I
Meantime, there was a move in tlie Liberal Circles to solve the deadlock in their way. They held a Non-Party
Conference in March 1941 at the Taj Malial Hotel, Bombay. The Convener of the Conference was the late Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru. It may be noted here that a few days before this Gandhiji had called on the ailing knight at his residence in Allahabad. Sir Tej was also in coi’respondence with Gandhiji, and Dr. Jayakar had seen Savarkar in the preceding month. Intellectual and legal luminaries of India attended the Conference. Prominent among those who attended the Conference weie Sir Jagdish Prasad, Sir Nripendranath Sirkar, Sir Chimanlal Setalvad, Loknayak Aney, Dr. Moonje, Pandit Kunzru, Dr. Jayakar, Savarkar and Dr. Mookerjee.
The Conference was about to break up since some of the leaders were nervous about the representative character of the Conference. At such a crucial moment Sir Tej requested Savarkar to speak on the point. Addressing the Conference, Savarkar said that they had struck a note in the political history of the country. They had proved that the various parties in India could meet on the basis of a common programme though they had allegiance to different ideologies. As the President of the Hindu Mahasabha, he asserted his belief in India’s right to absolute political independence ; but although some of them in the Conference were not prepared to go so far with him, he did not see why they should not travel together so long as they had a common journey. Thus by his calm and convincing arguments he gave a turn to the Conference.
The Conference then set to work and demanded Provisional National Government for India. At the conclusion of the Conference Sir Tej expressed openly his gratitude to Savarkar and acknowledged that Savarkar’s valuable guidance and
270 SAVARKAR AND HIS TIMI^S
spirit saved the Conference from a fiasco. It was at this Conference that the Liberal leaders were indelibly impressed by Savarkar’s intellectual and persuasive powers and rational and realistic approach to the political problems. Sri Srinivas Sastri happened to meet Savarkar at this juncture. Later on, while speaking at the twenty-third Session of the National Liberal Federation held at Madras, Sastri referred to a meeting with Savarkar at Bombay and said that the speaker was not well acquainted with Mr. Savimkar and had met him only once at one of those infructuous, pacificatory teas, organized by Sir Chiinanlal Setalvad. On that occasion the speaker had expected to see a gentleman perverse, obstinate and loud, but found a thin looking, quiet Maharashtra chap, speaking slowly and deliberately, seldom raising his voice and always apparently in full possession of his mind and knowing exactly
what he wanted Sastri further said that he at once
conceived a great admiration for the man. Thus at one more political rally Savarkar captivated the intellectual luminaries and lofty brains of India by his reason, intellect and the uncommon range and quality of his mental and argumentative powers.
The reaction of Mr. Jinnah to this Non-Party Conference was notable. From Bangalore he declared that the Conference was engineered by the agents of the Congress and the Hindu Mahasabha. Mr, L. S. Amery, the Secretary of State for India, referred to the Bombay Non-Party Conference in his speech in the House of Commons in April 1941, and said that the Conference had not been able to secure any kind of agreement on the scheme. Replying to the charges levelled by Mr. Jinnah and Mr. Amery, in a statement Sir Tej stated that in his political life he had never been trapped by anybody and said : “ I was more than gratified that men like
Mr. Savarkar and Dr. Moonje, who were present at the Conference, played the game and accepted the resolution. They were men of strong party convictions and yet, for the sake of settlement, they subordinated their party feelings to the common goal we had in view.’’ ’ Sapru soon saw the Viceroy and was then “ thinking, according to the Nainital correspondent of the Statesman, of a joint meeting of Gandhi ji,
^ The Mdhratta, dated 2-5-1941.
ROOSEVELT, CHURCHILL AND CRIPPS 271
Mr. Savarkar and Mr. Jinnah or a small Conference including these three leaders, convened by some persons of influence outside the League and the Congress.’’ ‘
Then came the first breach in the stronghold of the Central citadel of the British Bureaucracy. Lord Linlithgow, the Viceroy of India, reshuffled his Executive Council on July 21, 1941, making appointments of seven Indians. Savarkar opined that the change was a step in the right direction if it was to pave the way for further and rapid development of constitu- tional progress, and stated that the bitterness felt by patriotic parties in India could not be dissipated unless Britain granted India, if not full independence, at least equal partnership in the Irido-British Commonwealth.
In the wake of these political changes, a second Session of the Sapru Conference was again held at Poona on Jul^^ 26, 1941, wherein Savarkar got the United India resolution passed by the Conference. At the morning sitting of the Session on that day Sir Mirza Ismail was present, but he was conspicu- ously absent when the United India resolution came up for discussion in the evening. Savarkar, therefore, pertinently inquired of Sir Tej the whereabouts of his trusted Ismail and Sir Tej with a smile replied that it was true that Sir Mirza Ismail had not turned up as promised. Was the absence of a nationalist Muslim inexplicable at the time of such an important resolution ?
It did not escape the alert eyes of Savarkar that the Viceroy had not done justice to the claims of the Sikhs and the Depressed Classes and therefore he wired to the Viceroy urging him to nominate a Sikh leader on the Executive Council. The non-inclusion of a Depressed Class repiesenla- tive in the Executive Council was rightly resented by Dr. Ambedkar. Savarkar immediately supported the strong protest which Dr. Ambedkar had made in claiming a seat on the Viceregal Executive Council and the Mahasabha President said in his wire to the Viceroy that “ the British Government could find no more capable a gentleman to fill that post than Dr. Ambedkar himself.”
Savarkar believed that no nation had entered the World War with any idealistic motives and U.S.A. would not
- The Mahrattay dated 9-5-1941.
272 SAVAEKAR AND HIS TIMES
translate her slogans of democracy into action by forcing a democratic rule in India. To underline this truth Savarkar sent a cable on August 20, 1941, to the American President, Mr. Franklin D. Roosevelt, urging him to declare explicitly whether the Atlantic Charter which was announced by Mr. Churchill and Mr. Roosevelt on August 14, 1941, covered the case of India or not and whether America guaranteed the full political freedom of India within a year after the end of the war. Savarkar further asked President Roosevelt : “ If America fails to do that, India cannot but construe this decla- ration as another stunt like the War aims of the last Anglo- German War, meant only to camouflage the Imperialistic aggressions of those who have empires against those who have them not or are out to win them ! ”
This cable was broadcast throughout the world, especially in Britain, America, Germany, India, and other belligerent nations. Its implied assertion was fully exploited by Hitler’s German propaganda to expose the hollowness of the allied professions of love for democracy ! Mr. Churchill, the War-time Prime Minister of Britain, was in the end compelled to tear off with his own hand the mask of vague platitudes. Mr. Churchill declared with his usual blunt candour that the Atlantic Charter applied only to those countries which were then under the Nazi yoke. Savarkar did not leave the matter there. He again cabled to President Roosevelt on September 22, 1941, and asked the President of the great Republic whether he dared contradict Mr. Chui’chill’s interpretation or played a second fiddle to Churchill’s dictation by words or silence. President Roosevelt in fact kept silence over Savarkar’s pointed question. It was a straight hit that exposed the altruistic motives of the Allies. This Savarkarian trap for the American President was described by the Modem Review as a statecraft.
A similar cable Savarkar had sent on April 23, 1939, to President Roosevelt, who had sent forth an appeal to Herr Hitler to wai’d off the impending colossal danger to the civilization of humanity. In this cable Savarkar had appealed to the American President : “ If your note to Hitler is actuated by disinterested human anxiety for safeguarding freedom and democracy from military aggression, pray ask Britain too to
ROOSEVELT, CHURCHILL AND CRIPPS 273
withdraw the amied domination over Hindusthan and let her have a free and self-determined Constitution. A great nation like Hindusthan can surely claim at least as much International Justice as small nations do.”
This cable underlined Savarkar’s conviction that so far as war was concerned, India need not base her hopes on the professed war aims of the Allies. The Germans flashed this retort of Savarkar to the American President all over Germany as they had broadcast throughout their nation Savarkar s speeches on foreign politics. The frank exposition of this truth was very much appreciated by many candid American politicians one of whom Mr. M. M. Gross wrote to Savarkar from the U.S.A. appreciating his cable to President Roosevelt : “ Although there are many who believe as you and I, very few have the courage to voice their feelings as you did. Keep up the work, there will be an international day of peace.” Another American of note promised co-operation in publishing Savarkar’s viewpoint before the American people.
The popularity and influence of the Hindu Mahasabha was rising and the Hindu Mahasabha was now a force to be reckoned with. Noted politicians, authors and constitutional experts from abroad now interviewed Savarkar at his house at Shivaji Park, Bombay. Towards the end of 1941, Mr. Hudson, the Reforms Commissioner, then officially travelling in India to collect data for the future constitution of India, had an interview with Savarkar. Prof. Reginald Coupland of the Oxford University, who visited India for studying the political constitution of India, met Savarkar along with the Secretary to the Governor of Bombay on January 15, 1942. Mr. T. A. Raman, special correspondent of the North American News Papers Alliance, saw Savarkar during the same month. Mr. John H. Magruder, representative of the New York Times, who was on active Naval service in Egypt, had come to India to join the American Navy. He saw Savarkar and discussed the Indian political situation with him. Sir Evelyn Wrench, a representative of the Spectator, London, who was on a political survey in India, interviewed Savarkar to acquaint himself with the Mahasabha view on the war situation and the Pakistan scheme.
At this jimcture there was a grave crisis in the war situation
18
274 SAVARKAR AND HIS TIMES
for the Allies in the East as well as in the West. On February 11, 1942, Generalissimo Chiang Kai Shek of China paid a meteoric visit to India. He was the President of the Chinese Republic and it was said he had come to discuss with the Viceroy of India the war situation in the context of the political situation in India and if possible to persuade the Indian political forces to help the Allies unconditionally in the war. Savarkar greeted the Chinese leader on behalf of the Hindu Nation. In reply the Chinese leader and his wife thanked Savarkar for the good wishes.
Singapore fell shortly afterwards to Japanese forces. Wiih the fall of Singapore and the destruction of the British warships, the Repulse and the Prince of Wales, it seemed that Japan would smash the allied forces in the East. At this psychological moment Savarkar issued a statement in which he reiterated : “ Nothing now can rouse the Indian people with a war-like spirit to fight to a finish, but a bold and unambiguous proclamation on the part of the British Govern- ment that India is guaranteed forthwith a co-partnership in an Indo-British Commonwealth with other self-governing constituents including Great Britain herself. Every functional step to nationalise the Government in India and to materialise this proclamation must also be immediately and actually taken.” Savarkar also warned the British Government : “ If Japan is allowed to forestall the British Government in this case and to proclaim as soon as and if her invading forces reach the borders of India that their immediate objective is to free and guarantee the Independence of India, such a Proclamation on their part cannot but capture the imagination of the Indian people by storm and usher in incalculable poUtical compUcations.” ^ This statement was not a veiled threat. It was the outcome of the rare insight and poUtical wisdom that was soon largely borne out by events.
II
Since 1940, the fissiparous tendencies in Indian poUtics had begun to assume a threatening aspect. In the first week of March 1942, Sri Rajagopalachari styled the MusUm demand
^ Statement dated 17-2-1942.
ROOSEVELT, CHURCHILL AND CRIPPS 275
for vivisection of India into a brood of Pakistani States as a ‘ just and fair share in real power and stated that no Indian politician was interested in denying this.’ Savarkar could not let this outrageous assumption go unchallenged. He condemned Rajaji’s statement and said ; “ Rajaji’s officiousness is only equalled by his audacity in presuming that he was entitled to play the role of a self-appointed spokesman of all politicians in India and secondly that all Indians who did not think the demands of the Moslem League ‘ fair and just ’ were not politicians at all. The League demands that India should be vivisected into a brood of Pakistans. Does that amount only to a desire to have a ‘ fair and just ’ share in real power ? ” Savarkar warned the British Government that such com- promises made by Congressmen were not binding on the Hindu Mahasabha.
On March 7, 1942, Savarkar cabled to the British Premier, Mr. Churchill, urging him “ to make a proclamation of the Indian Independence with co-partnership equal with Britain in an Indo-British Commonwealth ” and demanded “ imme- diate nationalisation of the Indian Government.” The Premier of Britain acknowledged the cable through the Viceroy and thanked Savarkar. About this time there was some talk of a Congress-League pact in which Sir Sikandar Hyat Khan, Prime Minister of the Punjab, figured prominently. Savarkar warned Sir Sikandar Hyat Khan that “ any Congress-League pact would not be binding on the Hindus. If it was detrimental to the Hindu rights, it would be opposed by the Hindu Mahasabha.”
By now the war situation was worsening for the Allies. Threatened with a grave crisis in war created by the lightning successes of Japan in March 1942, and with a view to impressing the American people with the genuine sincerity of British aims about India, the British Cabinet sent one of their Ministers, Sir Stafford Cripps, to India on March 23, 1942, with a Cabinet proposal. The proposal was a mischievous scheme for the Indian nationalists. The proposal envisaged the creation of a new Indian Union which would constitute a Dominion associated with the United Kingdom immediately after the cessation of hostilities. Secondly the proposal granted the right to any province in British India that was not
276 SAVARKAR AND HIS TIMES
prepared to accept the new constitution framed by the constitution-making body, to retain ite then constitutional position, provision being made for its subsequent accession, if it so desired.
Cripps interviewed important Indian leaders of public opinion and discussed his scheme with them. Accompanied by Dr. Moonje, Dr. Shyama Prasad Mookerjee, Sir Jwala- prasad Srivastava and Lala Ganpat Rai, Savarkar had a memorable interview with Cripps. Though the first part of the Cripps Scheme was acceptable to Savarkar, he roundly condemned in the interview the second part of the scheme which virtually conceded Pakistan by granting the right of secession to the provinces under the sweet name of self-determination. During the course of the discussion Cripps, the one-time Advocate-General of Britain, opined that the right of self-determination was not new in politics and was given to every unit in Canada before the formation of her federation. To support his case Cripps also cited examples from South Africa and other countries. Savarkar thereupon turned those arguments upon Cripps himself by telling the British Minister that the Canadian States were already quite separate entities before they were called together to say whether they liked to form themselves into an organic State, Federal or otherwise. But here in India, continued Savarkar, unlike the Canadian States, the provinces were already welded into one Central unit and so there was no similarity between the two cases. Savarkar further said to Cripps :
“ The question before us today is not to form out of separate and independent States or constituents a new nation, or a federation or a confederation. India is already a Unitarian State.”
Cripps replied that India was never a Unitarian nation. Thereupon Savarkar answered back : “ To the Hindus, it is an article of faith that India, their Motherland and Holyland, is a cultural and national unit undivided and indivisible. Let alone the cultiural unity which you may not grasp during this short period of the interview, but you wiU agree that politically and administratively the British Government admits it and calls the Government of India the Indian Government, the Army and Navy are called the Indian Army
ROOSEVELT, CHURCHILL AND CRIPPS 277
and Indian Navy, and Bombay and Bengal are called the provinces. All these factors prove that India is an undivided centralised nation and a State. And as for the principle of self-determination, it is a right to be given to a nation as a whole and not io a part thereof.”
Savaikar’s arguments were irrefutable. The effect was powerful. Caught in his own trap for the first time while conducting political negotiations with Indian leaders, Cripps who set Russia against Cermany and enticed many Indian leaders like Pandit Nehrif nm his snare, hung down his head in silence. The suavity of his manners and sweetness of his tongue faded ! In his silence he accepted a defeat at the hands of Savarkar. The interview terminated and Savarkar came out with his face flushed, and he remarked to the pressmen : “ We shall fight out Pakistan to the last.” So crushing and complete was the defeat inflicted on Sir Stafford Cripps by Savarkar that this interview became a topic among political circles at Delhi for many days. Even the National Herald, Pandit Nehru’s mouthpiece, referred to this interview in its comments on the proposed retirement of Savarkar from the Presidentship of the Hindu Mahasabha. The National Herald remarked : ^ “ Profoundly as we disagree with
Savarkar’s politics, we freely admit that he is one of the few men of our age who have made history and contributed to a reawakening of oiir people. . . . He showed the old fire in him, when he took up the thoughtless challenge thrown to the Hindu Mahasabha by the Government of Bihar, and obtained a resounding victory at Bhagalpur. With Sir Stafford Cripps he crossed swords which the former will never forget.” And indeed the voice of Savarkar will ring in the ears of Cripps for many years to come.
Savarkar advised the Working Committee of the Hindu Mahasabha to reject the Cabinet proposal in toto as it was to be accepted or rejected in toto, and he left Delhi for Bombay immediately. The Hindu Mahasabha was the first political organisation that rejected the Cabinet proposal entirely. Cripps wanted to have a talk with Savarkar a second time, but Savarkar felt that it was futile to see him and discuss the scheme while the secession clause stood there. Yet Savarkar
1 Quoted in The Mahratta, dated 28-8-1942.
278 SAVARKAR AND HIS TIMES
was interviewed again at the Bombay Secretariat by H.E. the Governor of Bombay when Savarkar expressed his view that the Hindu Mahasabha would join the National Government if the secession clause was not binding.
The Muslim League rejected the Cabinet proposal as the freedom of separation was neither full nor clear. The Sikh All-Party Conference rejected it protesting against the principle of provincial self-determination. The Congress party was willing to accept the scheme. Be it noted that in spite of the secession clause which it swallowed, after prolonged negotiations the Congress strained at the gnat of the Defence Portfolio which was to remain in the hands of the British representative during the operation of war, and at last rejected the scheme. Thus it was Savarkar who first opened the Pandora’s box brought by the wily, crafty and subtle Cripps full of artificial laugh, while the new expression self-determination had bewitched some men of Savarkar’s camp, had accelerated the brainwave of the cool and calculating Sapru-type Liberals, and had visibly affected the spinal chord of the Indian National Congress. The Indian leaders were so thoroughly captivated that they quoted Cripps to silence their opponents !
It is worth mentioning here that eminent Liberal leaders like Sri Srinivas Sastri, Sir V. N. Chandavarkar and veteran statesmen like Sir C. P. Ramaswami Aiyar and Sri Ramananda Chatterjee had sensed the danger to the integrity of India through the suicidal policy of the Congress. Ramananda Chatterjee who presided over a public meeting at the University Institute Hall, Calcutta, on August 22, 1941, said ; “I am sure, if we are true sons and daughters of India, it shall never be divided.” Speaking at a meeting at the Blavatsky Lodge Hall, Bombay, on the next day of Savarkar’s historic interview with Sir Stafford Cripps, Sri Srimvas Sastri appealed to the coimtry to support the Hindu Mahasabha and said : “ We all cherish the unity of India and we will all resist any attempt to break up what we take so much pride in. . . . Hindus whether they belong to the Congress, the Liberal Federation, or any other organization will express their sympathy with the Hindu Mahasabha. They should not only rest content with mere sympathy, but also go to the extent
ROOSEVELT, CHURCHILL AND CRIPPS 279
of extending their active political support to the Hindu Mahasabha.” ^
This is a great tribute to the invincible stand taken by Savarkar in regard to the integrity of India and this fervent appeal made by Sastri to all the Hindus for supporting the Hindu Mahasabha clearly meant that Sastri believed that the integrity of India was safer in the hands of Savarkar than in those of the Congress leaders.
And what did the Congress leaders do ?
Mesmerised by the false ideas of the principle of self- determination and impelled by the craftiness of its President, Maulana Azad, the Congress High Command thrust the poisonous pill of Provinciial self-determination down the throat of the Indian National Congress, the erstwhile protagonist of India’s unity and indivisibility. The Working Committee of the Indian National Congress proclaimed emphatically by a resolution at Delhi in April 1942, “ that the Congress could not think in terms of compelling the people of any territorial unit to join the Indian Union against their declared and established will.”
This historic resolution brought into bold relief the fact that the Congress favoured the provinces with the right of self- determination or secession and such secession was called by the Muslims ‘ Pakistan ’. Dealing with the Congress resolution four years after. Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya had to admit : “ It is evident that the passage concedes the division of India into more than one State and gives the go-by to the xmity and integrity of India.” ^ Is any confession more sinful than this of Pattabhi ? People of the Congress persuasion hoped that Pandit Nehru would oppose the principle of provincial self- determination. But self-determination was a new current of thought in Indian politics and Nehru who was ever on his wings to march with new ideas must fall in line with the provincial self-determination ! It was the shape of things to come and Nehru honestly fitted himself into it !
When this .historic resolution of the Congress was out,
^ Quoted in The Mahratta, dated 3-4-1942.
^Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya, History of the Indian National Congress, Vol. n. p. 635.
3 Ibid.
280 SAVARKAR AND HIS TIMES
Savarkar came out with a statement in which he said : “ For the last three years or so I have been publicly warning the Hindus that there was every likelihood that the Congress would servilely surrender to the Moslems on the issue of Pakistan even as it did on the issue of Communal Award and would even have the crazy audacity of parading this treacherous act itself as an acid test of Indian patriotism. The Congressite Hindus continued to challenge and a large section of the non-Congress Hindus also used to doubt the accuracy of these assertions on my part. They wanted evidence to prove my assertions. Now here comes the evidence with a vengeance. Here is an authoritative declaration by the Congress framed in a resolution which they have passed, signed, sealed and delivered to the envoy of the British War Cabinet that they admitted the right on the part of the Muslim Provinces, nay, for the matter of that any provinces whatever, to cut themselves off from Hindusthan and create Independent States of Pakistans or any other Sthans they choose.” Telling the people to note the dangerous admission on the part of the Congress and its far-reaching treacherous implications, he declared : “ The Congress which calls itself ‘ Indian National Congress ’ has in these few lines stabbed at a stroke the unity and integrity of the Indian Nation itself in the back.” ^
For a while there was a tug-of-war between the righteous and unrighteous flanks of the Congress over the anti-national resolution of the Congress. National honesty about the inte- grity and indivisibility of Hindusthan seemed to move towards the righteous side. In Allahabad at the Session of the All-India Congress Committee on May 2, 1942, the erstwhile Hindu- sabhaite, Babu Jagat Narayan, moved his Akhand Hindusthan resolution, and it was passed with an overwhelming majority. The A.I.C.C. declared : “ That any proposal to disintegrate India by giving liberty to any component State or territorial imit to secede from the Indian Union or Federation will be highly detrimental to the best interests of the people of different States and provinces and the country as a whole and the Congress therefore cannot agree to any such proposal.”
Mkirk the pledged word to Mother India. Mark the holy promise of national honesty and national integrity. But the
1 Statement, dated 21-4-1942.
ROOSEVELT, CHURCHILL AND CRIPPS 281
Hindu defender of Pakistan in Rajaji would not let the Akhand Hindusthan resolution go unchallenged. He resigned the membership of the Congress Working Committee and moved a counter resolution recognizing the right of separation of certain areas from United India after ascertaining the wishes of the people of such areas. But this Pakistan resolution moved by Rajaji was thrown out on the same day by the A.I.C.C. by 120 votes against 15.
Another factor to remembered about Babu Jagat Narayan’s Akhand Hin lusthan resolution is that all the so-called Nationalist Mu.s.ir. members of the A.I.C.C. opposed it in the A.I.C.C. session, and declared this brave act of theirs in a special statement. Yet the dishonest role of the self- styled saviours of India persisted in its vainglorious platitudes, high sounding words, knavery and hallucinations. When asked by Dr. Abdul Latif of Hyderabad, Maulana Azad and Pandit Nehru replied that the Delhi resolution conceding the right of self-determination to the provinces was not affected by the Akhand Hindusthan resolution ! ^ Had there been five honest, fearless and determined leaders in the A.I.C.C., they could have raised a voice of truth, a cry of righteousness against this violation of the Akhand Hindusthan resolution. This dubious role of the Congress was not a whit less equivocal than the role played by it in regard to the Communal Award. Indeed, History was thus repeated once more in a worse form !
Savarkar could not tolerate the sight of the poisonous dagger of provincial secession aimed at the heart of Hindusthan. He was perturbed at the tragedy that was being enacted on the political platform of India. To Savarkar, unity and integrity of his Motherland and Holyland was an article of faith, a pious and precious sentiment. The Liberal leaders like Sri Srinivas Sastri and Sir V. N. Chandavarkar and many other straightforward men, who perceived the danger to the National integrity, fuUy supported Savarkar and sounded a note of caution to the country. It was clear nov^ that the goal of the Congress was the independence of a Divided India and the goal of the Hindu Mahasabha and Savarkar was the independence of India and the integrity of India.
Savarkar was restless. He was striving to avert the tragedy.
1 Hindusthan Standard, dated 8-8-1942.
282 SAVARKAR AND HIS TIMES
He even tried to focus world attention on the dreadful tragedy that was being enacted in India. The outside world expressed surprise at the Mahasabha opposition to the Cripps proposal. Savarkar, therefore, cabled to the editor, New York Times, to acquaint the outside world with the righteous stand of the Hindu Mahasabha that “The Hindu Mahasabha partially accepted the Cripps proposal and welcomed the promised grant of equal co-partnership with Britain ; but the scheme made it all conditional on granting freedom to provinces to secede and break up India into a number of independent States with no central Indian Government.” Savarkar concluded : “ Americans in particulai*, who went to w^ar even with their kith and kin on the question of secession and saved the integrity of their union, cannot fail to appreciate and uphold the Hindu opposition to the vivisection of India. Hindus are prepared to guarantee legitimate safeguards to the minorities, but can never tolerate their efforts to create a State within a State as the League of Nations put it.” Savarkar also warned Sir Stafford Cripps not to depend upon any Congress-League pact as it would not be binding on the Hindu Mahasabha.