Pak Tea House » History, India, Jinnah, Pakistan, Partition » The Future Belongs To Jinnah
The Future Belongs To Jinnah
By Yasser Latif Hamdani
Jaswant Singh’s 670-page book on Pakistan’s founding father, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, has reignited the debate on Partition. From an academic point of view, however, he doesn’t seem to have said anything out of the ordinary. Much of this was first stated by Maulana Azad in his “India Wins Freedom”. In the intervening years between Azad and Jaswant Singh, several perceptive historians and authors, many from India, also presented a similar view of history, chief amongst them H M Seervai with his classic “Partition of India: Legend and Reality”. However, there is a new angle in Singh’s biography that is as much an indication of where things are moving in India as much as it is a historical context.
Not long ago I wrote a piece called “Jinnah’s India” which none of the websites and newspapers I wrote for then published. In that piece I argued that India today with its rising middle-class, secular constitution and a strong capitalist economy was Jinnah’s India not Gandhi’s or Nehru’s, whether Indians cared to admit as much or not. My argument was not a novel one though it seemed so to those who rejected it. Karan Thapar had written as much in an article back in the beginning of this decade. It wasn’t a surprise then that Thapar was the first one to interview Jaswant Singh after his book was released. My feeling is that India – with its economic gains and a confident new middle-class — is looking for an alternative founding father and more appropriately the founding father it lost. In the 1930s and the 1940s, the Hindu bourgeoisie was not nearly as mature – though much more so than its Muslim counterpart — to look up to a successful and secular barrister from the minority community as its leader. Things are different today though. The new middle-class in India finds itself alienated from its heroes – if only subconsciously.
Gandhi just doesn’t cut it – his rejection of materialism, his village philosophy, his glorification of poverty and his idealisation of ancient Hindu society, things that made him so popular in his time are exactly what are alienating him from this class. He can be revered but never emulated. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, though secular, has two major drawbacks: he was born to considerable wealth and he was a socialist. For many Nehru represents – despite his secularism and role as a global statesman — the wrong kind of politician, a politician who has never had to work a day and therefore holds those who do work for a living in contempt. The ironman, Sardar Patel, has been played up as an alternative but he has been appropriated by the Hindu nationalist crowd and the havoc Hindu nationalists wreak on not only minorities but most things western (for example, their opposition to Valentine’s Day) automatically distances this new class from Patel. Maulana Azad couldn’t possibly be an idol for this class because he was from the clerical Muslim class and represents in the Indian mind all the stereotypes associated with a Muslim.
Jinnah stands in contrast to all of the traditional founders of India. He was from the middle-class and was entirely self-made. Through sheer hard work and some luck he reached the top of his game both as a lawyer and a politician. Though a Muslim, he was entirely westernised – perhaps more modern in every sense of the word than most Indians and Pakistanis even today — and knew the ways of the world. He carved out his space in cosmopolitan Bombay through his own efforts and this is something that most in the Indian bourgeoisie have always admired about him even if they disagreed with his post-1937 politics. He was part of the Congress when Gandhi was still in South Africa and when Nehru was in boarding school in England. His legislative contributions to India are second to none. He might well have been the founding father of an independent India — as Sarojini Naidu had predicted — had Gandhi not arrived on the scene and pulled the rug from under him. Jinnah’s support for Bhagat Singh is also increasingly underlined. The latter is seen — despite his Marxism — as an icon of a new Indian youth. Now free men and finally successful, the Indian middle-class is doing what free men are known to do – questioning officially sanctioned views of history. It is to this class that Jaswant Singh has spoken.
This also indicates an internal struggle within the Bharatiya Janata Party. The BJP has been successful in the past by bringing together the various anti-Congress elements in India. The party itself has two or more distinct groups — one of which is led by the RSS-inspired Hindutvist ideologues. Their vision of the BJP is that of a party of the Hindu right and this is the wing that champions crazies like Varun Gandhi – ironically a great grandson of Jawaharlal Nehru. The other group consists of those like Jaswant Singh who realise that for the BJP to remain relevant it needs to become a party of the centre or the centre-right. They have correctly analysed that in the 21st-century India it needs to pose an alternative to the Congress that is secular and business-friendly. It is they who want to re-package Pakistan’s founding father – hitherto abused, demonised and denigrated as a communal — as a secular founding-father of India who was lost to bad policies. This is a prospect that needs to be welcomed by all. India is too big a country to have one or two visions alone. That it is now welcoming back into its fold its prodigal son and one of its most successful patriots can mean good things for the future.
But where does it leave us Pakistanis? After all Jinnah of Pakistan did happen. And he did create our country. It certainly can’t be that we agree with Jaswant Singh’s biography and yet hold on to our bankrupt conception of Pakistan and Nazaria-e-Pakistan based on some undefined ‘ideology’ which our lawmakers take oath on. It is now time to dismantle the lies and build Pakistan on Jinnah’s vision. It would require taking back the ground given to those opponents of Jinnah, the maulanas and the ulema of South Asian Islam. The good news is that here too we have a bourgeoisie that is increasingly dictated by the global world and the more they realise the dividend that peace and modernity holds, the more they will underscore the vision given by Mohammad Ali Jinnah on August 11, 1947, and in several other speeches of a Pakistan that is inclusive, tolerant, secular and at peace within and without. There is no other way and the future belongs to Jinnah.
Courtesy The News
Filed under: History, India, Jinnah, Pakistan, Partition · Tags: Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity, Azad, H M Seervai, Hindu Muslim Unity, India Wins Freedom, Indian National Congress, Jaswant Singh, Jinnah, Jinnah-India-Indepednence-partition, Pakistan, Partition, Quaid-e-Azam
65 Responses to "The Future Belongs To Jinnah"
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
- G. Ali
said With all Pakistan’s problems we are still be... - rajskekhar
said G. Ali says:
May 24, 2013 at 11:31 am
With all... - tajender said Real Mughal Mangolians are today becoming Hindus i...
- tajender said magg, u say
Now another provocation. Cameron calls...
- G. Ali said With all of Pakistan’s problems we should th...
- G. Ali said Islam is better than what we had in sub-continent....
- tajender said Give me one hospital started by a Muslim. Give me...
- Marx in MohMad said Give me one hospital started by a Muslim. Give me...
- Marx in MohMad said Give me one hospital started by a Muslim. Give me...
- G. Ali said Rex: Now you know why Persians gave them the name...
PS I’d also like you to in good faith produce the exact article, book or link where you allegedly came across this claim.
If not I’ll delete your post for malafide intent because I know how a section in India operates vis a vis concocting stuff.
If you want to break any saintly images start with Gandhi whose racist views in South Africa had the potential of shaming even Adolf Hitler. Just because you can’t bring Jinnah down by faith means doesn’t mean you will allowed to use lies and unfair means.
Erratum “be”
he refused to criticize the destruction of the Babri Masjid with words to the effect that what is destruction of one Masjid when the Hindus had been tolerating destruction of many of their temples since 1000 AD.
Gorki, in light of the above, either you were wrong when you said that NC had “firmly occidental academic and philosophical mooring”… or you and i don’t see such moorings the same way. with an occidental academic, commentator and observor like that, who needs a hindutva proponent.
BC:
I commented about NC’s observation for two reasons. One was to give an example of his somewhat jarring style of writing (which Bonobashi likes to call a ‘take no prisoner’ approach.
The second was to illustrate it as an example of something that is uncharacteristic of NC.
I have my own theory about why he said what he said but would like to see if Bonobashi or Hayyer Sahib have something to say about it first.
Regards.
@Bloody Civilian
I surface merely to caution you against wily occidentals bearing secular ideals or multicultural wreaths. As an anodyne (since we are talking about Nirad Babu, this is oh-so-apt a word) to long evenings in a Spartan hostel, I have been reading Samuel Huntington. Beware of the paleface! Or, if you don’t believe me, believe those who have given at least one old master of this and other fora much grist for his mill, the Greeks of Bactria and Gandhar and parts West: Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes!
To put that dire fear, that unheeded prophecy into context, it was the cry of Laocoon when he rushed out of his temple to prevent the Trojans from dragging the beautiful wooden horse inside the walls of Ilium. As I am more than 350 kms inland, I have no fear of Laocoon’s fate.
Now I shall sink slowly back to the shocked stupor which overcame me on reading Gorki: you may imagine that a sonorous intonation of one’s virtues by a physician/surgeon strikes fear into one’s vitals. What was it in that last X-ray?
YLH,
Before I start, let me make myself very clear. It is not my intention to discredit or eulogize anyone. I would be happy to discuss with you the various follies of Gandhi. As I repeated earlier, this post is about Jinnah. As such, I prefer to discuss Jinnah sans Gandhi, Nehru, etc. If any discussion about Jinnah has to involve abuse or criticism of Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, that would be a sad commentary on the current state of discussions that his story cannot be unhinged from the simultaneous pulling down of others. I am also amazed that you peremptorily dismiss Rafiq Zakaria. To my knowledge, he is/was one of the foremost intellectuals of the subcontinent. In any case, I was merely referring to his statements with regard to facts and not his perceived distortions of history. I apologize for the misquote that I referred to earlier. He referred to Gandhi as a Bania and not as a Hindu. Here is the article that has that quote. In all fairness, I do not consider Mani Shankar Aiyar as a particularly reliable source. He is a Gandhi family poodle.
http://forums.sulekha.com/forums/coffeehouse/mani-shankar-aiyar-says-nehru-was-not-responsible-for-partition-973230.htm
If you had read my earlier posts, you would have realized that I was not ignoring that stature that Jinnah held in times of Tilak and Gokhle. It is a well known fact that Tilak hired Jinnah as a lawyer to defend charges against him. I have also desisted from calling Jinnah by various epithets that you regularly attach to Gandhi and Nehru. I agree with you that Gandhi committed a grevious mistake in supporting the regressive Khilafat Movement. In fact, Jinnah shone as one of the few bright spots in criticizing the involvment of Indian Muslims in affairs beyond the subcontinent. The same Jinnah, 30 years later, went on to paint a dark foreboding picture of a dominating Hindu ‘empire’ to none other than some Turkish delegation. That would irritate even the most generous of patriotic Indians. To illustrate the point further, are the following comments a fabrication too?
“It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders; and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality; and this misconception of one Indian nation has gone far beyond the limits and is the cause of more of our troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, and literature[s]. They neither intermarry nor interdine together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspects [=perspectives?] on life, and of life, are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, their heroes are different, and different episode[s]. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other, and likewise their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent, and final. destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the government of such a state.”
If not, how can an Indian see Jinnah as a role model.
I share your skepticism about the comment about Gandhi as a bania and a jew that is attributed to Jinnah. He was far too sophisticated to indulge in such a nasty comment. I asked about it because I read it in that column. That’s all.
You should not fear anyone maligning Jinnah. Facts speak for themselves and an impartial observer would form his/her opinion about anyone after checking and rechecking the facts. For the rest, how does it matter as to what they believe and disbelieve. It is a testament to Nehru that despite all his faults, it is his contribution to our country that JS can write a book downgrading Nehru and eulogizing Jinnah. Please do not take it as an arrogant remark but as a justifiable pride.
Dr. Gorki:
You are too kind sir. Nirad Chaudhuri was a polymath. Bonobashi may approach him. I can only stand and stare.
He was a small man. I used to see him on the street in Oxford, in the mid-nineties, a massive head resting on a spindly frame. I never approached him though he welcomed visitors in his tiny house and submerged them in data.
However, I suspect he had just the tiniest bit of dislike for Bengali Muslims. There is a revealing passage in ‘Thy Hand Great Anarch’; but what are a few lines in 1000 pages of discourse
The only similarity between me and the great Nirad Chaudhury is a hopeless is an unredeeming cynicism.
Bonobashi:
If one had to go to a physician who better than the good doctor, with his sweet anodynes, even as rearranges your innards.
@Hayyer
My dad got into enough trouble with the peppery little monster to last through my generation. He was an awesome talent, but also in ideological terms, a bit of a monster. Strange for a personally polite and even likeable, not to say lovable man. Someone from my batch in college, who still lives in Oxford, saw a lot of him in his last few years, and has told me that contact with his intellect was an experience never to be forgotten.
I am sorry that you missed an opportunity to meet him. I missed him, always by inches, as I seem to have missed his and my Dad’s mutual friend, Khushwant.
What keeps me from getting a swollen head from the encomia that have come my way is two things: the evident lack of worldly success that is written prominently around me, and the way my father can deliver intellectual thunderbolts, even as at 89, his mind is on its last slide to oblivion.
The good doctor needs to be one who can get my BP down, otherwise he will not help much in any way.
Akash mian,
The “article” you produced does not say what you claimed in the first post. It is clear to me that you are not interested in any honest dialogue. Nor have you read Jaswant Singh’s book clearly because your argument -if we can call it that- has nothing to do with the argument here.
As for Rafiq Zakaria you can call him whatever you wish, Mr. Zakaria was an excessively dishonest person and that shows abundantly in his writings on Jinnah. You should read what Farzana Versey has had to say about him.
As for his “The man who divided India” you should read the only reviews written on the book- Najam Sethi’s and Patrick French’s …both will make it abundantly clear that Mr. Zakaria was far from the intellectual you want to re-hash him as.
I am sorry that Gandhi’s racism brings such a reaction. My point was that in Jinnah’s case the issue is undoing the demonization. The de-sanctification has to happen in the case of “Mahatma” Gandhi.
PS: let me also state tjat there is nothing wrong with the speech of Jinnah enunciating the TNT . It would have added to the diversity that India was. Secondly if you don’t want to look upto Jinnah you have every right to. However since writing this article I have had many Indians who have written agreeing with my views. Just like I don’t represent all Pakistanis you don’t represent all Indiansm
Hullo Bonobashi
Aurum Muraticum 30, thrice daily will bring your BP to normal. Give it a try. You seem to be in great awe NC babu.
Thank you all Indian gentleman here who have since my question of August 29 come forward to explain about Indian Bengali Author Mr. Nirad Chaudhuri, his book ‘The Continent of Circe’, his physique and his thoughts, his philosophy. This is more than what I would have done on my own. It is obvious that I do not read much about India, but what can you do. You can not visit Pak Tea House and not come across ‘All Things India’, whether you want to or not. But since then a new Indian name has come up in these discussions. I must ask. Who is this Mr. Rafiq Zakaria? Any relation to the well known Indian brown nose Mr. Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek and CNN fame?
PMA:
Fareed Zakaria is I believe son to the self same deceased Rafiq Zakaria. He was a Congress politician of Maharashtra and minister, intermittently.
About your other thoughts, well, I said so earlier and can say it again: If you speak for the administrators of the PTH Club you should put out a sign saying ‘No Indians Allowed”, and, I personally, would be gone before you knew it. There aren’t too many Indians who care about a sane discourse between the two countries; a few of those who do land up on this site; if that is too many the situation is easily remedied.
@Bonobashi.
I didn’t miss the chance. I kept away, over the course of a full academic year, even as I was frequently within hand shaking distance. I could not have had equal conversation, and my school days were over.
Khushwant Singh because of his longevity rather than his mental calibre is now almost equally iconic, but he can compare only as a poseur. NC despite his formidable mind wasn’t just a tiny bit aware of his power to shock and awe. He revelled in it.
What BS ! You call yourself a scholar? Pass it by someone who thinks rationally. But wouldn’t that be a problem in Pakistan these days. Except Kamaran Shafi, Mahir Ali, etc. most of them have rescued themselves to Sri Lanka or London or somewhere far away!