Parsis would be the ‘communities’ represented. (The Backward Castes’
spokesman, Dr B.R. Ambedkar, when he expressed his surprise at not
being asked to join the government, was told his chances would have
greatly improved had he been a Christian.) When presented with the
fait accompliof a functioning government, the League decided to join it,
despite the fact that it was not permitted to appoint all the Muslims in
the government. Jinnah delegated to Liaquat Ali Khan, soon to be the first
prime minister of Pakistan, the job of Nehru’s deputy in the government- the League decided, however, to boycott membership of the Constituent
Assembly (the Central Assembly that came into being as a result of the
1946 elections was to become the Indian Constituent Assembly).
Liaquat Ali Khan held the Finance portfolio, and was therefore the first
Indian Finance Member to present a budget, in March 1947. This should
have been a historic moment: Liaquat’s budget contained radical proposals
to tax businessmen for the profits they had made in the war years. But the
Congress right now came forward with an objection: since Liaquat knew
that most businessmen were Hindu, his proposals to tax businessmen were
‘communal’, and an attempt to deliver a parting kick to Indian devel-
opmental aspirations before Pakistan separated off from India. However
absurd this sounded, the Congress right successfully had its way. Liaquat
justified his budget by reference to Nehru’s radical speeches after his
release from prison, in which Nehru had made very similar proposals; and
indeed Liaquat had cleared the budget with Nehru before presenting
it. Nehru, as usual, when faced with determined opposition, backed down
and disowned the budget. It was passed in drastically modified form,
and provided more evidence for the League that the Congress had no
intention of sharing power. During the recriminations over the budget,
Nehru was taking advice from Dr John Matthai, at the time in the Interim
Government as a representative of Indian Christians, but also an employee
of Tata Sons. Matthai, Nehru claimed, had both economic expertise and
business experience; but the principle of conflict of interest was clearly not
observed on this occasion, for the Tatas had much to lose from Liaquat’s
budget.
The budget crisis illustrated the deadlock that had now arisen. Lord
Wavell censured both Nehru and Liaquat for failing to agree on the
budget, always a central aspect of government policy; if this was a
reminder of British paternalistic attitudes to Indians’ ability to govern
themselves, there was also a sense among all concerned of being locked
132 THE END OF THE RAJ