim League purely on the doorsteps of the British, leaders like Gandhiji’s and Pt. Nehru’s blunders, and the actions of the Hindu right-wing elements. He totally absolves Jinnah and other League leaders on issues of their personal ambitions and political motives as well as their repeated attempts to sabotage any effort at unity made by the Congress.
He claims that the ‘Hindu’ opposition to the idea of Pakistan makes Muslims believe that Pakistan must be good for them. In the process he misses the point that if a large section of the Muslims believed that what’s bad for the Hindus must be good for them, it also indicates a certain psyche and mental make-up of this segment of population.
In an appeal to the Muslims to stay back in a united India, Maulana seems to betray himself when he implies that the Muslim minority needs to stick together to be able to carve out their place in a unified India under a Hindu majority. If the Muslim minority got divided between India and Pakistan, then it would make it more difficult for the remaining Muslims to stand up to a ‘purely Hindu government.’
The opposition of the socialists in the Congress to the Cabinet Mission Plan agitates him but the reluctant acceptance (only to look for opportunities to sabotage it later) by Jinnah and the League doesn’t perturb him as much.
The worst is Maulana’s Azad’s treatment of the Direct Action Day. He mentions that the attacks in Calcutta by the League supporters on Aug 16, 1946, were not unexpected. Even after seeing the violence on the streets, he thought it more important to travel to Delhi for a CWC meeting. The death of ordinary citizens (whether Hindu or Muslim) didn’t motivate him enough for him to stay back and bring sanity to the city. And despite the state-sponsored violence on D-A-D, he does not use the word communal for Jinnah or the League. To him, they were at best foolish.
Even for the complete breakdown between the Congress and the League post the D-A-D, he blames Pt. Nehru and his statement on the Cabinet Mission Plan rather than the League leaders who unleashed the reign of violence in Calcutta.
In summary, Maulana Azad does himself a lot of disservice through his autobiography. As a leader of the movement, he should have been far more forthcoming in taking blame for the failures of the freedom movement. Yet, his bitter attempt to deflect the blame onto all his colleagues and his handling of the League and Jinnah with kid gloves takes away the credibility of the memoir for me.
Would have preferred if this book hadn’t been written at all.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 1, 2021
মাওলানা আজাদ ভারতের ন্যাশনাল কংগ্রেস এর ডাকসাইটে নেতা ছিলেন। ১৯৪০-৪৬ এই মহাগুরুত্বপূৰ্ণ সময়ে কংগ্রেসের সভাপতি ছিলেন, ক্রিপ্স মিশন, কেবিনেট মিশন ব্রিটিশ সরকারের সাথে দূতিয়ালিতে তিনিই ছিলেন কংগ্রেসের প্রধান প্রতিনিধি। ছিলেন স্বাধীন ভারতের প্রথম শিক্ষামন্ত্রী। ছিলেন কঠোর দেশভাগ বিরোধী।
India Wins Freedom মাওলানা সাহেবের স্মৃতিচারণমূলক বই, সময়কাল মোটামুটি ১৯৩৯ থেকে ১৯৪৮। দ্বিতীয় বিশ্বযুদ্ধের দামামা যখন বেজে উঠলো তখন থেকে শুরু করে গান্ধীজির প্রয়াণ পর্যন্ত। ভারতের স্বাধীনতা অর্জনের পথে খুব ই গুরুত্বপূর্ণ এই সময়, মাওলানা আজাদ খুব কাছ থেকে সব ঘটনার সাক্ষী, খ��লামেলাভাবে কথা বলেছেন এই বইয়ে। কিছু কিছু ক্ষেত্রে এতটাই ক্যান্ডিড ছিলেন যে, বই যখন প্রথম প্রকাশিত হয় তখন বেশ কিছু অংশ বাদ দিয়ে প্রকাশ করা হয়, কারণ লেখক চাননি সমসাময়িক কোন উত্তেজনা সৃষ্টি হোক। আবার তিনি এটাও চেয়ে ছিলেন ভবিষ্যতে যারা ভারতের ইতিহাস নিয়ে কাজ করবে তারা যেনো তার খোলামেলা একটা ভাষ্যের রেফারেন্স পায়। উপমহাদেশের রাজনীতি নিয়ে যাদের আগ্রহ আছে, তাদের জন্য অবশ্য পাঠ��য।
India Wins Freedom মাওলানা সাহেবের স্মৃতিচারণমূলক বই, সময়কাল মোটামুটি ১৯৩৯ থেকে ১৯৪৮। দ্বিতীয় বিশ্বযুদ্ধের দামামা যখন বেজে উঠলো তখন থেকে শুরু করে গান্ধীজির প্রয়াণ পর্যন্ত। ভারতের স্বাধীনতা অর্জনের পথে খুব ই গুরুত্বপূর্ণ এই সময়, মাওলানা আজাদ খুব কাছ থেকে সব ঘটনার সাক্ষী, খ��লামেলাভাবে কথা বলেছেন এই বইয়ে। কিছু কিছু ক্ষেত্রে এতটাই ক্যান্ডিড ছিলেন যে, বই যখন প্রথম প্রকাশিত হয় তখন বেশ কিছু অংশ বাদ দিয়ে প্রকাশ করা হয়, কারণ লেখক চাননি সমসাময়িক কোন উত্তেজনা সৃষ্টি হোক। আবার তিনি এটাও চেয়ে ছিলেন ভবিষ্যতে যারা ভারতের ইতিহাস নিয়ে কাজ করবে তারা যেনো তার খোলামেলা একটা ভাষ্যের রেফারেন্স পায়। উপমহাদেশের রাজনীতি নিয়ে যাদের আগ্রহ আছে, তাদের জন্য অবশ্য পাঠ��য।
November 2, 2012
Hats off to Maulana Abul Kalam Azad :)
Read
May 31, 2022The more i read his book, the more i feel like either Abul Kalam Azad was living in a delusional world or he simply had no guts and was unable to understand that he was nothing but a mere chess piece of Congress/Hindus. I used to think that he was some sort of a scholar but after reading his views, i'm sure he was anything but that. He was just a congress lover, a nationalist, and anti pan Islamism and very much short sighted who didn't even care about the rights of Muslims and was ready to burn it all just so he could not have Pakistan...what a sad person.
Somehow, from what i have understood from his book, he convinced himself that Muslims are a minority and not a different nation (or for that matter, India in itself is not based on different nations and Congress is forcing an unholy alliance).
On top of that, he was blind to all the evil Nehru/Gandhi/Congress committed against Muslims and didn't even comment on it.
He thought that Muslims share same language, food(hello? beef? halal? haram?) culture and music(?) with Hindus. Which is another absurd thought but anyways, his ideas were quite impractical.
He was happy because Congress suggested some Muslims, Christians and Parsee names whereas the whole point of discussion is that names are not enough. Muslims are different nation, have everything opposite of Hindus so obviously they require/need to live according to a separate law and it's impossible for them to survive under Hindu raj but somehow Abul Kalam Azad didn't understand any of it.
He was best friend with the guy(Nehru) who didn't even bother to consider Muslims rights as an important issue*. He expected from Muslims to give up on their freedom, self respect, dignity, rights and future and live under Hindu raj, under people who don't even see them as humans.
He claimed that his best friend Nehru was a man
of principle, yes, the same Nehru who was impulsive,
didn't give any importance to other nations of British India.
That Nehru who used to change his statements hundred times a day, was according to Azad, a principled man.
*
The very same best friend who never trusted him.
Azad contradicted himself in just few lines.
Also it feels like Abul Kalam Azad had some sort of grudge against Jinnah?He kind of blamed everything on Jinnah instead of reflecting on his own unwise decisions and blindness.
What i can see from Jinnah's statements and his, is a difference of mindset. Jinnah was more practical and visionary, he was known as the Muslim-Hindu ambassador and from that he turned into a person who got fed up of Congress's evil attitude and finally claimed "Hindus are incorrigible".
Was he wrong? Didn't Nehru, illegal occupation of Jammu and Kashmir(which is a Muslim majority area and was supposed to go with Pakistan), Jammu genocide, rape of Muslim women in a whole village of Kunan Poshpora(again Indian occupied Kashmir) by the hands of Indian army, Narendra Modi, demolition of Babri Masjid, Gujarat riots, Triple Talaq law, Shaheen Bagh, illegal imprisonment/state killings of innocent Muslims all over India and indian occupied Jammu and Kashmir, massive detention camps for Muslims in Assam, even the killings of Sikhs in Punjab and many other incidents proved him right?
No Mr.Azad, only you and people like you couldn't
understand it, but those who are now under massive
detention camps made by India, who lost their citizenship
just because they are Muslims can truly understand it.
On one hand, Abul Kalam Azad was so much worried
about Muslim and their future but on other he remained
silent on Jammu genocide and all the atrocities which
were committed by Congress during his lifetime.
Despite claiming that he is against partition because
it will damage muslim unity, he was very much against
pan-Islamism and Muslim state, the freedom for Muslims
to live according to their own laws.
Also Abul Kalam Azad was very much wrong in understanding
the Pakhtuns. He couldn't even comprehend that mindset of Pakhtuns
and people of remaining Pakistani provinces.
He underestimated the sentiments of
Islam among Muslims and by Allah's mercy, the
support Muslims showed for Jinnah. He couldn't
accept Jinnah's success and Pakistan
in any shape or form which leaves an impression that unfortunately Abul Kalam Azad and people like him are obsessed who can't seem to let go of their own impractical, unrealistic, dangerous wishes or utopia .
Perhaps, after death, Abul Kalam Azad must have realized how wrong he was and how much of a blunder he made by leading many Muslims of India on wrong path.
Somehow, from what i have understood from his book, he convinced himself that Muslims are a minority and not a different nation (or for that matter, India in itself is not based on different nations and Congress is forcing an unholy alliance).
On top of that, he was blind to all the evil Nehru/Gandhi/Congress committed against Muslims and didn't even comment on it.
He thought that Muslims share same language, food(hello? beef? halal? haram?) culture and music(?) with Hindus. Which is another absurd thought but anyways, his ideas were quite impractical.
He was happy because Congress suggested some Muslims, Christians and Parsee names whereas the whole point of discussion is that names are not enough. Muslims are different nation, have everything opposite of Hindus so obviously they require/need to live according to a separate law and it's impossible for them to survive under Hindu raj but somehow Abul Kalam Azad didn't understand any of it.
He was best friend with the guy(Nehru) who didn't even bother to consider Muslims rights as an important issue*. He expected from Muslims to give up on their freedom, self respect, dignity, rights and future and live under Hindu raj, under people who don't even see them as humans.
He claimed that his best friend Nehru was a man
of principle, yes, the same Nehru who was impulsive,
didn't give any importance to other nations of British India.
That Nehru who used to change his statements hundred times a day, was according to Azad, a principled man.
*
The very same best friend who never trusted him.
Azad contradicted himself in just few lines.
Also it feels like Abul Kalam Azad had some sort of grudge against Jinnah?He kind of blamed everything on Jinnah instead of reflecting on his own unwise decisions and blindness.
What i can see from Jinnah's statements and his, is a difference of mindset. Jinnah was more practical and visionary, he was known as the Muslim-Hindu ambassador and from that he turned into a person who got fed up of Congress's evil attitude and finally claimed "Hindus are incorrigible".
Was he wrong? Didn't Nehru, illegal occupation of Jammu and Kashmir(which is a Muslim majority area and was supposed to go with Pakistan), Jammu genocide, rape of Muslim women in a whole village of Kunan Poshpora(again Indian occupied Kashmir) by the hands of Indian army, Narendra Modi, demolition of Babri Masjid, Gujarat riots, Triple Talaq law, Shaheen Bagh, illegal imprisonment/state killings of innocent Muslims all over India and indian occupied Jammu and Kashmir, massive detention camps for Muslims in Assam, even the killings of Sikhs in Punjab and many other incidents proved him right?
No Mr.Azad, only you and people like you couldn't
understand it, but those who are now under massive
detention camps made by India, who lost their citizenship
just because they are Muslims can truly understand it.
On one hand, Abul Kalam Azad was so much worried
about Muslim and their future but on other he remained
silent on Jammu genocide and all the atrocities which
were committed by Congress during his lifetime.
Despite claiming that he is against partition because
it will damage muslim unity, he was very much against
pan-Islamism and Muslim state, the freedom for Muslims
to live according to their own laws.
Also Abul Kalam Azad was very much wrong in understanding
the Pakhtuns. He couldn't even comprehend that mindset of Pakhtuns
and people of remaining Pakistani provinces.
He underestimated the sentiments of
Islam among Muslims and by Allah's mercy, the
support Muslims showed for Jinnah. He couldn't
accept Jinnah's success and Pakistan
in any shape or form which leaves an impression that unfortunately Abul Kalam Azad and people like him are obsessed who can't seem to let go of their own impractical, unrealistic, dangerous wishes or utopia .
Perhaps, after death, Abul Kalam Azad must have realized how wrong he was and how much of a blunder he made by leading many Muslims of India on wrong path.
May 12, 2018
A detailed description of how the British transformed the power to Indian hands, contradictory opinions among the same party, the way parties choose each and every candidate to higher levels, the rift in Muslim league and India - INDIA WINS FREEDOM couldn't have much simpler title than this. Through the eyes of Abul Kalam Azad, the explanations of each and every incident that happened over a span of 10 years before is just brilliant.
Though the narrative seems a bit dry in the beginning, it kicks off with a gradual pace at a certain part. It teaches how leaders handle pressure and where they lie in a spectrum of political knowledge and analysis . The way Azad teaches us 'not all decisions are right' is the pivotal lesson here. How the emotions of partitions got into the army, ministers and common people is a highlight. Overall it's a must read for Freedom at Midnight and history buffs out there.
Finally, the narrative ends on a note "Can anyone deny that the creation of Pakistan has not solved the communal problem but made it more intense and harmful?.......... We cannot say today which reading is correct. History alone will decide whether we had acted wisely and correctly".
Though the narrative seems a bit dry in the beginning, it kicks off with a gradual pace at a certain part. It teaches how leaders handle pressure and where they lie in a spectrum of political knowledge and analysis . The way Azad teaches us 'not all decisions are right' is the pivotal lesson here. How the emotions of partitions got into the army, ministers and common people is a highlight. Overall it's a must read for Freedom at Midnight and history buffs out there.
Finally, the narrative ends on a note "Can anyone deny that the creation of Pakistan has not solved the communal problem but made it more intense and harmful?.......... We cannot say today which reading is correct. History alone will decide whether we had acted wisely and correctly".
September 24, 2022
Very good written account from Maulana Abul Kalam Azad. Got interested in reading about Maulana Abul Kalam Azad after hearing a speech in local community centre
"A Passage From A Speech Delivered By Moulana Abul Kalam Azad, It Was The Last Speech He Delivered. He Delivered This Speech In 1948 At The Jame Masjid In Delhi."
Moulana Said:
“Now My Dear Muslim Brothers We Have Only One Thing With Us, And That Is Islam, We Have Saved Islam, The Sun Of Islam Will Never Go Down In India,” [I Pray The Sun Of Islam Will Never Go Down In Our Community And In The United Kingdom]
Moulana Said:
“I Called You, You Cut My Tongue
I Raised My Hands And You Cut My Hands
I Wanted To Move Ahead And You Cut My Legs
I Wanted To Bring A Change And You Have Broken My Backbone”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySLJD...
"A Passage From A Speech Delivered By Moulana Abul Kalam Azad, It Was The Last Speech He Delivered. He Delivered This Speech In 1948 At The Jame Masjid In Delhi."
Moulana Said:
“Now My Dear Muslim Brothers We Have Only One Thing With Us, And That Is Islam, We Have Saved Islam, The Sun Of Islam Will Never Go Down In India,” [I Pray The Sun Of Islam Will Never Go Down In Our Community And In The United Kingdom]
Moulana Said:
“I Called You, You Cut My Tongue
I Raised My Hands And You Cut My Hands
I Wanted To Move Ahead And You Cut My Legs
I Wanted To Bring A Change And You Have Broken My Backbone”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySLJD...
December 14, 2016
This book comprehesniviely covers the period from 1937-1947 which sadly has been scarcely covered in our history books. I for one always been interested in this part of history as it was one of the crucial phase of path to Freedom. Moreover rather than listening from any Historian, reading a memoir's of someone who was at the helm of affairs gives a reader much deeper insights.
This was supposed to be a part 2 of 3 memoirs but because of unfortunate and sudden death of Abul Kalam in 1958 before his 70th birthday( the day which was decided for launch of this book) we will never get an opportunity to read those and only after reading this memoir, one will realise what a great loss it has been for voracious Indian history readers.
Unfortunately Our History books have been unjust to him by giving him place in just foot notes inspite of he being the president of congress from 1940-1946 and sole representative of congress in Cripps Mission, Shimla conference and Cabinet Mission while dealing with British government and therefore we never get the sense of important role played by him during that critical period.
He comes as a person who candidly expresses his opinion in his book without thinking about how the people will judge him and therefore also concede his blunders too. ( also being practical, he knew that some of them could create some dissent or tensions, he asked a full version which had 30 extra pages to be released 30 years later where he candidly and rationally criticised Nehru, Gandhi and Sardar for their wrong doings at different parts of history)
Some of the blunders he did which he conceded in the book that he did at the crucial juncture
(1) Did not give his nomination for reelection in 1946 Prez election
(2) Not forwarding Name for Sardar Patel for President during the crucial period of 1946
(3) Not accepting any position in interim government formed in 1946 ( which he took later after Gandhi's pursuance)
Gandhi
He does mince his words in voicing his opinion when Gandhi was wrong ( like for him non-violence was a mean to get Indian Freedom unlike Gandhi for whom it was creed irrespective of we get independence or not ) and Gandhi's fierce opposition against India joining hands for the war even if it assured India's freedom ( Gandhi even suggested British Government that instead of a war against Hitler, Britishers should give Hitler some spiritual lessons!!) He also talks about uncharacteristic subordination specially of Sardar Patel, Rajendra Prasad and Kriplani towards Gandhi even when they themselves were not confident of Gandhi's decision( Before Partition) .
Sardar Patel
It's also give some insights about vices of Sardar too which lately has only been painted as person who could not do any wrong
(1) Sardar's persistence and fear for not letting go Home Ministry in Interim government which lead to Liyaqat Ali getting Finance Ministry and with power of finace able to succeed in interfering in every ministry.
(2) Sardar's falling for Mountbaton
(3) His alleged conspicuous inactivity after the independence during the time when Muslims were being Killed in Delhi .
(4) His indifference towards Gandhi during the last years specially after independence
Nehru
(1) Nehru's mistake of refusing Cabinet Mission's proposal soon taking over the Congress president of 1946 when the working committee and AICC already accepted cabinet mission recommendation proposals in toto and therefore giving a chance for Muslim Legue to drifted apart more.
(2) Nehru weakness of being influenced by his admirers ( Krishna Menon and Lady Mount baton being some of the examples)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The book lucidly explains the reason behind the failure of Shimla conference failure i and surprisingly first time I have seen Lord Wavell in positive terms ( in text books most of the failure of Shimla talks is put on Lord Wavell )
He also wonderfully gives a nuance understanding of Muslim League, its ups and down period and the circumstances where Congress leaders did blunders which later were exploited By Jinnah for his goals. ( 1937 elections, Gandhi giving him title of Qayde-e-Azam and many more )
Abul Kalam also in detail gives us the clear picture of of how important leaders came into an acceptance with inevitability of partition and the events before it . Like Sardar Patel in 1947 became fervour supporter of partition ( after bitter experiences with Muslim League in the interim government specially with Liyaqat Ali) than even Jinnah. On the contrary Abul Kalam still believed that if his idea of the power distribution between centre and states ( which later reflected more or less in Cabinet Mission ) be implemented in letter and spirit, we could have avoided partition ( though I still believe that this was his wishful thinking ). Also decision about dividing the army ( which both Mount Baton and Kalam were not in favour and their premonition came true when it was reported that both divided Indian and Pakistan army willingly participated in killing of Hindus and Muslims and both end of the border during riots at the time of partition)
I have never read such a frank and forthright representation of the events priors to independence and for readers interested in that phase(1937-1947), this is a book not to be missed.
This was supposed to be a part 2 of 3 memoirs but because of unfortunate and sudden death of Abul Kalam in 1958 before his 70th birthday( the day which was decided for launch of this book) we will never get an opportunity to read those and only after reading this memoir, one will realise what a great loss it has been for voracious Indian history readers.
Unfortunately Our History books have been unjust to him by giving him place in just foot notes inspite of he being the president of congress from 1940-1946 and sole representative of congress in Cripps Mission, Shimla conference and Cabinet Mission while dealing with British government and therefore we never get the sense of important role played by him during that critical period.
He comes as a person who candidly expresses his opinion in his book without thinking about how the people will judge him and therefore also concede his blunders too. ( also being practical, he knew that some of them could create some dissent or tensions, he asked a full version which had 30 extra pages to be released 30 years later where he candidly and rationally criticised Nehru, Gandhi and Sardar for their wrong doings at different parts of history)
Some of the blunders he did which he conceded in the book that he did at the crucial juncture
(1) Did not give his nomination for reelection in 1946 Prez election
(2) Not forwarding Name for Sardar Patel for President during the crucial period of 1946
(3) Not accepting any position in interim government formed in 1946 ( which he took later after Gandhi's pursuance)
Gandhi
He does mince his words in voicing his opinion when Gandhi was wrong ( like for him non-violence was a mean to get Indian Freedom unlike Gandhi for whom it was creed irrespective of we get independence or not ) and Gandhi's fierce opposition against India joining hands for the war even if it assured India's freedom ( Gandhi even suggested British Government that instead of a war against Hitler, Britishers should give Hitler some spiritual lessons!!) He also talks about uncharacteristic subordination specially of Sardar Patel, Rajendra Prasad and Kriplani towards Gandhi even when they themselves were not confident of Gandhi's decision( Before Partition) .
Sardar Patel
It's also give some insights about vices of Sardar too which lately has only been painted as person who could not do any wrong
(1) Sardar's persistence and fear for not letting go Home Ministry in Interim government which lead to Liyaqat Ali getting Finance Ministry and with power of finace able to succeed in interfering in every ministry.
(2) Sardar's falling for Mountbaton
(3) His alleged conspicuous inactivity after the independence during the time when Muslims were being Killed in Delhi .
(4) His indifference towards Gandhi during the last years specially after independence
Nehru
(1) Nehru's mistake of refusing Cabinet Mission's proposal soon taking over the Congress president of 1946 when the working committee and AICC already accepted cabinet mission recommendation proposals in toto and therefore giving a chance for Muslim Legue to drifted apart more.
(2) Nehru weakness of being influenced by his admirers ( Krishna Menon and Lady Mount baton being some of the examples)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The book lucidly explains the reason behind the failure of Shimla conference failure i and surprisingly first time I have seen Lord Wavell in positive terms ( in text books most of the failure of Shimla talks is put on Lord Wavell )
He also wonderfully gives a nuance understanding of Muslim League, its ups and down period and the circumstances where Congress leaders did blunders which later were exploited By Jinnah for his goals. ( 1937 elections, Gandhi giving him title of Qayde-e-Azam and many more )
Abul Kalam also in detail gives us the clear picture of of how important leaders came into an acceptance with inevitability of partition and the events before it . Like Sardar Patel in 1947 became fervour supporter of partition ( after bitter experiences with Muslim League in the interim government specially with Liyaqat Ali) than even Jinnah. On the contrary Abul Kalam still believed that if his idea of the power distribution between centre and states ( which later reflected more or less in Cabinet Mission ) be implemented in letter and spirit, we could have avoided partition ( though I still believe that this was his wishful thinking ). Also decision about dividing the army ( which both Mount Baton and Kalam were not in favour and their premonition came true when it was reported that both divided Indian and Pakistan army willingly participated in killing of Hindus and Muslims and both end of the border during riots at the time of partition)
I have never read such a frank and forthright representation of the events priors to independence and for readers interested in that phase(1937-1947), this is a book not to be missed.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 15, 2020
I found this to be enthralling. The level of detail, the intimate access to some of the most consequential moments in modern Indian history, and Azad's unique perspective all made this book a joy to read.
He seems to have had an eye on the judgement of history while writing this, and the writing does not really contain any rhetorical flourishes, but it is absolutely worth a read.
He seems to have had an eye on the judgement of history while writing this, and the writing does not really contain any rhetorical flourishes, but it is absolutely worth a read.
June 30, 2020
One of the best book about India's independence as well as Pakistan. The book has revealed many unknown fact about some popular character, that has made this book more interesting.Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was really a great leader of INC and Indian Subcontinent.
October 15, 2020
A very well written book, its a beautiful page Turner and is very unbiased and sometimes it concededs its own bias too. Its an interesting read and gives a fresh perspective on the indian independence.
October 18, 2020
Great insight on freedom and the partition
Displaying 1 - 30 of 146 reviews