New Delhi: Independent India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s private letters to the then Finance Minister John Mathai and West Bengal Chief Minister Bidhan Chandra Roy reveal an episode reflecting attempts at addressing issues more in the context of perceptions then historical significance and sensitivities.
The correspondence, now accessible through the digitised Nehru archives, exhibits his deep concern about Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy’s alleged tax assessment disputes while recognising his role in the Great Calcutta Killings around the time of India’s Partition.
However, it does not go into the details of carnage where thousands were massacred in communal violence. Suhrawardy, remembered as the last Premier of undivided Bengal, was accused of inciting communal tensions during the 1946 “Direct Action Day” riots. His political career remained shadowed by allegations of complicity in violence, earning him the nickname of “Butcher of Bengal”.
Yet, Nehru wrote to the then Finance Minister about Suhrawardy’s alleged tax irregularities. The then Prime Minister expressed unease that such disputes could tarnish the credibility of governance if left unchecked. Suhrawardy later moved out to Pakistan, and went on to become the Prime Minister in 1956 despite this controversial past.
Apparently on Suhrawardy’s personal complaint, Nehru wrote to his Finance Minister on December 12, 1948, regarding the enormous income-tax assessments issued against the former Premier of Bengal. Suhrawardy had complained to Nehru that he was being assessed for nearly Rs 50 lakh in taxes for 1945-46 and 1946-47 and alleged that the Income Tax Department was harassing him.
Rather than leaving the matter to tax authorities, Nehru intervened. He forwarded Suhrawardy’s grievances to Matthai and cautioned that any “high-handed” action could have serious political repercussions.
“What Suhrawardy told me may or may not be true or it may be partly true, but I must confess that it has disturbed me greatly and I have the feeling that a full enquiry should be made to find out exactly what has happened and how,” wrote Nehru.
“Suhrawardy’s record in Bengal as Premier was thoroughly bad, but you will remember that he associated himself with Gandhiji later and undoubtedly helped greatly in preserving peace,” he added, as if exonerating Suhrawardy of his crimes. The same day, Nehru also wrote to the West Bengal Chief Minister, describing the assessment as “extraordinary” and seeking further information.
In the letter, Nehru highlighted the need for fairness in handling Suhrawardy’s tax assessments. He insisted that political controversies should not interfere with due process, reflecting his commitment to administrative integrity.
“I have been disturbed by it (Suhrawardy’s income-tax assessment) and I want to have an enquiry made. Whatever our views about Shaheed might be, specially about his past conduct, we cannot afford to do anything in a high-handed manner. This has political consequences of a far-reaching character,” he wrote in his letter to West Bengal’s first Chief Minister after Independence.
However, Suhrawardy was not an ordinary taxpayer, but one of the most controversial figures remembered for his role as Premier of Bengal during the Direct Action Day in Calcutta in 1946, which unleashed horrific communal violence.
The letters’ tone sets a contentious balancing act, acknowledging Suhrawardy’s divisive past while stressing that even controversial figures deserved impartial treatment under Indian law.
While Suhrawardy’s association with communal violence posed a moral challenge. Nehru’s letters reveal his struggle to reconcile the principle of justice with the memory of Bengal’s bloodshed. Nehru’s writing shows that he was more wary that in context to India-Pakistan relations soon after Partition, Suhrawardy’s presence in Pakistan’s political landscape added a diplomatic dimension. This attempt at addressing his tax disputes reflected more to cross-border perceptions then historical significance and sensitivities.
The concern was not merely the tax assessment itself, but the broader political consequences that could follow from the government’s treatment of such a prominent Muslim leader. The irony from the letters is striking, it is about a Prime Minister who championed secularism and fairness but appears entangled in the legacy of a man accused of deepening communal divides.
(IANS)
