Page 65 - Leadership in the Indian Army

promotion. Instead, it deals with a very important subject—the Partition of India.
Dated 24 November 1946, it reads:

In our case, unless we remain within the Commonwealth maybe for a short period of a year or two, it is
clear to me that by the Cabinet Mission’s latest suggestion of groupings into zones, they may have made
sure of cutting the country into three pieces and controlling India, the subcontinent, as they have no
doubt they will play havoc with us. To put them in their place, I know Pandit Nehru, and through him,
the Congress are trying to do so. But please beware lest India is broken up by bolstering the Muslim
League and other communal forces—Sikhs’ demand for Khalistan, the Princes’ bid for Federation and
encouraging Hyderabad and Jammu and Kashmir becoming independent by joining hands with other
reactionaries….

The Defence Minister replied, on 27 November 1946:

Your letter of 24th has reached me, its contents are much appreciated by Pt Jawaharlalji, Sardar Patel,
and my other colleagues of the Executive Council, including the members of the Muslim League…. I
know you are keeping yourself well out of the present constantly changing political developments, much
influenced by the British Imperialists in combination with Mr Jinnah and other leaders, and I expect of
you to keep a special eye on the various communities that are being tapped and influenced by them…. I
understand you are preparing a paper on acceleration of Nationalisation…. I would much like to discuss
this very vital matter with you before you finalise your proposals for the consideration of the
Gopalaswamy Nationalisation Committee.

Nathu Singh and Sarojini Naidu had given evidence before the Skeen Committee
on the same day, and over the years had become close friends. Sarojini insisted
that Nathu call her Mah (Mother), which is how she signed her letters to him. The
two often corresponded, and at this point Nathu wrote to her about the problems
facing the country and nationalisation of the army. In her response on 9 January
1947, Sarojini Naidu wrote:

Dear Nathoo Singh,
Many Thanks for sending me your very illuminating Shot in the Dark. It gives a correct picture of the
situation from every angle
…. As the security of the country depends entirely upon the army, the army should not be based on
what the country can afford to have for its defence. It will be fatal to rely on a small armed force,
however efficient and modernly equipped it may be; because our country is vulnerable, bristling with
traitors and the fifth columnists in millions in every part of India. We all know the character and honesty
of our potential enemies and so-called friends.
Our leaders should get advice from us Indians in the army and other branches…and not, repeat not,
from hirelings, who have their own axes to grind….
One thing more, probably you have noticed but have not mentioned, is how the Army is at a
disadvantage because of that ‘steel frame’, * who wants to have the last word in everything pertaining to
the Army. That steel frame must go.
Once again, many thanks for sending me the most illuminating ‘Shot in the Dark’.
Yours
Mah

In February 1947, Nathu Singh was called to give evidence before the Armed
Forces Nationalisation Committee. Set up in November 1946, the committee
consisted of Sir Gopalaswamy Ayyangar as Chairman, Pandit Hriday Nath
Kunzru, Muhammad Ismail Khan, Sardar Sampuran Singh, Major General D.A.L.