Jinnah!!!!
Recent controversy over the remarks of L.K. Advani about Quaid-e-Azam has started a debate in the IndoPak politics that if initiated some 70-80 years back could have avoided the partition. There were two main parties in the freedom struggle of India, the Congress and the Jinnah. Then there were some small but significant players; the Mahasabahis, Sikhs, Muslim religious right, and communists. All of them were aligned with Congress, so invariably the politics of pre-independence era was a clash between Jinnah and the rest of them (I don't consider Muslim League to be an entity because it's entire worth was because of Jinnah and Jinnah alone and couldn't have survived with out him).
The freedom movement led to partition and the partition led to the worst bloodshed of recorded human history. So bitterness remains over who was responsible for this dilemma. India under Nehru professes a secular state, that coupled with the fact the Pakistan soon after Jinnah fell into the hands of fundamentalist Islamists (Objective Resolutionists) helped Indians boost an image of being non-communal. It allowed them to paint Jinnah as a communalist politician who used the nakedly weapon of religion and exploited the feelings of Muslims to divide India and thus cause the bloodshed. The successive regimes in Pakistan and their support for fundamentalism only worsened the Pakistan cause.
Indian Muslims, specially the Pakistanis were demonized as being communal and Jinnah was portrayed as a communal leader who used religion for his means and thus was responsible for the worst bloodshed of human history. In all this mudslinging and propaganda, no one realized that reality is totally opposite.
Any sensible person going through the history of 20th century India will realize that in this All vs Jinnah contest, these were All who used communalism and it was Jinnah who tried to overcome the forces of communalism till the last moment.
First, it was not Jinnah who introduced the religion card into Indian politics, it was done by Mahasabahis. Secondly, it was not Jinnah who used the religious values and symbols for political means, it was started by Mahatama Gandhi (and this is precisely why Jinnah left Congress). Who can deny those mass prayers on Gandhis political trail. Not that mass prayers are anything bad but their use for political campaigns definitely is. Third, it was not Jinnah who wanted the partition of India, on contrary he was fully aware of the sufferings the partition will bring, it was Congress that is responsible for it. First it was the Mahasabahi press that termed the Lahore resolution, Pakistan resolution. The resolution only demanded the creation of administrative regions within the Indian Federation. Second the last ditch efforts to secure a deal for united India, led by Cabinet Mission were sabotaged by Congress, just when Jinnah agreed to accept them. And last but certainly not the least, Jinnah was despised by Muslim fundamentalists for being secular and nonbeliever. If anyone needs fact checks, he can refer to Jinnah by Stanley Wolpert or Nehru - a tryst with destiny by Wolpert or India Wins Freedom by Abu-al-Kalam Azad.
Advani's comments have shaken the political spectrum of IndoPak even beyond his own recognition. On one hand, it provides an opportunity to Indians to review history objectively, and on the other, it has shaken the claims of the establishment and religious clergy in Pakistan which stated that Jinnah wanted Pakistan to be a theocracy.
I am not fond of making punch line claims, but I honestly believe that the scenario appearing after this statement of Advani, if used properly will be a turning point for both India and Pakistan and the social societies that will emerge as a result will be more open, broadminded, mature and rational.
The freedom movement led to partition and the partition led to the worst bloodshed of recorded human history. So bitterness remains over who was responsible for this dilemma. India under Nehru professes a secular state, that coupled with the fact the Pakistan soon after Jinnah fell into the hands of fundamentalist Islamists (Objective Resolutionists) helped Indians boost an image of being non-communal. It allowed them to paint Jinnah as a communalist politician who used the nakedly weapon of religion and exploited the feelings of Muslims to divide India and thus cause the bloodshed. The successive regimes in Pakistan and their support for fundamentalism only worsened the Pakistan cause.
Indian Muslims, specially the Pakistanis were demonized as being communal and Jinnah was portrayed as a communal leader who used religion for his means and thus was responsible for the worst bloodshed of human history. In all this mudslinging and propaganda, no one realized that reality is totally opposite.
Any sensible person going through the history of 20th century India will realize that in this All vs Jinnah contest, these were All who used communalism and it was Jinnah who tried to overcome the forces of communalism till the last moment.
First, it was not Jinnah who introduced the religion card into Indian politics, it was done by Mahasabahis. Secondly, it was not Jinnah who used the religious values and symbols for political means, it was started by Mahatama Gandhi (and this is precisely why Jinnah left Congress). Who can deny those mass prayers on Gandhis political trail. Not that mass prayers are anything bad but their use for political campaigns definitely is. Third, it was not Jinnah who wanted the partition of India, on contrary he was fully aware of the sufferings the partition will bring, it was Congress that is responsible for it. First it was the Mahasabahi press that termed the Lahore resolution, Pakistan resolution. The resolution only demanded the creation of administrative regions within the Indian Federation. Second the last ditch efforts to secure a deal for united India, led by Cabinet Mission were sabotaged by Congress, just when Jinnah agreed to accept them. And last but certainly not the least, Jinnah was despised by Muslim fundamentalists for being secular and nonbeliever. If anyone needs fact checks, he can refer to Jinnah by Stanley Wolpert or Nehru - a tryst with destiny by Wolpert or India Wins Freedom by Abu-al-Kalam Azad.
Advani's comments have shaken the political spectrum of IndoPak even beyond his own recognition. On one hand, it provides an opportunity to Indians to review history objectively, and on the other, it has shaken the claims of the establishment and religious clergy in Pakistan which stated that Jinnah wanted Pakistan to be a theocracy.
I am not fond of making punch line claims, but I honestly believe that the scenario appearing after this statement of Advani, if used properly will be a turning point for both India and Pakistan and the social societies that will emerge as a result will be more open, broadminded, mature and rational.
Comments