We all must have a very-very deep sense of history

Kamila Shamsie is the author of five acclaimed novels: In the City by the Sea; Kartography(both shortlisted for the John Llewellyn Rhys Prize); Salt and Saffron; Broken Verses; and Burnt Shadows, which was shortlisted for the Orange Prize for Fiction and has been translated into more than twenty languages.

Three of her novels have received awards from Pakistan’s Academy of Letters. She is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature and in 2013 was named a Granta Best of Young British Novelist. She grew up in Karachi and now lives in London.

Recently she was in New Delhi for the launch of her latest novel, A God in Every Stone (Bloomsbury Publications)—here she spoke with Atul K Thakur, about her new book and love for fiction writing—writing in subcontinent and beyond, the place of history in modern time and how the western hype of their tradition and literature keeping heightened misinterpretation around. The edited excerpts of the interview are:
Tell us about your new book: A God in Every Stone? What made you writing on undivided India, struggling against the empire in early 20th century?

For first time, I went to Peshawar two years back—then, I did not know it well. Those days, things were in very bad shape in Pakistan—that seemed wrong to me. I came to read a piece in DAWN about an archeological initiative to shave the monuments—and as

I was always interested in history, I drawn towards it.In Pakistan, women started taking part in archeological activities—when in India that was unheard off. This is an interesting reality.

I do value history and when it is retold in fiction, it creates greater sense. And I tried to absorb the importance of empathy—thus the book bears that and came out.

This book has in center a powerful story of friendship, injustice, love and betrayal—it travails across the globe, into the heart of empires fallen and conquered, reminding us that we all have our place in the chaos of history and that so much of what is lost will not be forgotten.

What exactly the discovery of Temple of Zeus is for Vivian Rose Spencer?

She is a young woman who has lived a very sheltered life—that particular moment of discovery comes to her like first breeze of independence. It is like you do something significant for first time in life and get a sense of discovery. In that discovery, she lives her personal existence—outside the comfort of empire and roving in alien lands with unusual quest.

The call of adventure and the ecstasy of love—all are the better part of fantasy or near about reality?

Yes, a sort of fantasy—as she is very young and has sheltered existence. It is good to be 21 and full with idealism—expectations getting more matured with the time.

At near the age of 30, it is hard to get away from naïve issues—but when one reaches to around 40, the perceptions get shaped through realistic considerations. There might be exceptions, as it is truly hard to be perfect with the perceptions—it fluctuates.

What made you finding another locale, thousands of miles away where a twenty-year old Pathan, Qayyum Gul is learning about brotherhood and loyalty in the British Indian army?

I became interested in the story of Indian soldiers fighting in the world war—and also in the history of freedom movement. The book recalls Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan in great deal—he was called Frontier Gandhi, and as the book is centered on that geography where he worked tirelessly—we see in character Najeeb, a staunch follower of him.

I have chosen to write this novel in post-colonial narrative—so I have particularly found the space for a stretch of subcontinental history( 1910-1940), badly affected with the British Empire.

Nevertheless, this is not the lone reason of making the novel spread into the odd geographies—there is strong personal angle of the protagonists, which necessitated it to further the story from two distant poles.

Both Lahore and Delhi have deeply imagined society—with their old structures and monuments, the city dwellers must ask themselves, how to imagine your cities? Like in imagining Karachi—it felt learning this city. Every city has its own characters—with modern cities, I have hedgy experience. We all must have a very-very deep sense of history.

How perfect is the mysterious long trail of Viv for her beloved? Why A God in Every Stone carries us across the globe, into the heart of empires, almost fallen and conquered?

She is very young, meeting Turkish Man and then they separated. Love story is not to be tested—it’s a romance in very beginning. She has liberty to be with her imagination. A very young naïve women but the book ended with decisive changes.

She believes in empire—English men are superior—their places are in better side of the history. She is a girl of empire, still she recognises empire is damaging. But she changes, the moment she knows the world.

Massacres in Peshawar in 1930’s—made strong disillusionment from the empire. Besides, non-cooperation movement and the world wars made British Empire defensive in stances.

Peshawar was full with events in those periods—and in general, North West frontier has a long history of receiving invasion and instability. Its history is replete with the interventions of Empires, including Ottoman Empire.

Beyond the construct of this novel—how you see our place in the chaos of history and that so much of what is lost will not be forgotten?

I don’t know how to see the chaos in history. It is very hard to assess the time people living in.

You have written acclaimed novels: Burnt Shadows, In the City by the Sea, Kartography, Salt Saffron and Broken Verses—do you write usually for the imagined readers or they come to your writings, and thus you write?

This will sound very self-centered in saying I write for myself—readers come to the novel from diverse locations and tastes.

What makes you dedicated for fictional narrative? At some point of time, will you be also writing a non-fiction book?

I love writing novel. I write for Guardian/Guernica among the other publications—mostly prose and non-fiction but in long term project, fiction writing is my natural forte. I believe, short stories are unfairly under-valued—people still wants to read novel. It’s not declining.

I am recalling your conversation with Pankaj Mishra, about the absence of political anger in western literature and why we shouldn’t be so quick to condemn the writers like, Mo Yan—what made you comfortable for taking position on this?

It was my actual position. I was asked by Guernica to write on it. Pankaj has already written on it—and he has written important books. There is big mismatch on this in western world. Not surprising, if remarkable books from the US is in short supply.

The western part of the world or even China has to address the anger in writing with care and better sensitivity—in absence of that, it is not possible to expect genuine expressions routed through the books.

May we know the answer of your own question asked to Pankaj Mishra: You say fiction comes from a different side of the brain than politics, but doesn’t an overtly political novel demand we engage both sides of the brain at once?

It does—often people have problem with the political norms. They disagree—some people think novel should be essentially written like nice and pleasant story.

This is impossible to achieve—the consciousness for politics very much stays in fiction writing as well. However the degree of reliance on it varies on the personal capacity and choice of a writer.

What is your take on new English writings in India and Pakistan?

Indian English writing is doing very well in non-fiction category—we see many remarkable books have been in recent years by Indian writers. And with fiction writing too, India has lot to offer—from Salman Rushdie, Amitav Ghosh to Kiran Desai, there are many names to be recalled.

Pakistan has seen a very impressive rise in writers, writing standard literary fiction about their troubled land. Nadeem Aslam is an extraordinary writer—he takes his writing very seriously. Mohammed Hanif is so good being fiery and serious.

Usma Aslam Khan is another serious writer, who is writing incredibly beautiful about the Pakistani landscapes. Jamil Ahmad has written an important book on Baluchistan. Mohsin Ahmad has written impressive novels. We can add more names here.

In the Indian subcontinent, this is high creative time—where the history is being reread and retold, with sense of urgency to know the spent time, with rational angle. This is indeed a welcome development.
-Atul K Thakur
Email: summertickets@gmail.com
(Published in Rising Kashmir on April21,2014)

Jinnah vs. Gandhi and the divided dreams!

Book Review: Non-fiction/ Jinnah vs. Gandhi by Roderick Matthews, Hachette, 330pp; Rs499 (Hardback)

Soon to be published...

On the ‘ruins of empire’!

Book Review: Non-fiction/From the Ruins of Empire by Pankaj Mishra, Allen Lane, 356 pp; Rs699 (Hardback)
Stepping in the contested history is possible without stucking with gauche mannerism, which Pankaj Mishra has proved long back with his thought provoking account on European influence in “Temptation of the West” and now with much awaited work on the colonial history, “From the Ruins of Empire”. ‘Ostentation of knowledge’ is an established plank of western historiography that primarily aims at defying the civilisational distinction in favour of much compressed and narrowly oriented idea of knowledge that obviously is West favoured.

Mishra tries to answer those biased antics, with his own high polemical standard and by recalling some of the refreshingly independent thinkers from Asia, who stood against the Western narratives of knowledge or authority at the height of imperialism. This whole process stemmed through the project-colonialism, though its death happened decades back but shadow remains strong enough (as of now, even in the follies of its believers) to suppress the efforts of damage control through historical interpretation.

This book doesn’t nibble the ideas; rather it hammers the odd convictions and concretizes the assertions from Asia against the western colonialism. Never to forget, this is to denounce the horrifying shambling of anecdotes and for shining a new light. In core, the book has more focus on the personalities from Asia, who stood with their own independent thinking against the colonial will. The significant details on the works of Al-Afghani, Liang Qichao and Rabindranath Tagore give reasons for relooking on the history of intellectual resistance.

Here, Pankaj Mishra questions on the tailor made assertions of West towards Asian wisdom-the book accounts; Tagore was at some point more vocal critic to the West than it is commonly known. Also, he was highly detached with the Western materialism, and never taken his family’s connection with the Westerners in ‘pride’. His following action as a poet/artist and the institution makers was clearly a shift from the popular fashion, nourished by shrewd Western ideas. Not surprising, if Tagore was never easy with his grandfather/ Dwarkanath Tagore’s over entrepreneurial drive and liasoning with the Britishers.

Subsequently, in beat and pieces, movements spread with these new beliefs have covered well by the author. Astonishing scholarism in narration is an indelible quality of Pankaj Mishra, he exuded it with his fiction “Romantics”, less fictional travelogue “Chicken Butter in Ludhiana” and other works, this time too, he touches his own benchmarks while dealing with a wide range of geography and its complex history. He makes vociferous criticism on the Western notion of cultural supremacy and strongly points out on the instances that made the Victorian period, a time of breathless progress in the west but how maximization of its gain proved menacing for the Asians.

The perceptions in vogue, still has lesser emphasis on the intellectual side of tussle that begun with the advent of colonialism in Asia. Mostly it’s the economic reasons that sighted as the cause of inter-continental trade hunt, and later its continuation in varied amoral forms. “From the Ruins of Empire” is basically a remarkable book, as it rises above those stunted confirmations that discourage the practical look out on the most important phases of history.

Earlier, Asians overtly suffered those ugly treatments of western colonialism, but now the cultural discrimination is routing alternatively albeit creating not less frustration and anger among those sufferers. Against these backdrops, India and China have emerged as two strong powers, with impressive international acceptance of their might in different capacity. In the 21st century, this presents an interesting scenario, as no longer west has ability to sustain its conventional affluence over the world and new powers are unlikely to undermine its newly found edge for leading the history to a new end.

So, this is a balancing phase-book tells this but not before ruling out the misnomer that Asians (particularly India and China) could match the western lifestyle, in their flawed imagination. For knowing the history of divide better, Mishra enables the reader to travel to the events of two centuries. As the book progresses, reader can also get sufficient interface in ideas, which become possible through seeing the events from the eyes of others, such as the well travelled journalists, poet, and political radicals.

Among the many quotes used in the book, Akbar Illahabadi’s quote (page-14), which is more an apprehensive statement seems closer to the heart of this book. ..
They hold the throne in their hand. The whole realm is in their hand.
The country, the apportioning of men’s livelihood is in their hand…
The springs of hope and of fear are in their hand…In their hand is the power
To decide who shall be humbled and who exalted…Our people is in their hand,
Education is their hand…If the West continues to be what it is, and the East what
It is, we shall see the day when the whole world is in their hand.
Undoubtedly, here the poet is less reluctant in subscribing what went wrong in the inner construct of East that made it the subject of West’s selfish ideas.

Pankaj Mishra has reignited a very broad debate this time with “From the Ruins of Empire”, he has extended those orientation started with Edward Said’s “The Orientalism” in 1978 in controversial post-colonial studies. Again, the time has begins now to contempt the Western concept of “Orientalism” or the difference between East and West. This book makes the ‘artificial boundary’ made by the West into two parts, between East-west or the Occident-Orient or the civilised-non-civilised less acceptable.

This is a welcome development in the sense, world will have better chances of peaceful co-existence in the absence of any lurk for highest order confrontation in different arenas. Pankaj Mishra normally supplies less than his readers want from him, but he has to change now under the consistent demand he will face to write more on the post-colonial themes. Meanwhile, time is to wait and see how the Western world reorders itself!
Atul Kumar Thakur
September 29, 2012, Saturday
Email: summertickets@gmail.com

Wild Dream called Commonwealth Literature!

Without any pre-occupation R.K.Narayan, Mulk Raj Anand and Raja Rao could be easily conferred the rank of early legions in Indian English literary writing albeit before these three committed man, Bankim Chandra Chaterjee’s “The Rajmohan’s Wife” too must be counted for being the first English novel produced by any India during the hay days of British Colonialism. It’s quite intriguing that Raja Rao never remained as much popular as rest of both prolific contemporary and Nirad.C.Chadhury; because in my perspectives, he was less than a product of English enlightment and never said like Mulk Raj Anand that “India could be a laboratory of Commonwealth literature” or giving considerable credit to Graham Green for Mentoring in his literary accession in western world like R.K.Narayan.

Those were the days of imperialism or transition for many countries as a free state but without having own representation of theirs nativity in Standard English writing. Indeed time really moved up over the years and a burgeoning balance from erstwhile colonies like India wouldn’t remain any longer a matter of amazement as the western world used to have earlier with temples, elephant, snake charmers and numerous other symbolism of aboriginal culture. No doubt, English writing in India is passing through high creative assertion with profound regional characteristics and intricacies of modern India is very much different from the imaginative shackle of Commonwealth literature.
Its not that, new generation of modern Indian English writer haven’t inherited the world views of theirs predecessor but theirs cosmic concern are the outcome of idealism that Indian democracy has embodied them in last six decades. Undoubtedly, with great focus on original identity and it’s entwining to a long stretch of history, Indian writing overall have formed a unique blend of wisdom and much needed sensibility.

The first sensation in English writing from India at international juncture, Salman Rushdie had once written a fabulous essay “Commonwealth literature doesn’t exist” with appropriate convictions as British writing is not a part of it, so it creating a sense of paradoxical hierarchies. Much before the landmark work over British colonialism “The Sea of Poppies” {which was beaten by a light and subversively mild novel “The White Tiger” by Arvind Adiga in the race of Booker prize}, Amitav Ghosh had denied to accept the Commonwealth Prize in nineties.
It was a great resistance from a post-colonial writer who gone through the surfaces of India’s historical realities…naturally, persons like him or any free thinker could be much happier if the attention would have come from an association like “Free State Union” or organization with similar spirits though different in nomenclature. Here argument could be prolonged, why these two illustrious expatriate writer rejecting the trap of Commonwealth literature? Did timely revelation made them conscious about the futility of this institution or Britain as shrewd conservator losing its hold from rapidly growing free states that better be leave to enthusiasts of literature and history.

Footprints of British engagement were always bounded with the drain of resources from its colony…no matter, what have changed over the years, but temptations remained same. In recently held Commonwealth Game in Delhi, we spent around $17billion-money that that were scrimped from essential areas; fourteen days long lavish party ended with stellar performance of Indian players but paradoxically disastrous by the organizers of game. They through there sordid handling of resources created new heights of corruption in India whose memories would remain vivid as a legacy of our colonial past and demeaning our own accomplishments in last six decades or time before the British intrusion. During the extravaganza, I entertained an invitation from Sahitya Akademi for a Seminar on Commonwealth literature in Delhi though remained stunned to see the thin appearances of Commonwealth sort of identity flashing there. Foreign speakers delivered their cold observation in good old gesture of passivity albeit some speakers from India drawn timid mood on different themes but alas! I couldn’t hear a single strong voice in favour of post-colonial writing that should have the basis of theirs historical inquisitions regarding colonialism.

Indeed it’s a matter of grave concern that such gathering now turning as an arena of swapation and disbursement of stodgy and saturated ideas…good Indian style of hunting and gathering swiftly being evaporated from our collective action. We Indians have great record in forgetting our own high shot achievements…in the same Mandi House region of Central Delhi at Indian Council of World Affairs premises, we as a young independent nation hosted the first Asian Relations Conference in 1947. Despite having dualism of inheritance, we couldn’t simply deny those early initiatives that used to symbolize our aspirations in a new world…in the time being; our fore-fathers lost the hold on priority that deterred us from remaining the most profound voice among the nations with exploitative colonial track record.

Even joining the Commonwealth in early fifties was neither pragmatic nor essential for India when our alternative world vision started fetching the heeds of newly independent nations. In present context, we shouldn’t be envious with Nelson Mandela’s decision to be part of Commonwealth after spending almost entire life fighting against its inherent evils and inclusion of trivial nations like Peru and Mozambique in this nostalgic colonial association despite never having link with the British colony. Choices may be beautiful or absurd without getting even a chunk of interferences from universalism, so let it be but we must mind our new standing at international arena. So, why not we should reckon our entire history in better way and move out to the world with our complete heritage instead to dwelling with any specific timeframe spasmed through the greedfull British colonialism whose last symbolic reminiscence being carries out with the brand “Commonwealth”.

We have reason to dissociate with such asymmetric institution with having havocking impressions of oppression…as world’s most vibrant democracy; we must stop here and with looking ahead for brighter pastures of forming at least one Association of Freedom. I am really proud upon Amitav Ghosh, when he keeps repeating that inclusion of “desi” word would remain an important form of expression, irrespective of what other think over it through their biased prism. We have registered a tremendous growth in every area including in literature during the last six decades and ofcourse as a citizen of vibrant nation, we could remain an universal entity too even without entangling with artificial and biased structure like “Commonwealth” which exactly resembling the “rejected manuscript”…a sensible humor not the wild one!
Atul Kumar Thakur
October22, 2010, Thursday
New Delhi
atul_mdb@rediffmaail.com

Why Census of Caste?

The Henry Hutton was Census Commissioner of India in 1931, the last time a caste-based Census was carried out-an oxford trained Anthropologist and an expert on castes, tackles the issue in his report on the Census of India in chapter, “The Return of Caste” which is very crucial to know the real intent of colonial initiatives behind the caste Census.
Opposite to Herbert Risley, Census Commissioner in 1901, who ranked castes in the Census according to their social standing, Henry Hutton had more academic and administrative conscious stands behind his propositions.

Obviously, introduction of caste Census in contemporary order were akin to fetch an administrative suitability rather with any plan for affirmative action-in a more generalized perception, it was a sort of numerical counting for administrative reasons.
The crux of caste Census initiated a wider transformation, with hundreds of caste associations formed between the 1880’s and 1930’s aiming their categorical demands both to the state and within the social system. Further, apart from caste, religion and language were politiczed by the Census-these harmful practices could be vanished only from 1941 Census because of intensification of independence movement and winding-up plans of British establishment.
In independent India, the constitution recognized the evils of the caste system and provided for provision for affirmative action with a view to eventually eliminating it from our social structure. But unfortunately it remains, even stronger-the entire arrangement of affirmative action has only created a creamy layer subclass and the benefits are continuously being denied to the vast submerged poor in backward classes, and to the rest poor in all the states.
So, the programme of social justice routes through reservation is grossly falsifying the essence of its inception-it’s so derailed now that even a daughter of past President {K.R.Narayanan}morally saw no wrong in availing the easy ladders of SC reservation to climb the destination of Indian Foreign Service examination.
These diverse and confusing debates are thriving in every nook and cranny about the prospect of caste Census in upcoming 2011 Census despite knowing the mandate of Supreme Court{India}, that cap the reservation beyond 50%both in job and education.
Besides there wouldn’t be even a minimal change in the wake of Backward caste population would juggle around 60-70%, which is going to be most viable probability-if relying on National Sample Survey Organization {NSSO,2004, OBC-41%}then prospective scenario becomes more crystal.
Unfortunately mapping of caste would make census exercise very stodgy for all indulged components and impulse them to shift from original issue of developmental inquiries-surprisingly, prominent voices including Psephologist Yogendra Yadav too seeing caste Census as tool of dynamicism to know about the changing social structure-alas! He also missed the use of competent National Commission for Backward Classes {Act1993} and state Backward Class Commissions for identification of the backward classes and to make special provisions relating to such classes.
“Remarkably even Mandal Commission was not entirely based on Census of 1891 and 1931; recommendations of Justice Venkataswami {Backward Caste Commission II} were sufficiently taken into account in this Commission; though later some flaws were noted by Justice Chinnappa Reddy {Backward Caste Commission III}-Nandini Sunder, THE HINDU, Tuesday, May 11,2010}”.
The constituent assembly framing the Census Act of 1948 decided to exclude caste returns {except SCc and STs}, so Indian constitution hardly gives any romantic space to play with caste at major arena. But in reality, case is reverse, since caste didn’t disappear from public life as was anticipated, so, political attitudes towards counting it have changed dramatically. Political groups and lobbyists who support such plan have in mind of race and ethnicity counting as it’s prevailing in the U.S and U.K census respectively.

This is nothing short of a blunder…after sixty-three years of democracy in India, now even caste shouldn’t be seen in terms of class-even partial benefit of reservation and mobility have considerably changed the traditional social structure in India. Central government has unwarrantably acting in complicity this regard by offering the heed to the lobbyists of caste politics. In an already fractured political space, it would be a grave jolt, after all introduction of caste Census will marks a parochial re-shifting of Indian politics. Even contemplation on this issue indicates the deeper sycophancy imbibed in collective cognition of a section who still finding solutions in the worse age of colonialism.
Atul Kumar Thakur, New Delhi
May28th 2010, Friday
atul_mdb@rediffmail.com

Michael Foot: A Progressive Democrat

A leader with principle who held the baton of labour party unified in the early 1980’s and a writer dedicated to the cause of freedom died recently at the age of eighty-six; this man had friend all over the world and India particularly remained a permanent concern for him. Michael Foot was a keen admirer of Nehru, he had first meeting with him in 1938-that was arranged by V.K. Krishna Menon; meeting with Nehru left him convinced for Indian independence, he joined the Indian League and became a stout supporter of India’s Freedom Movement.
Than as an editor of the left wing newspaper, “Tribune”-he was unsparing of the British Raj-in later period too, he kept supporting the Indian cause on Kashmir even amidst the heavy opposition from Labour party in Britain.Michael Mackintosh Foot-the mid name was added from his Scottish mother’s maiden name, he was the fifth of seven children of the phenomenon man, Issac Foot, a solicitor by profession and an avid collector of 50,000 valuable books-later he also served as Lord Mayor of Plymouth and liberal M.P for two short stint besides remaining an ardent Methodist and temperance campaigner.

Young Michael Foot was educated at Leighton Park in Reading {Berkshire} and later at Wadham College {Oxford} in classics-with his growing intellect, very soon, he found the company of David Lloyd George and Bertrand Russell. Against the liberal family background, he chosen the path of progressiveness and became the Student Union President in 1933-it was an interesting co-incidence that four Foot brothers were served as President of either the Oxford or Cambridge University. Elder brother, Hugh Foot was a prominent administrator and interlocutor in the United Nation Committee on Decolonization where he headed the British delegation-he was an accomplished debater with vast experience in the British colonial service, later also served as Governor of Jamaica and Cyprus although in qualitative terms, he was very opposite to the socialist minded Michael Foot.
Senior Indian politician and a good friend of Michael Foot-K.Natwar.Singh, best described the contrast between two brothers; he rated, elder brother as right foot which always seemed difficult to convince-on the other hand, left foot {Michael Foot}always acted in favour of progressive ideas. Michael Foot became the Cabinet Minister {for the first time} in Harold Wilson’s government and acted as fierce backbench critic on issues ranging from wage restraint to Vietnam and government’s policies on Rhodesia-from 1970 to 1974, he had led the Labour Party in opposition and raised his strong opposition against the British entry into the European Economic Community.

The end of seventies was quite gloomy for both the Foot and Labour Party as Tories regained power in 1979 under Margret Thatcher, though in meantime, he tried to contain the growing separatist polarization in the party, in which he found success to an extant. He again served as leader in opposition from 1980 to 1983, but the election of 1983 detached him from active politics because of disagreements in the party, adverse Press campaigning and of course the growing age-afterwards, he remained passive from politics. A distinguished Journalist and author, he devoted his life for strengthening of democratic ideas and freedom-apart from his political profile, his stint in Journalism seems equally impressive, he served on senior on editorial position in Tribune, Express, Standard, and Daily Herald. Besides he written some books including of “The Pen and Sword” that fetched huge acclaim in intellectual circle-married to co-staffer, Barbara Castle of Tribune, Michael Foot demonstrated a fine balance between professional and family life. As a true friend of India, he would be missing by the caring people who believe and trust in relationships…when dual speaking swiftly becoming a cult in modern diplomacy, persons like Michael Foot will now hardly appear in the helm of affairs.
Atul Kumar Thakur
March24th 2010, Wednesday
New Delhi
atul_mdb@rediffmail.com

Jinnah: An Evangelist of Virulent Ideas

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
atul_mdb@rediffmail.com