"THOU HAST GREAT ALLIES" 203
purpose, unity between Congress and the League. Cripps in 1942 had
flaunted the lack of agreement between the two as the only hurdle in
the way of Indian freedom. In December 1942, fearing that Mr. Raja-
gopalaehari's unity efforts might be successful Lord Linlithgow gave
an unusual homily on India being geographically one and the need to
"conserve tnat unity "—obviously in order to stiffen opposition to
brotherly consideration cf the Pakistan demand. In February 1944,
Lord Wavell told the Indian Legislature that "unless the two
main political parties at least can come to terms, I do not see any
immediate hope of settlement11. This did not prevent him writing to
Gandhiji in August that a National Government could only follow
"agreement in principle between the Hindus and Muslims and all
important elements as to the method by which the new constitution
should be formed." "All important elements11 would doubtless
cover a multitude of dubieties that imperialism would beget.
Bureaucratic Machiavellism was seen clearly in June-July 1945,
when a conference was held in Simla to diseuss what was known
as the Wavell Plan. The Viceroy had flown to London to seek in-
structions in regard to an agreement between the leaders of the
Congress and the League parties in the Legislature as the basis for set-
tlement. During the discussions between Amery and Wavell, the equal
representation in the Central Government between Congress and the
League, agreed to by the two leaders, was changed into equal repre-
sentation for Hindus and Muslims. By this means, Government put
a bait before both organisations. Congress whose leaders were
released on the eve of the meeting eould think that Government
would lefe it have all Hindu seats and also some Muslim seats; the
League felt that it would get all the Muslim seats, in which case no
Congress Muslim could be nominated (as he could be if it was just
equality between the Congress and the League). Both organisations,
unfortunately, failed to see through Wavell's game; they tried to use
the change made by the British Government to gain at each other's
expense, and they failed. It was Government which laid the basis for
Congress-League disagreement and the failure of the conference, but
it played its cards so cleverly that Congress and the League blamed
one another, and British reaction immediately advertised to the world
that Britain was willing to transfer power but Indian disagreement
prevented it.
What has happened since the failure of the Simla Conference is
very recent history. A Labour Government has come to power in
Britain with a comfortable majority. Japan has been finally defeated,
and there is no question now of an c interim arrangement'. If Congress
and the League reaches agreement, surely, one hopes, Britain under