DaRk WaVe
RETIRED TTA
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2009
- Messages
- 5,239
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Mohammad Ali Jinnah has had a contested and confused relationship with the country he created. Left to an adoring following in Pakistan and
equally impassioned detractors in India, the clear-headed lawyer who never missed a cue has been reduced to a jumble of contradictions that mostly cancel each other out. Sterile and uncharitable depictions of one of modern South Asias leading politicians might not have withstood the test of history if they did not serve the nationalist self-projections of both India and Pakistan.
The lanky M A Jinnah is etched in the Indian popular consciousness as the villain bent upon wreaking revenge for his repeated political failures by dividing the country and instigating the shedding of innocent blood.
Consequently, Indians have rarely asked how a nationalist ideology committed to the unity of the country came to be so effectively sabotaged by one individual. It remains to be seen how far the uproar over Jaswant Singhs recent book, describing Jinnah as a great Indian nationalist, helps in addressing this issue.
Across the divide in Pakistan, Jinnahs negative standing in the Indian nationalist pantheon has fuelled his positive portrayal as a revered son of Islam, even an esteemed religious leader (maulana), who sacrificed everything to safeguard Muslim interests in India. Some have even suggested that Jinnah, never known for his religiosity, underwent a metamorphosis in his 60s and became a devout Muslim. There is no evidence of the Quaid-e-Azam becoming more religious in the twilight of his life.
A skilled arbitrator respected by his peers at the Bar, Jinnah imagined himself as bridging the communitarian differences which in his opinion were the biggest obstacle to India winning freedom. Like a professional arbitrator, he argued the conflicting brief of his diverse Muslim constituents to the best of his ability. A politician whose sights were set on wresting power from the British at the centre, Jinnah had to contend with the different pulls and pushes of Muslim politics in the provinces.
What kept changing were the requirements of local, provincial and all-India politics under successive constitutional reforms. While seeking to reconcile the divergent interests of his constituents in Muslim-majority and minority provinces, Jinnah knew that an agreement with Congress covering the whole of India would have to be found once the British conceded power at the centre. As the Muslim spokesman, he had hoped to negotiate a constitutional arrangement based on an equitable sharing of power between Congress and the Muslim League, representing Hindus and Muslims respectively. Congresss insistence on the unity of the nation and refusal to share power at British Indias unitary centre paved the way for Partition.
It is often said that Jinnah made history against overwhelming odds. Even great men make history under certain constraints. If there has been a bit too much focus on the history Jinnah made, there is still much to be said about the history that made Jinnah. Eager to score points against his opponents, the suave barrister adapted his methods to new political realities without losing sight of the goals that had animated his public career since its inception.
An anglicized and moderate politician of the liberal ilk, Jinnah would recoil at his battered image in secular and democratic India. But he would find cold comfort in his portrayal as a fervent Muslim in Islamic and militarily authoritarian Pakistan. As a politician who knew the importance of playing to the gallery, Jinnah did make references to Islam that might appear to undermine his vision for a Pakistan based on the highest principles of honour, integrity, fairplay and justice for all. But he did so without accepting the narrow-minded definitions the mullahs and their sympathizers tried to impose on its teachings with regard to women and minorities. Jinnahs Islam was neither reactionary nor bigoted; he hailed the Prophet of Islam, for laying the foundations of democracy. Asserting the compatibility of Islam and democracy did not mean consigning the constitutional future of the country to ideas dating back 1,300 years.
I know of no religion apart from human activity, the Quaid-e-Azam had written to Mahatma Gandhi in January 1940, as it provides a moral basis for all other activities. Jinnahs broad humanistic outlook and vision for the subcontinent has been distorted in Pakistan, if not wholly forgotten, due to the political gamesmanship of authoritarian rulers and self-styled ideologues of Islam. Instead of the supremacy of the rule of law that Jinnah strongly advocated, anarchy prevails in large swathes of Pakistan.
With the Muslim majority itself divided along class, regional, sectarian and ideological lines, the minorities are facing persecution from peddlers of religion. As well as local land mafias exploiting the loopholes in the legal system of a country founded paradoxically enough by one of the subcontinents greatest constitutional lawyers and champions of minority rights.
Jinnah: Pakistan adores its favourite son but ignores his vision - Special Report - Sunday TOI - NEWS - The Times of India
equally impassioned detractors in India, the clear-headed lawyer who never missed a cue has been reduced to a jumble of contradictions that mostly cancel each other out. Sterile and uncharitable depictions of one of modern South Asias leading politicians might not have withstood the test of history if they did not serve the nationalist self-projections of both India and Pakistan.
The lanky M A Jinnah is etched in the Indian popular consciousness as the villain bent upon wreaking revenge for his repeated political failures by dividing the country and instigating the shedding of innocent blood.
Consequently, Indians have rarely asked how a nationalist ideology committed to the unity of the country came to be so effectively sabotaged by one individual. It remains to be seen how far the uproar over Jaswant Singhs recent book, describing Jinnah as a great Indian nationalist, helps in addressing this issue.
Across the divide in Pakistan, Jinnahs negative standing in the Indian nationalist pantheon has fuelled his positive portrayal as a revered son of Islam, even an esteemed religious leader (maulana), who sacrificed everything to safeguard Muslim interests in India. Some have even suggested that Jinnah, never known for his religiosity, underwent a metamorphosis in his 60s and became a devout Muslim. There is no evidence of the Quaid-e-Azam becoming more religious in the twilight of his life.
A skilled arbitrator respected by his peers at the Bar, Jinnah imagined himself as bridging the communitarian differences which in his opinion were the biggest obstacle to India winning freedom. Like a professional arbitrator, he argued the conflicting brief of his diverse Muslim constituents to the best of his ability. A politician whose sights were set on wresting power from the British at the centre, Jinnah had to contend with the different pulls and pushes of Muslim politics in the provinces.
What kept changing were the requirements of local, provincial and all-India politics under successive constitutional reforms. While seeking to reconcile the divergent interests of his constituents in Muslim-majority and minority provinces, Jinnah knew that an agreement with Congress covering the whole of India would have to be found once the British conceded power at the centre. As the Muslim spokesman, he had hoped to negotiate a constitutional arrangement based on an equitable sharing of power between Congress and the Muslim League, representing Hindus and Muslims respectively. Congresss insistence on the unity of the nation and refusal to share power at British Indias unitary centre paved the way for Partition.
It is often said that Jinnah made history against overwhelming odds. Even great men make history under certain constraints. If there has been a bit too much focus on the history Jinnah made, there is still much to be said about the history that made Jinnah. Eager to score points against his opponents, the suave barrister adapted his methods to new political realities without losing sight of the goals that had animated his public career since its inception.
An anglicized and moderate politician of the liberal ilk, Jinnah would recoil at his battered image in secular and democratic India. But he would find cold comfort in his portrayal as a fervent Muslim in Islamic and militarily authoritarian Pakistan. As a politician who knew the importance of playing to the gallery, Jinnah did make references to Islam that might appear to undermine his vision for a Pakistan based on the highest principles of honour, integrity, fairplay and justice for all. But he did so without accepting the narrow-minded definitions the mullahs and their sympathizers tried to impose on its teachings with regard to women and minorities. Jinnahs Islam was neither reactionary nor bigoted; he hailed the Prophet of Islam, for laying the foundations of democracy. Asserting the compatibility of Islam and democracy did not mean consigning the constitutional future of the country to ideas dating back 1,300 years.
I know of no religion apart from human activity, the Quaid-e-Azam had written to Mahatma Gandhi in January 1940, as it provides a moral basis for all other activities. Jinnahs broad humanistic outlook and vision for the subcontinent has been distorted in Pakistan, if not wholly forgotten, due to the political gamesmanship of authoritarian rulers and self-styled ideologues of Islam. Instead of the supremacy of the rule of law that Jinnah strongly advocated, anarchy prevails in large swathes of Pakistan.
With the Muslim majority itself divided along class, regional, sectarian and ideological lines, the minorities are facing persecution from peddlers of religion. As well as local land mafias exploiting the loopholes in the legal system of a country founded paradoxically enough by one of the subcontinents greatest constitutional lawyers and champions of minority rights.
Jinnah: Pakistan adores its favourite son but ignores his vision - Special Report - Sunday TOI - NEWS - The Times of India
