Adil Najam
Today is 9/11. Much will be written and much discussed on the 5th anniversary of the cruel attacks on the World Trade Center in New York, on what has happened since, on all the ways in which the world changed, and on all the other ways in which it did not. Today is a sad day, and at ATP our hearts and prayers go out to the dear ones of the victims of this tragedy, and to the loved ones of all who have lost their lives in the events that were unleashed by it.
While 9.11.2001 will be much debated elsewhere, we here at ATP want to recall the events of 9.11.1948.
For Pakistanis, 9/11 has always been a sad date. A date on which – barely a year after the nation’s birth – its founding leader, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, died. Here is a short (50 sec) newsreel video clip on Mr. Jinnah’s death :
Like every year, APP has announced in advance how the “nation” will mark this occasion, and every newspaper (e.g., Dawn) has printed this “news” on its front page:
ISLAMABAD, Sept 10: The nation will observe Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s 58th death anniversary on Monday with a pledge to transform Pakistan into a vibrant, progressive and enlightened country as envisioned by the great leader.
I am glad that the APP has he psychic power to know exactly how this “nation” will observe the anniversary, even before the occasion. They have been making the same stale prediction every year for as long as I can remember. Maybe, we as a “nation” do actually make that “pledge” every year. Its just that we have not been very good at keeping the pledge.
Some might argue that the “nation” had already begun to let Mr. Jinnah down even in those brief 13 months that he lived in the country he had founded. Others like to believe that Pakistan’s history might have taken a very different path had he lived longer. It may well have. I am just not sure what that path might have been given that tensions between him and those who were running day-to-day Pakistan had begun to appear even while he was alive.
His death, and the circumstances of his death, was itself not without controversy (see, for dramatic effect, the opening scenes of the movie, Jinnah, here). But today, September 11, should not only be a sad reminder of his untimely death. It should also be a moment to reflect on his life. And, maybe, it should be a moment to reflect on what lessons that life might have to offer for the future.
From its very inception, ATP has had an ongoing discussion on the legacy of Mr. Jinnah and the various meanings it has for different people. Today seems to be an appropriate day to continue that discussion; to think, yet again, about the meaning of the life and death of Mr. Jinnah.
Related ATP Posts:
– Read about the Other Side of Mr. Jinnah
– Watch Jinnah: The Movie
– Read about Jinnah’s first message to the nation
– Watch historic footage from August 1947
– Read about the Jinnah-Gandhi relationship
– Listen to and watch Mehdi Hassan’s classic, “yeh watan tumhara hai”, which is in many ways Jinnah speaking to the rest of us.
Yasser:
As I mentioned earlier, I do not have any interest in a discussion with you on this thread for reasons already stated, so please excuse me from it.
Saima:
Please read the book and others suggested on this thread and draw your own conclusions. I would like to say, however that the suggestion that “Bourke-White was associated with or attached to a party” is blatantly dishonest.
Every human being has biases and sympathies and this is true of everybody including Wolpert, Jalal, French, Nichols and surely of Bourke-White as well. But the suggestion that “her views are entirely based on her personal and emotional association with Gandhi” is speculative at best. I will leave it at that.
What makes her account different from (though not necessarily “superior to”) those of most other authors is that hers is a first-person account and the personal portrait she presents is not based on the deconstruction of speeches or interviews or of others’ writings or in one case, “British intelligence reports”, but on spending a considerable amount of time with the person, interviewing him, talking to him informally and observing him go about his business as she took his photographs.
Saima,
Since our friend has quoted the one outside source, I must refer you to Beverley Nichols “Verdict on India” and its chapter on Jinnah. Unlike Bourke-White, Nichols was not associated or attached with any party. Also heartbreak should not happen simply based on one point of view. I have studied the Jinnah portions of Bourke-White’s book through the same links given above, in detail and have found glaring inconsistencies in Bourke-White’s account… which I have enumerated below.
Dear Sridhar,
Other than the caveat, it would be pertinent and honest to point out Margaret Bourkewhite’s view which is entirely based on her own personal and emotional association with Gandhi. She was a regular at Gandhi’s ashram and naturally her views were entirely shaped by him. Bear with me as I show you just how deliberately she distorted the facts…
But first let us discuss this direct action day business. Muslim League announces that it will resort to civil disobedience… direct action means civil disobedience.. and it was intended to be peaceful… which it was all over India, but things went wrong in Calcutta… however, the final conclusion that Wavell drew after considering all the evidence was:
“I’ve found no evidence of muslim league involvement in calcutta killings and appreciably larger number of Muslims died than Hindus”
(Mansergh Volume IX TOPP Page 879)
But let us leave this aside…. let us impartially consider some of the evidence that is on display from Margaret Bourkewhite’s book…
Here are three observations I made regarding her account of the July 29th 1946 meeting:
Please note these….
1. It is highly unlikely “Fezzes” were thrown up into the sky… because for one thing Fez was replaced by the Karakul cap and hats… if you see the pictures Muslim League meetings from 1940s onwards… you will hardly find any fez wearing leaguer… clearly like a good writer, Bourke-White was adding twist and masala to what had been narrated to her… her story sounds more like a high school graduation in the Mid West… then a meeting of the League… which was … as is not a “jalsa” but a meeting of the working committee in a board room under a roof. …
2. Also… another discrepancy that you’ve produced is that there were “large” pictures of Jinnah on the “stage”. Once again I ask you to produce a single meeting of the Muslim League with these large Jinnah portraits … Again… since Margaret Bourke-White was writing this much later… her memory seems to be playing tricks on her. None of the Muslim League meetings ever had Jinnah’s posters or portraits… nor was it the normal politicking style at the time.
3. There was no “stage” as there was no “public meeting”. It was the meeting of the Central Working Committee .. in a boardroom on a large table.
…
Also I have looked through and tried to find this “We’ll have divided India or destroyed India” through primary sources and Jinnah’s speech of July 1946 does not have any such mention of such India being divided or destroyed. As it turns out this entire thing was fed to her by the Congress Party and it is clear that she wasn’t there at the meeting herself (she would have known it was not a public meeting)…
Now proceeding on the premise that indeed Bourke-White was spinning the whole issue to her own liking let us consider her messiah bit:
a. Jinnah’s statement about Zakat was much deeper than she could appreciate. Zakat was never “charity”. In the Medinan/Meccan Arab State, Zakat was a state wealth tax, which was collected by the state and for which the head of the state was accountable to the consultative body called Majlis-e-Shura, which represented the people of Medina and Mecca essentially but also tribes of Arabia… thus there was a system of financial accountability. Under the westminster model of democracy- in which Jinnah was schooled as a lawyer and parliamentarian- democracy essentially means above all else the people’s power to regulate the finance bill. Thus you have to take Bourke-White’s statement with a pinch of salt.
b.The statement which is of note is that despite her antipathy to the Pakistan movement, Bourke-White is forced to grudgingly admit that Jinnah was no bigot when in essence that would be the conclusion of what she was trying to prove…
Taken in this light… I am afraid Bourke-White’s account could at most be seen as the account of an unsympathetic wide-eyed westerner who was ignorant of the complexities and the various interplays and chose to take the simplest impression. There are several other accounts by westerners, including writers, historians and politicians who paint a different picture and I wil produce each of these in due course of time.
Dear YLH!
[quote post=”301″]Bhagat Singh was never in the Indian Army. Please go check your facts. Same goes for Chanrashehkar Azad[/quote]
My mistake I mixed Mangal Panday with Bhagat Singh.Now do you accept panday as a freedom fighter or will comeup with your logic to deny it as well?
I think you dont look credible to say me this:
[quote post=”301″]that you will reject everything[/quote]
while you say this
[quote post=”301″]About Qudratullah Shahab, I have read the book several times and find it the most ridiculous piece of nonsense ever to come out of Pakistan[/quote]
*grin*.No difference between you and me.I respect whatever you have words about his bio but whoever has *actually* read his biography which is not ONLY about his religious concepts but everything from his childhood to death will certainly reject you.Again your thoery that all freedom movement supports were part of ML doesnt hold any water and I already refuted this.I was big supporter of MQM in 90s but was not part of MQM party as a member.Mangal Panday whichI mixed with Bhagat was part of BNI British east India company company.So why cant QU Shahab be part of Pakistani movement while he was serving as ICS?
[quote post=”301″]For years the books in our schools have taught us to be judgemental and to be in denial about the good deeds of people who are not muslims[/quote]
Again another baseless statment. As I was part of several millions student who have studied Pakistani books about History of India.Yes history was changed in both countries I dont deny like kashmir is Maqboza kashmir for Pakistanis ad J&K for Indians but since my memory is not failed yet I have not read any such textbook in which Gadhi or Nehru were potrayed as bad boys.Yes i was told iNndian text books did talk crap(some on same site gave a URL too) about Jinnah but I dont believe this because some anti-Indian leaders would have comeup with such content like some anti Pakistani cameup with content about Pakistani books which you *innocent* people accepted blindly.Only an Indian student and a Pakistani student are credible for any such claim rather some outsider.I myself was a Pakistani student therefore I dont believe wht some outsider says about our textbooks
Saima bibi you should really join politics because you have all qualities that can make you a Pakistani politician.First of all commenting about me by saying:
[quote post=”301″]as you yourself confessed to be “kinda confusedâ€
Library, perhaps – if it is a good academic library. Border – no, since the book is out of print for a long time now. I obtained my copy second hand and I was lucky to get one in good condition at a reasonable price. It can be quite expensive usually. Your best bet is a good library.