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 Saima Nasir,
First of all- I hope you will acknowledge that story of Pakistan for what it is worth is not a Pakistan Studies book … Pakistan Studies curriculum doesn’t mention Gandhi or Nehru much. The problem with Pakistan Studies syllabus is that it tries to Islamise Jinnah. I infact remember reading a chapter praising Gandhi as a man of non violence in one of these books.
First of all, with all due respect…let us not make strawman fallacies in the name of the two nation theory. Two Nation Theory was a consociationalist interim solution. As the only politician to be known as the Best Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity Jinnah had spent a life tme trying to infuse Hindus and Muslims into one Indian nation but at fair and equitable terms…
Two Nation Theory did not till the very end suggest that Hindus and Muslims could not live together, but that since there were two distinct identities (given the disproportionate growth of bourgeoisie in both societies)and should have adequate constitutional safeguards which should ultimately evolve into one Indian identity. After 1940, Jinnah came to the conclusion that a strong all India center and one Indian federation was itself a idea that was a British concoction and that India could work better as a confederation of two or more federations with one army and one foreign policy. He realised that if there was to be a federation that would be Hindu majority, shaped (as all states are) by the ethos of its majority, then why not have another federation or two federations with Muslim majority.
This was the essence of the Pakistan resolution. It was the Congress that rejected this idea… it was the Congress that insisted on partitioning Punjab and Bengal.. which is the real cause of bloodshed. Jinnah’s vision of the state was of a constitutional state which would treat all its citizens and communities impartially and equally. Constitutionally, India has done that better than Pakistan… is India then not closer to Jinnah’s vision, even if marginally- However… the problems Jinnah saw and was afraid of in the 1930s are still there… Vande Mataram is still a contentious issue… Hindu Muslim violence still occurs… however the fact that Pakistan’s record is nothing to write home about goes without saying, which is why I consider India to be closer to Jinnah’s vision. (Your suggestion that Bangladesh was created and two nation theory was debunked is also fallacious. Jinnah and the Muslim League had agreed to an independent Bangladesh in 1947 under a coalition of Suhrawardy and Sarat Bose – brother of Subhas Chander bose… it was Nehru who had vetoed the idea.)
Your suggestion that any Muslim in India is living as good or bad as a Muslim in Pakistan also flies in the face of facts. It has been acknowledged that the Muslims as a community did not have an industrial base untill Pakistan was created. Sumit Sarkar a famous Indian historian credits Pakistan for creating the Industrial base for bourgeoisie… sure you’ll find a token example of a successful Muslim here and there, but the whole class of bourgeoisie that Pakistan’s existence created … forcing the hitherto agricultural and/or “martial” Muslims to adopt such professions like Banking, commerce, education etc (which were till then the exclusive domain of the Hindu Bourgeoisie given Muslims’ lack of interesT) … Pakistan in essence, despite its faults, did for the community as a whole what Aligarh had done educationally. This is primarily why the biggest supporters of the Muslim League were the Communist Party of India… and the biggest supporters of the Congress were the Mullahs who saw in Pakistan an erosion of their clerical authority.
Also you can’t analyse anything wit your “heart” because it denotes biases and we are all victims of our emotions when judging things… you can only use your head. I totally endorse your suggestion of looking at history critically, but don’t you agree that your contention that A B or C doesn’t warm your heart is hardly a basis for critical analysis.
Your suggestion that I am writing more about why I dislike Gandhi … please note the few references I made to Gandhi were entirely in response to your assertions. My own ideas about Jinnah maybe found in the article I wrote on him which is quoted in the second post on this board.
Dear YLH,
I have read your whole post and have done that in the past also……infact i have read those posts twice or thrice at times to understand and find information which i did not have about Jinnah…..but you write more about your dislikness for Gandhi than about your admiration for Jinnah. i have read Wolpert’s and Ayesha Jalal’s work and would Try to get Mitchell’s documentry that you have mentioned in your post.
You said, “No one is asking you to fall in love with Jinnah … far from it… Jinnah’s greatness is not dependent on people falling in love with him because of gimmickery… what is great about Jinnah is his honesty, integrity, sense of fair play and justice… and above all his sense of duty… all habits and ideas that he imbibed from the British legal tradition which defined him essentially and where he is honored on the hallowed hall of British legal history…”
I had agreed with all these qualities in my very first post and had inquired to know more about him….on a different level…..by the way..
I am pretty proud to be an emotional being as it is the awareness of my emotional state which makes me understand other human beings and also pushes me to bring in a positive change in myself when required.
what is written about about Gandhi and Nehru in pakistan studies books and the level of mistrust Indian muslims were shown to have against the Hindu leaders can be seen on this link
http://www.storyofpakistan.com/
yet so many muslims decided to stay back in India and are leading as good or bad a life as any muslim in Pakistan…..then…..when you say, “Nehru’s secularism resembles more closely Jinnah’s vision than Pakistan”, I am left perplexed ……where does that leave the two nation theory which is the ideological basis for pakistan????? thats why i would want my children to use thier HEADS and HEARTS when reading and analysing history ….whether ours or some one elses.
Sridhar,
I still believe I accurately interpretted your failed attempt which you have since aborted…
Also- the point specifically remains. Jinnah’s record in England as a radical liberal suffragist in alliance with the quakers, steeped in British legal tradition which by then had very strongly ruled out racial consideration in matters of state, and his association- however brief- with the British Labour Party and his membership of the Fabian Society (endorsing Fabian socialism), rules out the possibility of there being any views that he held which were analogous to those of Gandhi quoted hereinabove.
Lets also not forget that while the “Mahatma” Gandhi denounced the suffragists as “workers of satan”… Jinnah was a very proud suffragist fighting ror the rights of women to vote …
Sadly – Pakistan has given up Jinnah’s ideals and therein lies the greatest irony… India shaped by Dr. B R Ambedkar’s constitutional ideas and Nehru’s secularism resembles more closely Jinnah’s vision than Pakistan.
Saima Nasir,
I hope you will read the whole post…
Could you please point out which Pakistan Studies books say nasty stuff about Gandhi and Nehru because there isn’t any and I have actually researched it. There is a problem with Pakistan studies books that is very clear: They try and present an essentially political movement for a minority claiming to be a nation as something else… something quite unlike what Jinnah imagined it to be. The Pakistan Studies books are wrong because they wish to ascribe an Islamised and Mullahized version of Jinnah and the Pakistan movement which has no roots in reality.
My own apathy for Gandhi (not Nehru who I admire for many other reasons even if I am critical of his role in the final phase of partition) started when I read Gandhi’s collected works. Before that, I looked at him as the founding father and a great man of a neighbouring nation. When I read his works, I found what I have already quoted above… and then I read the views of Dr. B R Ambedkar, the principal author of the Indian constitution, whose description of Gandhi was much unflattering than any Pakistani’s… For reference read B R Ambedkar’s “What have Congress and Mr Gandhi done to the untouchables” and “Gandhi or Gandhiism”…. I found these books in my alma mater’s library in the US.
We should draw the right conclusions for the right reasons.
How does Bangladesh’s creation undo say Two nation theory for example… when Bangladesh’s creation reaffirms the Lahore resolution. Bhupinder has called Jinnah the “Last Congressman in India” … barring Ghaffar Khan, he was. The very fact that Jinnah… the only politician hailed in the history of the subcontinent as the Best Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity
Ayesha Jalal’s Sole Spokesman is a great book… but better than this book is H M Seervai’s “Partition of India Legend and reality… H M Seervai, a parsi, was one of the greatest Indian jurists ever and is well respected as India’s greatest constitutional lawyer. He has conclusively proved that it was Gandhi’s manipulation that left Jinnah no choice but to opt for partition. An earlier book “Jinnah and Gandhi: Their role in India’s quest for freedom” by S K Majumdar, a Bengali Indian Barrister… argues similarly.
You are right when you say that you should not instill in your children a blind admiration and idolisation… very good… but that is exactly what you are NOT doing. Your objection so far to Jinnah is that he doesn’t warm up your heart (presumably because Jinnah was quintessentially a victorian barrister and parliamentarian unconcerned with “warming hearts” and making people fall in “love” with him) …
Unlike Gandhi who announced every good deed he did and used it to market himself as the “Mahatma”… Jinnah did most things out of a sense of duty. How many people know that he left most of his wealth to leading educational institutions of India and Pakistan.. including the renowned “Bombay University” … how many people know that there is still a trust fund in Bombay called “Jinnah Memorial Trust” which helps poor students from all communities and backgrounds to get an education? There were countless things that Jinnah did which he could have used to market himself… but he didn’t. Even the people he saved (and in Karachi, he saved as many if not more Hindus as anyone in India vis a vis Muslims) …
No one is asking you to fall in love with Jinnah … far from it… Jinnah’s greatness is not dependent on people falling in love with him because of gimmickery… what is great about Jinnah is his honesty, integrity, sense of fair play and justice… and above all his sense of duty… all habits and ideas that he imbibed from the British legal tradition which defined him essentially and where he is honored on the hallowed hall of British legal history…
However… what is required is you live up to your own words and stated objective : Not to admire people or idolize them because of emotional reasons … but to analyse them impartially and without pre-conceived notions and/or goody lets sing kumbaye unrealism.
On another note… a great documentary by Christopher Mitchell’s “Mr Jinnah and the Making of Pakistan” (not to be confused with Jinnah the movie which is almost as ridiculous as Gandhi the movie) does a great job explaining Jinnah’s life … and I am sure you’ll find an emotional angle or two.
-YLH
Based on the discussion on this post, I cannot but help concluding: Mohammad Ali Jinnah was the last Congressman in Pakistan !
If I am not mistaken, no other major leader in post- Jinnah Pakistan was deeply rooted in the Indian National Congress.