Mr. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the patriarch of a nation called Pakistan gaining utmost limelight nowadays at least in the imagination of Armed Force officer turned Politician turned a writer Mr. Jaswant Singh who’s getting mixed sort of tag for his juvenile researched book Jinnah: India- Pakistan-Independence. This book came with an unprecedented shock to India’s long standing ethos which culminated in the long process of time, further it engraved with an adversely personified exchange of India’s nation maker’s impressions.
Jaswant Singh’s moves seems to intended for big acclamation and commercial success; in this process he became so hurried that he even forgets to put some genuine historical facts in his historical queries of highly ambiguous political scenario of pre- independent India. In this regard early and timely suited remarks of India’s leading historian, Ram Chandra Guha that “History is not a mathematical game” astutely reveals the feeble nature of this book.
Indeed Mr. Jinnah began his political life as a child of the enlightenment the seeds of which were planted in undivided India by the statesmen of Victorian England but that was not sustained as last eventuality as he was an astute expert of legal practices and his success was largely due to the fact that he was quick to seize the tactical implications of any development. In reality he was a man of ambition and had a very high opinion of his own abilities and the success which he conquered relentlessly in his early professional life.
After a considerable phase of his idealistic convictions he changed his mind for a separate platform of a nation based on communal division, than foremost reason for his avoidance the older beliefs and the Gandhian Congress was his nervousness about the consequences of rousing mass enthusiasm. Some of his quotation sourced from the book “Religion in Politics (Arun Shourie) and Federation of Pakistan which also appeared in The Economic Times dated on August 20th beaks the silence on his actual visions of future.
Countering Congress demand for freedom of a united India, Jinnah raised his voice of protest to gathered crowd at Madras… “In this subcontinent, you have two different societies – the Muslim society and the Hindu society and particularly in this land there is another nation that is the Dravidian. Attacking Mahatma Gandhi for his refusal to accept Muslim League as sole representative of Indian Muslims, Jinnah said “Why should not Mr. Gandhi be proud to say “I am a Hindu, the Congress has a solid Hindu backing. I am not ashamed of saying that I am a Musalman.I am right, I hope and I think even a blind man must have been convinced by now, that the Muslim League has the solid backing of the Musalman of India.
Why then all this camouflage? Why not proudly representing your people and let me meet you proudly representing the Musalmans”. Attacking Muslim Congressmen as “dupes”, “betrayers, traitors and cranks”.
Jinnah said: “The conduct of these dupes of the Congress and these betrayers well nigh disheartens me and I some times ask myself if a community which can still produce so many foolish or treacherous men is worth carrying for, praying for and weeping for. Yet, gentlemen we must not, we can not and we will not yield despair.On a constitution for a united India and democracy, Jinnah said: “Democracy means, to begin with majority rule. Majority rule in a single society is understandable.
Representative government in a single nation, harmonious and homogeneous, is understandable but can such system ever succeed when you have two different nations? Demanding Pakistan, Jinnah told League legislators in Delhi: “I have explained in great detail the fundamental and vital differences between Hindus and Muslims. There never has been for all these two nations.
The Indian unity that we talk of up to today in held by the British and they by their ultimate sanction of the Police and Army maintained peace and law and order.Jinnah’s reply to Congress’ opposition to Pakistan “The Musalmans are not a minority as is commonly known and understood...Musalmans is a nation according to any definition of a nation and they must have their homelands, their territory and their state.
All these comments showed complete contrast to the Mahatma Gandhi with whom he shared some crucial initiatives during the three decades he dominated Indian political arena and who, however much he might adapt himself to the thrusts of circumstances but he aggressively managed on a long range of his own changed perceptions about the future political development with remarkable consistency. He anticipated that a backward community like the Musalmans could be roused to action only by an appeal, its religious faith.
He kept the vows of communalism for communal causes and drawn poignant inspirations from the hard core dictators of Europe like Mussolini, Hitler etc to emerge in the helm of power that further pushed him to a perfect technique of propaganda and mass integration with like minded to which atrocity – mongering was central. For materializing his isolatory aspirations which was also proportionally conducive for the sake of British rule further strengthen the disastrous “ Divide and Rule” diplomacy over a period of half a century was blindly motivated towards this goal.
In his megalomaniac action he could never visualized own faults and kept fostering the wild motives of colonial forces who possessed utmost interest in such large scale growing strife among the India’s political parties and likely changed in key discourses. All this later development in his mindset marked a complete shift from his early ideological temperament which he profoundly shown at many junctures.
On Minto- Morley reforms, he set his face sternly against the British attempts to entice the Muslims away from their allegiance to the Congress and India’s national movement; for long he kept aloof from the Muslim League but alas such thinking couldn’t be endured forever. Here it’s inevitable to illustrate that Jinnah was deeply surrounded with contradictions over his role in contemporary Indian politics; at one side he felt impatient with emerging leadership in Congress and kept himself aloof from the Congress on the other side he also shown cold response to some very strategic stand of Muslim League.
His little sympathy with the Ali Brothers’ Khilafat Movement in Turkey and his favour of unitary government at the first Round Table Conference because of its diversity and unviablity of federal propositions are some of very lucid example of federal propositions are some of very lucid example of his ambiguous policy.
So for any proper evaluation of his work it’s quite essential to conduct a comprehensive introspection in the light of diverse time frame and issues, otherwise any judgments would be ended with improper and frivolous ramifications. So, reaching on an amicable convergence is impossible by vilifying own national heroes in the context of an amorphous act to glorify a man of contradictory nature. Despite this Mr. Jinnah even during his most fractional state never undermine the viability of strong friendship between Pakistan and India besides he also shown great faith in democracy which in subsequent phase strucked downwardly in absence of his own replacement with equal international stature and unquestioned authority over the masses.
He might have been facing many anxious thoughts about the future of newly created Pakistan.Indeed he shown some temptation for secular ideas in his initial days of career but he couldn’t sustained it for longer time; consequently Independence could be materialized only for two divided nation.
So, with such harsh consequences of a long cherished dream of millions of Indian the leaving British colonizers received an unexpected and permanent gift in terms of a long- stretch of disturb south Asia. The British colonizers found a very inevitable place for them in upcoming level playing fields of diplomacy in south, such hassle free materialization of theirs dream became possible through a very synchronized political approach of Muslim League; there folly even haunting today the Pakistan and region in terms of a consistent western intervention in their own pursuits.
Even Jinnah was completely failed to endure his own democratic vision for Pakistan in later period; in no manner he does deserves the epithet like “secular” and any glorification's of his role as torch bearer of secularism would be misleading in an integrated assessment. It would have been quite better for Mr. Jaswant Singh to focus on his meticulous Statesmen quality rather than getting involved in frisking a very in-depth and complex side of his character. Whatever may be further reaction on such more subversive standpoints it must be taken in mind by the every creative person to avail their autonomy judiciously and never on the cost of India’s moral principles which culminated over the long period and sacrifices of countless martyrs. Unsolicited aberrations must be avoided for common goods.
Atul Kumar Thakur
25th August2009, New Delhi