First up, it is pretty ballsy for a BJP member, let alone one its senior most leaders to write a book praising Jinnah and calling him “great” and “secular”. But then it is pretty ballsy for a matador to wave a red flag at a raging bull. Point being – being ballsy doesn’t equate to exercising common sense.
As a common Indian who had read a bit of history – do I think Jinnah was “great”? Definitely. Do I think he was “secular”? Possibly.
It is unfortunate that as a nation which has been independent for over 6 decades – we are still uncomfortable with our 20th century history. Leaders are often always painted as saints or as demons. If only we saw them for what they were – humans – like you and I – with aims, ambitions, dimples and warts. George Washington had slaves – that does not diminish his greatness in the eyes of Americans – does it?
Fact of the matter is that Jinnah was a member of the Congress Party and a protégé of Gokhale. He was seen by the Congress leadership as The Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity. He was the next big thing in the Congress – a British educated and brilliant lawyer, an honest man and one who cared deeply about India’s independence from the British. But then a tectonic shift in the Congress took place – Gandhi came into the picture. He filled a very deep void in the independence movement – he became India’s first pan-national leader in the modern era. If you look at the situation today – barring perhaps Vajpayee – India still lacks one thanks to its diversity. Gandhi took the independence movement from the drawing rooms and country clubs of the Indian lawyers, doctors and gentry to the one who mattered most – the Indian peasant. He dressed like them, traveled in 3rd class and almost invented a new form of secularism. Till then, secularism meant the separation of religion and state; Gandhi’s dose of secularism was all-inclusive – Eshwar-Allah tero naam. Jinnah hated the idea of using religion as a tool to awaken the masses – he wanted freedom for India through constitutional methods – like in the case of Canada and Australia. But Gandhi’s move was a master stroke – it worked like the proverbial charm and instead of a handful of resentful educated Indians – the British had an entire nation up against their rule. The side-effect of Gandhi’s success was that the entire Congress leadership became co-pilots at best and flight attendants at worst in India’s freedom movement. Jinnah had worked hard to be considered a top Indian leader – he did not like being upstaged by an upstart. Disillusioned, he quit the Congress.
This was nothing to do with the fact that Jinnah was Muslim. Anyone who disagreed with Gandhi’s method of attaining independence was routinely sidelined from the Congress. No better example than Subhash Chandra Bose who despite being elected the Congress President had to quit the post on Gandhi’s insistence. Nehru was a second-rung leader in India at that time – not in the same bracket as Gandhi, Jinnah or Patel. Gandhi wished to hand over the mantle of premiership to someone young who would ensure continuity and for all his flaws Nehru excelled at that role. Unlike the rest of the colonies which won their independence, Nehru conducted expensive, free and fair elections despite knowing that he would brook no opposition. This is his singularly greatest gift to India. Jinnah on the other hand, did what any political leader would do. He simply raised the issue of partition to create political space for himself and have a reasonably large population to represent. Muslims represented 30% of the Indian population – by asserting himself as their sole representative, he came to the political forefront once again. Our history textbooks do not highlight one fact – Jinnah agreed to a federal form of government where states within the Union would have reasonable independence – not too different from the United States. It was the Congress who rejected such an independent union – this is not an opinion – it is a well documented historical fact. Gandhi of course tried to avoid this – he actually asked Nehru and Patel to dissolve the Congress completely – his idea being that the Congress’ goal was to help achieve independence and now that the goal was attained – he did not see the Congress serving any purpose!
We have been taught that Nehru was a visionary leader and the architect of modern India – he built the IITs, IIMs, formed the Non-Aligned movement, ensured that India remained staunchly democratic – all this makes him a great leader. But does the Kashmir fiasco or the loss of war to China take away from his greatness of all he achieved? If not, would it not be hypocritical to take away Jinnah’s greatness simply because he called for the Direct Action Day? Jinnah would hate the Pakistan of today – he wanted a Pakistan which was secular and would have relations to India akin to those between Canada and US – free movement of trade and people; not the absolute international headache it has become now. He spent over 50 years of his life in Bombay and after helping found Pakistan wanted to settle down and retire in Bombay.
As Indians, we should be comfortable with our history – we love mixing myth and history and the result is usually exaggerated truths or outright lies which are espoused in our educational system. A majority of us were not even alive when the Partition took place – so shouldn’t we as Indians be at ease looking at what transpired all those decades ago objectively? None of the leaders in those days were either saints or demons – they were merely politicians – and ALL of them were a lot better than the idiots who sit in the Lok Sabha today.
