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.
We are getting very concerned about the degeniration of this and some other threads into mud-slinging matches which violate the spirit of civil dialogue that we cherish at ATP. Please review ATP comment policy carefully before posting. Meanwhile, we will elevate system moderation.
Every comment of yours is self-evident that you wish to twist and turn anything that is said to turn it into a strawman and destroy it.
The P.S. was not meant to make any point. It was merely a reflection of the fact that I saw the book after a very long time. I did not recognize the picture in Adil’s post as Bourke White’s earlier, but happened to see it now. I just pointed out that fact.
But you will twist it and spin it. Your choice.
The point regarding the Fez was a fact that I again happened to notice in the book and merely brought to the attention of everybody. I do not wish to and will not do a point by point rebuttal of your points. I do not have a case to make. I merely think that saying that Margaret Bourke-White was “associated with or attached to” the Congress Party is a dishonest attempt to damage the credibility of her source. To say that she sympathized with the Congress point of view is different. And that would be like saying that Patrick French sympathized with the Jinnah point of view. That is fine. That is something I pointed out to Saima. But I do not have the case that hers is an authoritative or necessarily perfectly accurate picture. I merely pointed to the fact that hers is a different one, given that it is based on a first-person account, while pointing out that it does not make it necessarily a superior account. Beyond that, I don’t have anything to say.
The hostility you are seeing from me is all imagined and in fact anybody can see that you are the one being deliberately hostile on this thread, while maintaining a facade of civility.
Dear Sridhar,
Please see how you continue to carry yourself in a manner that can only be conceived as deliberately hostile. While you say you are not interested in discussing any issue, you are now raising a new issue regarding another picture… as an aside. Therefore please note that defacto you are doing exactly what you claimed with a lot of bravado that you won’t. So why not drop the hostility and the pretence and simply argue on facts…
Now admittedly you did not read my arguments as much as to admit that my argument did not rest on the distinction between Fez and Karakul… but whether such an object would be thrown up in the air in what was a working committee meeting inside a meeting room.
Let me reproduce the objections once again- amended for the time for your claim that to Bourke-White Fez and Karakul was the same thing:
1. 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 “jalsaâ€
Yasser: The posts on the thread are available for everybody to see. I do not wish to add anything to what is there in them. I have never said that you don’t have a right to comment on my posts. Please do by all means. However, please don’t expect me to participate in the way you want me to or to respond to things I don’t want to respond to. It is not your right to expect that of me.
————————-
A further fact related to this latest discussion.
On page 101, line 1 of her book, Bourke-White refers to Jinnah’s cap in the Life cover picture I posted a link earlier for as a fez, though it is technically a kakul. She may not have full knowledge of the precise names of various caps (and I must admit, neither do I), but she is internally consistent. It is clear that she refers to the Jinnah cap (whatever its technical name) as a fez.
P.S. The picture of Jinnah’s posted in Adil’s original post at the top of the page is also incidentally from Bourke-White’s book.
Dear sridhar,
Let us look at this calmly.
If that were indeed the case then you would have wanted dialogue. Instead you have unleashed a plethora of personal attacks on my person – the latest being that I play “personal games”- instead of academically discussing point by point whatever it is that has caused you such angst (in so much as making you react on a personal level).
My friend… since I do not ascribe Adnan Siddiqui’s view of resorting to violence instead of arguments, I welcome debate instead.
As a rule if you make an assertion on a public forum, others have the right to cross examine it. If you can’t defend them and then are going to resort to personal attacks, the better option is to refrain from posting. I stand by my comments and your latest comments have just fortified my views. Please also note that the issue of racism was raised vis a vis Gandhi as a counter argument to your claim that his South African Satyagraha was an epoch-making event. Nothing else. To this you declared that similar allegations could be levelled against Jinnah as well but when I asked you to do so, you were not forthcoming.
I can’t help it if you choose the hit and run method of arguing which says more about your honesty than mine- don’t you think?