Pak Tea House » Pakistan » The Idea of Pakistan: Jinnah and the Partition of British India

The Idea of Pakistan: Jinnah and the Partition of British India

August 12th, 2009 | 5 Comments

By Ayesha Saeed of Red White And Black

Over the last few days I have stumbled upon two things that have precipitated this post: one, I happened to watch Jinnah and two, I came across a series of articles by A.G. Noorani on Jinnah and Partition [Jinnah in Indian History, Assessing Jinnah and Jinnah and Partition].

Jinnah happens to be the most misunderstood personality of the Indian subcontinent. In Pakistan, we have turned Jinnah into a superhuman object – someone who is beyond fault. Much of this was evident in the movie Jinnah. While the movie did raise some tough questions [questioning and then justifying partition and the resultant carnage] but it only told one side of the story – more or less sticking to the Pakistan’s state’s version. What struck me the hardest was the fact that the most critical line from his August 11 speech was edited from the movie:

You may belong to any religion or caste or creed – that has nothing to do with the business of the State….

You will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.

Yes, the state commissioned the making of the movie and thus it is not all that surprising. Though I will still go on to construe it as character assassination – maybe it is a bit harsh but the truth of the matter is that we haven’t done Jinnah any justice. His true ideals remais forgotten and the state here only continues to ensure that that they are buried deeper.

While in Pakistan we have idolised Jinnah, he has been made into the devil in India. He is the person who shed his secular credentials for ambitions of heading a Muslim state and caused the partition of India. Both these charges need to be refuted in the strongest words.

In my understanding Jinnah’s volte-face from being the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity [an Indian nationalist] to a proponent of the Two Nation Theory [a Muslim Nationalist] can be explained by the events of the decade of 1935-1945. Jinnah returned to India in 1935. Two main events seem to have transformed his outlook into a Muslim nationalist one from an Indian nationalist one. One, there was increased discourse between him and Iqbal. They both shared a lot of correspondence through series of letters till Iqbal died. One thing that does make out of their discourse is that Jinnah gradually became aware of the nationalist Muslim strand in Indian politics and began to think more of the ‘Muslims’ of India, than of ‘Indians’. This is an interesting insight into the relationship shared between the two. But it is uncertain to what extent Jinnah agreed with Iqbal’s ideals- because prior to Jinnah’s return to India these two rarely did see eye-to-eye. Anyways, the other factor that precipitated his volte-face was the outcome of the elections of 1937 – the emergence of the Congress ministries and the excesses against the Muslims under governance.

But this in itself does not exonerate him of having caused the partition of the India. The popular belief in India [and Pakistan] remains that he was equivocal in his demand for a separate demand homeland for the Muslims of India. He was the stubborn uncompromising constitutionalist. On the contrary, Jinnah very much wanted to work within the framework of a United India. It was in this spirit that he had accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946, which provided for a Union of India with three units to the federation. The Centre was to maintain control over the areas of defense, foreign affairs and communications – the federations were free to formulate their own governments. But of course, that fell apart once Congress eventually rejected the terms of the Cabinet Misson Plan. A. G. Noorani provides a very comprehensive and neutral view of the event in this piece.

There is another critical aspect that Noorani discusses in his articles. Noorani believes that the blame for the eventual partition of the subcontinent lies with the Congress leadrship for it never really allowed a workable alternative to Pakistan develop. As Noorani notes:

The Governor of Punjab, H.D. Craik, wrote perceptively to the Viceroy on April 1, 1940: “It is reasonable at present to assume that Muslims would accept something less than partition, but the longer time that elapses without any concrete alternative being put forward, the more the support and favour partition proposals are likely to receive from the Muslim masses, who will now follow Jinnah’s lead blindly” (emphasis added, throughout).

…

In August Jinnah won the Pakistan he had demanded in March. He had now only to secure Muslims’ support in the Pakistan provinces. The Congress also accepted the principle of non-coercion. It made Pakistan inevitable by refusing to propound an alternative to it; by refraining from pointing out forcibly and at the outset that it entailed partition of Punjab and Bengal – and the loss of many a League leader’s lands – and by treating Muslim Congressmen as irrelevant.

So eventually, it was the lack of political space that compelled the partition of the subcontinent. Precious lessons from it are still to be leant.

It is slightly coincidental that I have ended up penning this piece around Quaid’s death anniversary. It is high time that we begin to respect and acknowledge Jinnah for the man that he really was – in contrast to what we have imagined him to be [on either side of the divide] in the subcontinent. We owe him that much.

http://ayesha.wordpress.com/2006/09/12/on-jinnah-and-partition/

Written by admin

Filed under: Pakistan · Tags: A G Noorani, British India Cabinet Mission Plan, idea of Pakistan, India, Jinnah, Muslim politics, Pakistan, Partition

5 Responses to "The Idea of Pakistan: Jinnah and the Partition of British India"

bonobashi says:

August 15, 2009 at 1:45 pm

Day before yesterday, I heard and saw a TV report with total disbelief and growing wonder. It was an article on a book written by Jaswant Singh, a highly respected leader of the right-wing Hindu nationalist party in India, the BJP.

It was so completely beyond my comprehension that such a thing was possible that I left it alone. Today, however, in the Times of India, the same news was reported in unambiguous terms in an article.

It does not reflect the consensus that emerged from long and detailed debate and discussion in these columns. It is presented as an important point of view, and as a departure from the conventional wisdom regarding the Indian point of view about partition and independence. It is best read in that context.

The Major Sahib’s views are not my views; by reproducing them for readers, I am in no way endorsing them.

YLH: please strap yourself in before reading the article, especially after the marks **.

This is my birthday present to readers.

JASWANT TARGETS PATEL
Times News Network

New Delhi: There was no difference between Jawaharlal Nehru and Mohammed Ali Jinnah and the term Muslim state is a misnomer. These are some of the observations made by BJP leader Jaswant Singh in his new book Jinnah – India, Partition, Independence.

In what may ruffle many feathers even within the Sangh Parivar, Jaswant observes in his book that Nehru and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel together conceded Pakistan to Jinnah with help from the British.

Patel occupies pride of place in BJP’s historiography with the party eulogising his tough action for the integration of rebellious Hyderabad and Junagadh with the Union, and contrasting it with Nehru’s “blunder” in taking the Kashmir issue to the UN.

The response of partymen in the saffron stronghold of Gujarat, where Patel has cult status, may be interesting to watch.
**
In his book that will hit the stands on August 17, he recalls the events leading to Partition as well as the “epic journey of Jinnah from being the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity, the liberal constitutionalist and Indian nationalist to the Quaid-e-Azam of Pakistan”.

“Jinnah did not win Pakistan, as the Congress leaders Nehru and Patel finally conceded Pakistan to Jinnah, with the British acting as an ever helpful midwife,” Jaswant says in his book.

Jaswant goes on to state that religion could not have been the basis for nationhood.

“The cruel truth is that this partitioning of India has actually resulted in achieving the very reverse of the originally intended purpose; partition, instead of settling contention between comunities has left us a legacy of markedly enhanced Hindu, Muslim, Sikh or other such denominational identities, hence differences,” says the book that also describes reservation as a political tool.
kkkkkkk says:

August 22, 2009 at 7:07 am

Please release ‘pirated’ copies as free ebook downloads.
Sultana Tariq says:

July 4, 2011 at 8:02 pm

” Lessons from Partition of India” is worth reading article written by a historian. We need enlightened writers like Nasim Yousaf. If link does not work google it to find the article.

http://www.worldpress.org/Asia/3770.cfm
Salman Arshad says:

July 5, 2011 at 12:33 am

@ Author:
.
We do not owe Jinnah anything more than what he is already getting. He was also not much different as a person than he is believed to be, both in India and in Pakistan. Even if his image differs in the two countries, he in fact incorporated both the images in his personality.
.
What matters today is that he was completely off the mark when he felt the irrational “emotion” called “the fear of hindus”. This “fear of hindus” is compatible with his perceived image in both countries. Such irrational fears would only make him a demi-god that he is in Pakistan, and such irrational fears would also make one a communalist, as he is perceived in India.
.
“the fear of hindus”, courtesy of Jinnah, has crippled us totally. We now need to give respect to OURSELVES now, not Jinnah. I think its high time we leave Jinnah behind instead of following his emotions. He too would be grateful.
observer says:

July 5, 2011 at 8:16 pm

Thanks to Salman Arshad for his balanced response.

Jinnah died just an year after his Pakistan was created. He had no chance to repent. He was called off before he could do it. He had streaks of stubborn foolishness in him in spite of all his legalistic intelligence. In fact legalistic intelligence is a major reason why some humans become a pain for all. They are always trying to assume or prove something that then turns out to be destructive or mendacious.

The kind of dressing-down and scoffing that M K Gandhi gets in India – that is unimaginable regarding Jinnah in Pakistan. This Jinnah worship is a major reason for Pakistan tying itself in knots and faking progress or suffering or liberation or triumph or victimhood etc.

The real problem of the Pakistan region is this alien religion that has served no good purpose over 1400 years. Muslims are a misled and misused people, steeped in lies and chains of lies. Since they no more know where and how to hack away these chains they prefer to glorify them. Even if the handcuff is made of gold – it is a chain that imprisons you.