One sunny morning in Karachi eight summers ago, the marble mausoleum of Mohammed Ali Jinnah—disputably the sole spokesman of the Muslims of undivided India and undisputably the architect of Pakistan—had an unlikely visitor. L.K. Advani, then president of the BJP, was visiting his hometown only for the second time after he migrated from it at age 20 and for the first time with his family. What he inscribed in the visitors’ book was even more uncharacteristic: “There are many people who leave an inerasable stamp on history. But there are very few who actually create history. Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah was one such rare individual. In his early years, Sarojini Naidu, a leading luminary of India’s freedom struggle, described Mr Jinnah as an ‘Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity’. His address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on August 11, 1947, is a classic, a forceful espousal of a Secular State in which every citizen would be free to practise his own religion but the State shall make no distinction between one citizen and another on the grounds of faith. My respectful homage to this great man.”
Within minutes, news channels in India were flashing it: “Advani praises Jinnah, calls him secular”. I had accompanied Advani, and called a senior BJP leader in Delhi to convey the exact message, only to hear an angry rebuke: “Advaniji ko yeh sab kehne ki kya zaroorat thi? Yahan to tehelka macha hua hai! (Where was the need for Advani to say all this? It has raised a furore here!)”
It’s well known what happened to Advani and his party after that audacious journey to Pakistan. To his abiding credit, he has never withdrawn his remarks on Jinnah. Nor has the RSS, ideological master of the BJP, ever cared to explain why it thought his comments were wrong. The controversy over Advani’s observations on Jinnah may now be a thing of the past, but not the debate on India’s cataclysmic Partition, whose effects are still felt from Peshawar to Dhaka. None of the three sovereign nations that once constituted a united India has satisfactorily resolved the communal problem: Pakistan, which broke away on the basis of the spurious two-nation theory; Bangladesh, which broke away to disprove that theory; and India, still struggling to make its morally superior ‘idea of India’ a living reality. Obviously, the people of all three countries must delve into our shared and separate histories to find the paths to peace—within and across borders.
In such a study, Jinnah comes across as both a villain and a tragic protagonist of an idea backed by some Muslims in undivided India. Its core was simple: Muslims were a distinct people in India and should have, after the departure of the British rulers, an opportunity for free development in regions where they were in majority. This wasn’t a communal demand per se; it could have been implemented within a united India through a well-conceived, multi-tiered constitutional architecture. Had Congress and Muslim League leaders approached the issue with patience, foresight, a spirit of mutual accommodation and a firm commitment to the aspirations and democratic rights of all sections of our diverse society, Partition could have been averted. After all, there was nothing inevitable about India’s vivisection. In any case, the communal bloodbath and large-scale displacement of panicky populations could have been certainly averted.
The largest part of the blame for this tragedy must be borne by the British and the Muslim League led by Jinnah, who gave a communal colour and violent thrust to what could have been kept within the limits of a workable constitutional demand. Nevertheless, what partially redeems Jinnah’s role is one undeniable fact to which Advani rightly alluded in his Karachi remarks: both towards the beginning and the end of his political career, Jinnah genuinely stood for Hindu-Muslim unity. As is evident from his speeches on August 11 and August 14, 1947, his vision for Pakistan was secular. It was rooted in religious tolerance and equal rights for all. But the path he chose—Pakistan was the first nation raised on the basis of religion—was the antithesis of this vision. Unsurprisingly, today’s Pakistan has moved further away that vision.
Jinnah failed India. And Pakistan has failed Jinnah. Now it is up to our generation to set right the many failures of our subcontinental history.
(The writer, who recently quit the BJP, was a close aide of both Atal Bihari Vajpayee and L.K. Advani. E-mail: sudheenkulkarni AT gmail.com)
Apropos Sudheendra Kulkarni’s column, What Divided Jinnah, nations need their idols and icons. Pakistan has one in Jinnah. Perhaps it is not for us to judge him.
Ashok Lal, Mumbai
The sad bit is Jinnah was with a group of people who were the Muslim elite and not rigid practitioners of Islam.
R.V. Subramanian, Gurgaon
Jinnah wanted power and deeply resented the pre-eminence of Nehru and Gandhi. He started an Islamic separatist movement to gain that power. What is all this blathering and boring, long-winded defence of Jinnah?
Varun Shekhar, Toronto
>> a Pakistan, even if 100% islamic nation, which acknowledges its Hindu/Buddhist/Jain or rather its pre islamic heritage and multicultural past....
That is also what some liberal Pakistani newspaper columnists are saying. Unfortunately petro-dollars prevail.
Anwaar >> Pakistan has not kept its promise either to Muslims or Hindus. That is a different question than what we have been discussing.
Anwaar, a Pakistan, even if 100% islamic nation, which acknowledges its Hindu/Buddhist/Jain or rather its pre islamic heritage and multicultural past would be the necessary starting point to lasting communal harmony and peace in South Asia.
That acknowledgement does not mean Pak should re-unite with India . No one is interested in that, except some loony leftists. Even the most radical VHP types are seriously disinterested in having a bigger nation where they roam in same roads and railway trains as Hamid Gul and Dawood ibrahim (Despite rhetoric of akhand bharat etc).
Pakistan acknowledging a multicultural heritage that dates before 630 CE, will not be incompatible with teachings of Prophet Mohammed since the basic principle of islam itsel is repect and coexistence with people of other faiths. If only the Jinnah cultists realised this...
"their speeches were consistent with their objectives"
Yes, wonderful, humanistic, unifying objectives. Admirable consistency.
>> Jinnah and the League never spoke of secularism, pluralism, a composite culture and the 5000 year heritage of India.
Their speeches were consistent with their objectives.
"would be very surprised if he said it. If you happen to find a reference, please post it."
What is absolutely beyond question, is that in those years preceding independence and partition, Jinnah and the League never spoke of secularism, pluralism, a composite culture and the 5000 year heritage of India. Nor suggested that Hinduism is a legitimate spiritual path for people; denounced or eschwed concepts like syncretism and eclecticism; failed to take a humanistic, holistic approach to the whole issue of imperialism; and refused to condemn attacks of violence committed by its followers.
So it's hardly a long distance between all these qualities, and bragging about how the Moslems ruled India before the British. One is prepared to give the notion that Jinnah said it, the benefit of the doubt.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT