Jinnah Unfairly Demonised for Partition
This report is a welcome step towards understanding our recent history and could have huge implications for the mist that confounds South Asia.RR
LAHORE: Muhammad Ali Jinnah was a “great leader” and was unfairly “demonised” by India for his role in the Partition, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Jaswant Singh has said.
In an interview with CNN-IBN’s Devil’s Advocate programme, Singh credited Jinnah for having “created” Pakistan. “Oh yes, because he created something out of nothing and single-handedly stood against the might of the Congress party and against the British who didn’t really like him … (Mahatma) Gandhi himself called Jinnah a great Indian. Why don’t we recognise that? Why don’t we see (and try to understand) why he called him that?” he said.
Singh, whose book, “Jinnah – India, Partition, Independence”, would be released today (Monday), said Jinnah fought the British for an independent India in addition to fighting resolutely and relentlessly for the Muslims of India. “The acme of his nationalistic achievement was the 1916 Lucknow Pact of Hindu-Muslim unity,” he added.To questions on whether he subscribed to the popular demonisation of Jinnah in India, Singh said: “Of course I don’t.” He said the view held by many in India that Jinnah hated Hindus was a mistake. He said Jinnah’s “demonisation” was a direct result of the trauma of Partition.Self-made man: Singh said he admired Jinnah’s character and his status as a self-made man the most. “I admire certain aspects of his personality. His determination and the will to rise. He was a self-made man. Mahatma Gandhi was the son of a Diwan. All these (people) — Nehru and others — were born to wealth and position. Jinnah created for himself a position. He carved in Bombay, a metropolitan city, a position for himself,” he added.d.Nehru to blame: The MP said it was Jawaharlal Nehru, not Jinnah, whose belief in a centralised system had led to the Partition. He said Jinnah had wanted “space” for the Muslims of India, not dismemberment. “He (Jinnah) in fact went to the extent of saying that let there be a Pakistan within India,” he added.Asked if he were concerned that Nehru’s heirs and the Congress party would be critical of the responsibility he was attributing to Nehru for Partition, Singh said: “I am not assigning blame. I am simply recalling what I have found as the development of issues and events of that period.”Aliens: Singh also claimed that the Muslims of India had a deep-rooted psychological insecurity, adding “We (Indians) treat them as aliens.” He claimed Muslims had “paid a price in Partition” and claimed that “they would have been significantly stronger in a united India”.
Daily Times Monitor/Iftikhar Gilani [ http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\08\17\story_17-8-2009_pg1_7]
All My Posts, History, India, India-Pakistan History, Partition
Congratulation! Muhammed Ali Jinnah is proven a secular and nationalist leader. Unfortunately what the Pakistani natioalists should be worried about that do they need certificate of secularism from Hindu fascists, the same people who according to Romila Thapar and Irfan Habib were the founders of two nation theory.
The recently found love for Mr Jinnah is in Hindu Nationalist. Mr LK Advani was the first to declare him “secular” in Pakistan. Mr Jinnah was such a great leader why Advani doesnt follows his foot steps?
The man who demolished Babri Mosque and led to communal carnage in India issued certificate of secularism and our naive Pakistani friends start beating drums of triumph . What a tragedy. Latest prophet of secularism is Mr Jasawnt Sing,Mr Sing who was part of BJP, who didnt resigned from party wheb Babri Mosque , who didnt looked to Jinnah when muslims were being butchered in Gujrat, Mr Sing who was part of BJP militristic regime which encircled Pakistan by their Army. how blind have we become that we fail to see that all this is part of internal indian politics. To discredit their political rivals Congress , to destroy credentials of Nehru-Gandi. These monsters who have blood of muslims on their hands are issuing certificates to Jinnah. I hope soon BJP will built a temple of secularism and Ram Janam Bhoomi where one statue of Mr Jinnah will also be erected.
Its a tragedy that Mr Jinnah is being abused in such a way, Jinnah has more to loose at the hands of his naive supporters
Its not a moment to celebrate rather to mourn, will we celebrate if in 10 year Niranda Moodi issues a certificate to Jinnah as well?
The intolerance which has been shown by BJP is condemnable, its a vulgar expression by RSS against more sophisticated communalists like Singh.
If only Jaswant Singh would have studied Jinnah’s secularism when his party was burning Gujrat.
We should think we are elevating Jinnah or abusing him when we are giving authority to declare some one secular in hands of likes of Singh and Advani
dev e istabdad he jumhoori qaba mein pai koob
tu jisse samgha he aazadi ki he neelum pari
A final note Jamat e Islami today also issued a certificate to Mr Jinnah, that the great leader made Pakistan!
Mubarak
SA
thanks – pls see my new post – will respond to your comment in detail
thanks for visiting
RR
To most Pakistani Gandhi, Nehru and Patel were the architects of the bloody partition of the country on communal lines in 1947.
If they have listen to Jinnah there were no partition but they have to give up their hegemonies attitude to minority, Christians, Muslims and low caste Hindus.
The manipulation of media and disinformation by them has poisoned the mind of Majority that they didn’t listen to their sensible leaders.After 63 years wisdom is coming to them or it is kind of drama?
Jinnah was a secular leader with a reservation for Muslim minority, not India’s secularism of majority dominating. At the root of the antipathy towards Mr Jinnah, who is fondly called Quaid-e-Azam (Great Leader) in Pakistan, is a general reluctance among Indians to come to terms with the founder of Pakistan and his country. The dominant historical narrative is based on their imagination and not fact that Mr Jinnah was a minor figure to dismiss Jinnah proposal to reserve Muslim rights. Many Indians still do not accept and don’t want to listen.The Congress Party, indeed, finally agreed to partition, after years of deadlock, partly in the belief that Pakistan could not exist as a separate state.
“Let them have their Pakistan,” it was argued, “if they’ll take it without the eastern Punjab and without Calcutta and western Bengal. They won’t have any coal, steel, capital, or industries, and we can throttle them economically. After a few years they’ll come crawling back!”
This attitude, was so prevalent by the entire Congress high command that started counting dates after the partition operations. In the division of assets the Moslems have had to make a separate fight for virtually every typewriter and ream of paper. Difficulties have even been raised over the handling of mail.
Now BJP leaders Advani and Jaswat singh have found wisdom, they should dare to say openly. Great nations learn from history. However, it seems our nation is prone to collective loss of memory as we have the tendency to easily forget our past. Perhaps that’s why the study of history should be actively encouraged in Pakistan more than anything else.We should teach history objectively and no one can befool us any more. Muhammad Usman, Canada
I’d like to make a few points:
- If the book has been written objectively then why can’t its contents be separated from who Jaswant Singh is or is not?
Is every book based on history supposed to be some kind of a ‘certificate’ for some one or the other?
- I think that Jawahalal Nehru and Mohammad Ali Jinnah were both largely responsible for India’s partition. Though Nehru probably had a greater role to play, it would be wrong to absolve Jinnah completely. On the other hand, Mahatma Gandhi, I believe was never in favour of partition at any point of time.
Why can’t Indians as well as Pakistanis look at it all from a more objective point of view and why must Indians hold Jinnah entirely responsible for partition and why must Pakistanis do the same for Nehru or even Patel?
According to a local proverb, it takes two hands to clap.
pakisthanis have only bari masjid and the Gurat roits. why cann’t you dare to discuss about the history of baber and Ram janm bhumi temple.
I pray to God OR allha that your “Makka” & “Madina” must have gone through the same what Ram jana bhommi had gone. Wait in near fauture this will be distoryed and there will be curh standing on its ash. Then you will understand our(Hindus) pain.
Why cann’t you people talk about godhar mass burning.
If a holy book is burn by a christen then you will kill so many christen and there home, If your muslim have burned a live in your Paskisthan by a hindus, then no doubt you have killed all the hindus with in a hour.
Then whats ths surprise with the gujrat roit!!!!!!!
Yes it very unfortunate…But you people deserve that…..
As an Indian who has done independent research on the freedom fighters, I think that Jinnah was a great secular patriot that was nevertheless aware of the community politics and was thus right to want constitutional safeguards for them in his 14 points and in the Cabinet Mission Plan. The Congress was for Hindu-Muslim equality too but they had a vision of it where they merely assumed they would get along. They failed to realize that not all divisions were economic (as Nehru assumed) or that religious prayer meetings would be insufficient to meet Muslim insecurities.
But I also think the Pakistani habit of preaching “Open-mindedness about partition” to Indians is a bit hypocritical since they do no questioning of their own and merely expect Indians to confirm their own version of history.
They refuse to recognize that even the Quaid-e-Azam was not infallible and that he was prone to mistakes and lapses of judgment. While the standard Indian criticisms of Jinnah tend to be flawed and short-sighted, Jinnah was nevertheless very naive for assuming that his mere constitutional struggle would create a secular climate among his followers, that his followers would be loyal clients who would come and go once they secured their rights. He failed to see the disconnect between what he saw as a ploy to secure a share of the pie for Muslims at the Center and what Muslims saw as a separate homeland to practice and promote their faith as a nationalism. Furthermore, he rather crassly endorsed and pushed such interpretations to others for strategic benefit, not because he believed them, but to further his noble cause. Horrible means for a fine cause. Some of his rhetoric to other Middle Eastern nations of a “Hindu empire” was quite dangerous in my opinion and showed very bad tactic on his part, with regards to secularism. He too fell to playing the religion card that he loathed for most of his life, realizing he couldn’t get anywhere without it. He should have promoted not a movement of Islamic freedom (what most of his followers were trying to promote) and instead used his skill as a lawyer to form a secular opposition of those who disapproved of the vague, excessively populist and bumbling means of the Congress Party, an opposition consisting of those who sought a more practical approach to the idealism of Gandhi and Nehru (and I can assure you many of these kinds of minds existed among the Hindus and Muslims). He could have done this. There are other things he could have done (I can’t say what) but what he ended up doing was inadvertently endorse a toxic nationalism that has done more to poison communal relations than heal them.
He came to see his naivete with the partition and the riots it caused. Yet it did not stop him from continuing to express hope at the future and the possibility of a secular, stable Pakistan in harmony with India. Unfortunately, that has not come to pass.
I hope that can happen. Maybe then will Indians be able to get over their myopeia and start to appreciate the finer points of Jinnah’s vision.
He was an Indian hero. An imperfect Indian hero to be sure, but an Indian hero nonetheless. Which is pretty much the same case for everyone else in the movement.
I would consider him my second favorite leader, on a tie with Gandhi himself. My favorite leader, however, was Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan. That was a true hero who sought not fancy dreams but only to help uplift his people when they were at a backward standard of living, at the mercy of British manipulation. A true critique of the notion of the violent, irascible Afghan. He was sadly betrayed by his Congressites “co-conspirators” (as Pakistanis idiotically say) and literally left to the mercy of the more opportunistic followers of Jinnah in the NWFP. It was his rather hasty boycott of the referendum, followed by his many followers, that allowed for the League to win there. He was imprisoned and humiliated in Pakistan for so many years, accused of being a traitor, when he himself spared no harsh words for Nehru and co. and had actually pledged allegiance to the state of Pakistan and to the Pakistani claims over Kashmir (albeit with nonviolent means).
Overall an honest patriot, an everyman, who sought only the best for his Pashtuns and got nothing in return.
If he did end up advocating “Pashtun separatism” later in life, it was because he was driven to it by paranoid Pakistani patriots, not because it was his plan. True he proposed a third option of “Pakhtunistan” in the referendum but he was merely angered at the politics of the partition and he wasn’t so rigid as to hold by that after the fact of the partition itself.
It is freedom fighters like these that should perhaps get more coverage in India and Pakistan, as opposed to the mainstream figures of Gandhi, Nehru, Jinnah and Patel.