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.
Dear Sridhar,
First of all I feel a lot of tension and hostility from you. Calm down yaar and see that it is an academic discussion and nothing more…
Please- I am not doing anything but attaching a valid interpretation to your own post.
[quote comment=”2551″]On a different note, it is significant that September 11th signifies three different events. The launch of “Satyagraha” as a tool of non-violent struggle by Indians across religious communities in South Africa in 1906, led by Gandhi. The passing away of Jinnah in 1948. And the killing of thousands of innocents in New York in 2001. I wonder which of these events the day will be most remembered for several centuries down the line (if humankind has not destroyed the world by then).[/quote]
Would you mind answering this question yourself- I mean this is what you wanted… didn’t you- for others to have discussion around the parameters that you defined? Here is the problem- the different note was not a different note was it… it was really an adjunct to the rest of your post… the only reason you chose to add the words “on a different note” was because you were being clever by half- sorry to have to be so blunt.
What I don’t understand is your reaction and attitude following the bursting of the metaphorical bubble? Is it not my right to point out the inconsistencies in the great “Satyagraha” idea of Mohandas Gandhi. You came back with that the same could be said about Jinnah. Well I am rebuking your assertion- no it can’t be. But you keep saying you don’t want to be goaded into a discussion and good bye (only to the same thing again).
Lets be honest and forthright… lets make those comments that we can defend- how about that? I think it is a fair offer. You on the other hand are hell bent on poisoning the whole thing, because I called your bluff.
Please don’t take this personally- none of this is meant to be personal and the “beef” between us is hardly of a personal nature.
One minor clarification (since it seems to be the season for misinterpretations) – when I refer to “desired effect” in the above post, the desire I am refering to is my own.
Adil,
It seems that your post will not have its desired effect of steering the discussion towards topic and away from a discussion of what “intentions” of people here were and away from long-winded rants that attempt to demolish non-existent strawmen. Of reading the words rather than some assumed intent behind them. Thanks for the attempt at bringing in some sanity anyway.
Since you have specifically referred to my post, I would only request you to read the first post together with the second. There will be much more clarity then. Even perhaps of the intent, though I do not believe in second-guessing intent in a discussion in the first place.
I would also like to say again that my reference to three events that Sept. 11th is associated with was not meant to compare the legacy of Gandhi and Jinnah or to compare their characters. I wondered then, and continue to wonder now, which of these events will be most associated with the day long after we are all gone. I don’t have an answer to this question and in fact don’t even have a preference for which of these “ought to be” associated with the day. It is a question and not a statement.
Dear Adil sahab,
Brilliant and balanced. This is why you are an admired household name in this part of the world.
Let me add few points to this:
1. In my view, Sridhar’s insinuation was unmistakable, but you may disagree… in my considered opinion, it is a simple issue of balance of probabilities… and the balance of probabilities tilts, in my view, that there was a specific intent at play behind that unfortunate post.
2. If Sridhar is trying to attach importance to Gandhi’s “Satyagraha” movement in South Africa… should there not be a counter elaborating on the same “Satyagraha” movement.
I must confess that I am now at a loss about the direction of this two-way discussion; so let me at least try to make it 3-way and hopefully nudge it in a new direction. I have just re-read the fascinating comments above, but remain unclear why Gandhi Ji’s ‘racism’, even if it were so, is at all relevant to Jinnah Sahib’s legacy? Maybe I missed something, but I did not see anyone claiming that Jinnah was a racist and Gandhi was not, and thereby see no need to prove otherwise.
Both men were complex individuals, neither was without faults, even if their faults might have been different, ultimately both were politicians who earnestly believed in the causes that they championed. Ironically, the stated vision of neither has yet been fulfilled.
I do reject the suggestion (Saima Nasir above) that one might have been a ‘great’ and ‘visionary’ leader and the other not; simply because it is not a provable proposition except through popularity polls. I am also not convinced that “Great leaders do not change their values and core principles” (Sridhar)… they do; rigidity is not greatness. However, Sridhar adds “because of circumstances”. The meaning we apply to that clause could in fact be relevant to this, but since that was not elaborated let me not jump the gun to assume that his intention was to claim that the circumstances in which Gandhi ji changed his views (and his changes were much more dramatic than Mr. Jinnah’s) were honorable while the circumstances of Mr. Jinnah’s change of views were political expediency. Since I do not see that being said, I will assume it is not implied. Great men, and even us ordinary mortals, should evolve and change our views when we find that we were wrong. It seems to me that both these men did. Each man evolved in response to the situations and circumstances around them, and this ability to evolve was part of their greatness (the same could be said of Mr. Mandela, who was also mentioned). On this one, like Sridhar I do not see the need or the point of Jinnah and Gandhi being “up against each other.” Each has to be gauged in his own right.
In relating this to Bhupinder’s early comment about exploring Mr. Jinnah’s legacy (which is what this post was about), I do feel that we need to make a distinction between Jinnah’s legacy as it applies to Pakistan’s future; as opposed to his legacy as it applies to India’s past. The two are, of course, related; but remain distinct. I realize that the historian’s sensibilities are more nuanced, but for me it is the political scientists focus on the present and the future that is more relevant. Both are, certainly, influenced by the past; but neither can be held hostage to it. From an Indian perspective, I assume, the most important thing that Jinnah did was to ‘break up’ India; from that view partition can only be viewed as a destructive act, and Jinnah’s legacy can only be seen as a negative one. From the Pakistan perspective, Jinnah’s achievement was that he ‘created’ Pakistan. Partition, from this perspective, was an act of birth, and its hurt was birth pains, not death pangs. This distinction, it seems to me, is fundamental in explaining why Jinnah is, and has to be, very differently viewed on the two sides.
Our focus here at All Things Pakistan, is very clearly on Jinnah’s legacy to Pakistan today and into tomorrow.