'No Answer In Black And White'

Nagendar Sharma: Was Mohammad Ali Jinnah secular ?

Professor Mushirul Hasan:  This is an old debate and alot has been said about this both in India andPakistan. In the present environment, I do not thinkthis debate carries any significance. I also fail tounderstand why this debate has been initiated now.

Nagendar Sharma: But since the debate has taken off now, whatare your views?

Professor Mushirul Hasan: In my view, there is no answer inblack and white to this. You see, if you are talking incontext of the freedom struggle, then the politics ofCongress and Muslim League was different. And let usnot forget that politicians take different lines atdifferent times. If after nearly six decades of Partition, you were to begin a debate on somebody'ssecularism, then in my view it is not possible to givea correct answer to such a question.

Professor Sharif-ul-Mujahid: Let me make it clear thatJinnah saheb did not like to be categorised in anywater tight compartment, whether it be secular oranything else. If you go back and look at the 14thJuly 1947 press conference of Jinnah saheb in Mumbai,he was asked whether he wanted Pakistan to be asecular or theocratic state. Jinnah saheb had said the democratic roots here are centuries old. Much isbeing read in his remarks; he believed in respect forall. His vision of a state included democracy, humanrights and respect for all. When Lord Mountbatten had asked Jinnah saheb to followthe ideals of  Emperor Akbar, Jinnah saheb hadreplied, off the cuff, that it had been a tradition inthis country to honour the feelings of all religions.

BBC listener from North Carolina : Sir, why did theLucknow Pact of 1916 fail in resolving the issuesbetween Hindus and Muslims, when Jinnah along with allother hardliners of Muslim League was present tostrike a deal with the Congress leaders, as it wasbeing called as the final solution?

Professor Mushirul Hasan: If you are talking about the 1916Pact, then remember one thing -- it was not about Hindusand Muslims. It was about those who were in thepolitical process at that time. It was a question ofpolitical representation. Y'see, the politics at thattime was in the hands of the elite and it was theirfight for representation, neither the Congress nor theMuslim League addressed the problems of the people correctly -- intentions of boththe parties was right, but itdid not translate into right actions. The politics of pact and politics of unity conferencescould not solve any problem, as was proved later alsoin 1920s, therefore it was not a Hindu-Muslim problem.In my view the Lucknow Pact resulted in more problemsthan solutions.

Sharif-ul- Mujahid : I agree with most ofwhat Mushir has said, but I cannot agree with thestatement that Lucknow Pact resulted in more problemsthan solutions. The real thing in the earlier partof 20th century was that politics was elitist, andthese elite were able to use people for their motives.Their fight was mainly on representation -- on who got what.  It was only in 1919 that we saw the first signs ofmass politics in India. Gandhiji gave rise to masspolitics in India. This trend of mass involvementcontinued and we saw that in 1937 Congress party wonin six provinces first and then in eight provinces. Soit was this, and we should not look at the pact of1916 simply as a case of Hindus and Muslims.

BBC listener from Nainital : Isn’t it wrong to callNehru secular and Jinnah communal? The fact is bothwanted to be Prime Minister of India, and both wereintelligent enough to hide their ambitions behindstrong arguments to fool the people.

Professor Mushirul Hasan: Even a cursory look at Indianhistory proves your point wrong that Nehru was notsecular. His entire politics and thought was in factkeeping in line with secularism. Nehru never alignedwith communal forces, even after independence hemaintained equidistance with both Hindu Mahasabha aswell as the Muslim League. So far as politicalambitions are concerned, history and present daydevelopments both prove that anyone in politics hasambitions. Similarly, when you look at Jinnah youcannot give the answer in black and white. If you aretalking about the independence movement, you have to remember that both theCongress and the Muslim League had different lines,which led to both of them committing mistakes.

Professor Sharif-ul-Mujahid: I think the debate is being takento a wrong direction by trying to brand one leadersecular and the other communal. Basically, if you lookat the entire sequence, the tallest leader in thefreedom struggle was Gandhiji. Now, if you look at hisutterances and actions, isn’t it right to say that hehad a tilt towards the Hindus? He spoke of the creation ofRam Rajya and wanted Hindus to be tolerant, thereforelet us not get into categorisation of leaders, as Iagree with Mushir that it was a complex situation andis not possible to give a black and white answer.

BBC listener from UAE : But how do both of youscholars read the remarks made by L K Advani? Is hetrying to undo the damage caused by Partition or is ita mere political statement?

Professor Mushirul Hasan: As a historian, I say the basicquestion is, can this issue of secularism be seen sosimply as Mr Advani has done, while giving acertificate of secularism? In Pakistan, this debatewas settled long ago, after all Mr Jinnah is theirfounder – Qaid-e-Azam. In India, also, the debate isabout Indian nationalism, and in that also, aboutsecularism, communalism and revivalism and not aboutan individual’s role long after his death.

Professor Sharif-ul-Mujahid:  Jinnah saheb did not like to be categorised in anywater tight compartment, whether it be secular oranything else. If you go back and look at the 14thJuly 1947 press conference of Jinnah saheb in Mumbai,he was asked whether he wanted Pakistan to be asecular or theocratic state. Jinnah saheb had said the democratic roots here are centuries old. Much isbeing read in his remarks; he believed in respect forall. His vision of a state included democracy, humanrights and respect for all. 

Nagendar Sharma: But is it correct to say Mr Advani’s remarksreflect truthfulness?

Professor Mushirul Hasan: We would have to wait for a longtime to judge the truthfulness of Mr Advani'scomments. I am unable to understand myself, and toexplain to others how and when Advaniji reached onthis conclusion. Was he not aware what sort ofcriticism would he face from within his own party andother outfits of the Sangh parivar by making suchremarks, and what I really find surprising is that hedid not make these remarks within his own country.What I can say is that I do not agree with what MrAdvani said in Pakistan.

Professor Sharif-ul-Mujahid: I would like to give benefit ofdoubt to Mr Advani despite the storm created by hisremarks in India. Such remarks cannot be made ina spur of moment. These were well thought out remarks,and I think that he chose the Mazar to reveal hismind. These remarks here are being seen as anafter-thought in the BJP. We are here of the opinionthat the BJP stand on the entire issue is undergoing apositive transformation. Nobody here is taking MrAdjani’s views as a certificate of secularism for Mr Jinnah.

BBC listener from Bihar: Does it mean that Mr Adjaninow has realised that acceptance at internationallevel is important, and that is why Jinnah is nowsecular?

Professor Mushirul Hasan: One should go through the documentsof 1939 and 1946, and read carefully about thespeeches of Mr Jinnah regarding Deliverance Day andDirect Action, before simplifying the matter so much.Please look at the facts. Mr Advani’s party neveraccepted secularism in India. It has always beencritical of the secular parties in Indian politics.Who was responsible for the destruction of Babri Masjid in 1992? Which party was in power at thecentreand in Gujarat in 2002, when the worst communal riotsof modern times took place in that state? Who has beenthe most vocal supporter of Narendra Modi governmentafter the riots? All these facts speak for themselves, and moreover, MrAdvani never called Pandit Nehru or Maulana Abul KalamAzad secular. When you did not find a secularpolitician in your own country, how could you find onein another country? Given this kind of anti-secular politics practiced byMr Advani, can such a leader give a certificate ofsecularism to a leader of another country, and canthis be taken seriously?

Professor Sharif-ul-Mujahid: I cannot say what is beingsaid in India about Mr Advani’s Pakistan visit, but herehis visit is being seen as a follow-up to MrVajpayee's 1999 Pakistan visit. It is a corollary tothat. Mr Vajpayee had gone to Minar-i-Pakistan, incontinuation of that Mr Advani went to Jinnah saheb's Mazar. This reflects the BJP support for the ongoingIndo-Pak peace process, which I think all wouldwelcome.