fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
comment: Jinnahs charisma Ijaz Hussain
Hayat is at once critical of both those who credit Jinnah with charisma and those who deny it. He blames the proponents for their failure to systematically define the concept of charisma and charismatic leadership
The creation of Pakistan under Mohammed Ali Jinnahs leadership is nothing short of an enigma, because the great leader neither spoke the language of his followers nor wore their dress nor shared their extroverted and warm-hearted nature. Yet he successfully mobilised them to carve out a separate state.
A number of scholars have explained the mystery in terms of Jinnahs charismatic leadership whereas others have disagreed with it. However, even those who fall in the former category have not provided a convincing explanation. Dr Sikandar Hayat, who taught history at the Quaid-i-Azam University for more than thirty years and is currently Directing Staff at the National Management College, Lahore (better known as the Administrative Staff College), has taken up the challenge of unlocking this riddle in his latest book The Charismatic Leader: Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and the Creation of Pakistan (OUP, pp. xxi, 386, p.595).
In this book, Dr Hayat not only seconds the idea that Jinnahs charismatic leadership was responsible for the creation of Pakistan but does so by applying German sociologist Max Webers concept of charisma.
Dr Hayat begins by establishing a theoretical framework, following which he proceeds to interpret the events that led to the creation of Pakistan. In this exercise, first he reviews the viewpoint of scholars who attribute the Pakistan miracle to Jinnahs charismatic leadership.
One such scholar is Waheed-uz-Zaman, who thinks that Jinnah emerged as a great leader because of the absence of leaders of national standing. He points out that Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar (1874-1931) and Sir Mian Mohammad Shafi (1869-1932), who could challenge him, were dead by the time his charismatic leadership was on full display (1937-47). Sir Fazl-i-Husain was in poor health and the Agha Khan was no longer involved in national politics. In his opinion, while Jinnah had a charismatic personality, Pakistan did not come into being simply because Jinnah willed it but because his followers who had adopted the ideal of an independent Muslim state were not prepared to settle for anything less than a sovereign state. In other words, he rejects the notion that an individual, however charismatic, could have single-handedly created a sovereign state.
Another scholar who believes that Pakistan could not have come into being without Jinnahs charismatic leadership is Sharif-ul-Mujahid. Unlike Waheed-uz-Zaman, he attaches absolute primacy to Jinnahs charisma for the emergence of Pakistan. In his opinion, it was the direct result of Jinnahs bold and enchanting promise to restore political power to the Muslims of South Asia. He rejects the deterministic view, according to which Pakistan was in the womb of time and would have come into existence irrespective of Jinnahs leadership. He concedes that Jinnah was not the originator of separatist tendencies among the Muslims of South Asia but contends that he not only used them but also contributed much of his own to promote the concept and cause of Pakistan through his personal talent, and political and intellectual leadership, and concrete achievements.
Mujahid, like Hayat, regards Jinnahs emergence as a leader in the Weberian sense of the term but fails to elaborate the point.
Another scholar who tries to explain the relationship between Jinnahs political leadership and the creation of Pakistan is RJ Moore, who attributes it to both his charisma and his constitutional strategy. He dismisses the charge of the intellectual distance between Jinnah and Indian Muslims as exaggerated. In his view, there was an extraordinary match of man and movement.
Last but not least is Stanley Wolpert, who wrote the following memorable words in his biography of Jinnah: Few individuals significantly alter the course of history. Fewer still modify the map of the world. Hardly anyone can be credited with creating a nation-state. Mohammed Ali Jinnah did all three. He credits this outstanding feat to the fact that, Quaid-i-Azam Jinnah was one of the recent historys most charismatic leaders.
Having disposed of the scholars who regard Jinnah as a charismatic leader, Hayat turns his attention to the deniers. Of these, he first focuses on Khalid bin Sayeed, who denies Jinnah this status because, according to him, charismatic leaders are individuals, who can conceive a great idea, mould a crowd big enough to carry it into effect and force the crowd to do it, a quality which, in his opinion, the latter utterly lacked. He explains Jinnahs hypnotic hold over the Indian Muslims to the fact that his call for Pakistan was answering one of the deepest urges of the Muslim community, namely the fulfilments of the promise of political power that the Quran offered to Muslims. In his opinion, the Muslims considered it their religious duty to follow Jinnah who, unlike Maulana Abul Kalam Azad or Hussain Ahmad Madni, was prepared to unite the community and bring earthly glory to Islam.
Hayats next focus of attention is Saleem Qureshi, who is of the view that Jinnah lacked the indispensable quality which goes to make a charismatic leader which, according to him, is, the emotional involvement of the leaders with the followers. He argues that Jinnah was too much a man of cool, calculated deliberation, and reasoned logic to show any emotions; and that he had practically, no emotions and he never tried to appear what he was not. He explains the Pakistan miracle to Jinnahs identification with the Muslim cause, his steadfastness and total commitment to Muslim India, which he contends transferred the emotional, charismatic appeal of the cause to the man espousing it.
Hayat is at once critical of both those who credit Jinnah with charisma and those who deny it. He blames the proponents for their failure to systematically define the concept of charisma and charismatic leadership. He accuses Waheed-uz-Zaman and Wolpert of confusing the concept of charisma with popularity; Moore of absolutely failing to explain it; and Mujahid of not quite dwelling on the rise and role of charismatic leaders in general and Jinnah in particular.
Regarding the detractors, he thinks that both Sayeed and Qureshi fail to present an analytical definition of charisma, though, in his opinion, the former makes an attempt but relies on secondary sources which are themselves utterly flawed. Besides, he criticises them for relying on the perspective of charisma and charismatic leadership that Weber gave before WWI (with emphasis on emotions) and ignoring the perspective that he supplied subsequently. He is therefore not surprised that they reject Jinnah as a charismatic leader.
Hayat argues that Webers earlier perspective which emphasised the emotional or the anti-ascetic perspective was based on his unfinished and posthumously published work entitled Theory of Social and Economic Organisation. He points out that Weber presented another perspective on charisma in his later writings, particularly in Politics as a Vocation, whereby he reformulated the concept in terms of an ascetic-rational code which regards any kind of irrational and emotional behaviour of a leader as false charisma.
Simply put, Hayat contends that Weber made rationality and sobriety the Rosetta Stone of a true charismatic leader. He admits that Weber failed to integrate the two perspectives but the worst thing in his view was that the English-speaking world, which had been much impressed with the first perspective, did not pay much heed to the second.
Following the above critique, Hayat builds a theoretical framework in the first chapter on the basis of Webers second perspective. In the next six chapters, he interprets the events of the freedom movement to prove that it was Jinnahs charisma based on the second perspective that made the Pakistan miracle possible. Hayats contribution does not lie in establishing Jinnah as a charismatic leader because others before him had suggested that, but in his demonstration that a leader who was so different and distant from his followers in addition to being devoid of emotions made the creation of Pakistan possible.
The book is based on Hayats doctoral thesis. It is highly readable and well documented. One thing for which Hayat can be faulted is his comparison of Jinnahs charismatic leadership with that of Ataturk, Nkrumah and Lenin in the conclusion, which is not only highly perfunctory but also arbitrary as to the choice of leaders. It looks out of place. However, notwithstanding this minor shortcoming, the book stands out as an original contribution.
The writer is a former dean of social sciences at the Quaid-i-Azam University. He can be reached at hussain_ijaz@hotmail.com
Hayat is at once critical of both those who credit Jinnah with charisma and those who deny it. He blames the proponents for their failure to systematically define the concept of charisma and charismatic leadership
The creation of Pakistan under Mohammed Ali Jinnahs leadership is nothing short of an enigma, because the great leader neither spoke the language of his followers nor wore their dress nor shared their extroverted and warm-hearted nature. Yet he successfully mobilised them to carve out a separate state.
A number of scholars have explained the mystery in terms of Jinnahs charismatic leadership whereas others have disagreed with it. However, even those who fall in the former category have not provided a convincing explanation. Dr Sikandar Hayat, who taught history at the Quaid-i-Azam University for more than thirty years and is currently Directing Staff at the National Management College, Lahore (better known as the Administrative Staff College), has taken up the challenge of unlocking this riddle in his latest book The Charismatic Leader: Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and the Creation of Pakistan (OUP, pp. xxi, 386, p.595).
In this book, Dr Hayat not only seconds the idea that Jinnahs charismatic leadership was responsible for the creation of Pakistan but does so by applying German sociologist Max Webers concept of charisma.
Dr Hayat begins by establishing a theoretical framework, following which he proceeds to interpret the events that led to the creation of Pakistan. In this exercise, first he reviews the viewpoint of scholars who attribute the Pakistan miracle to Jinnahs charismatic leadership.
One such scholar is Waheed-uz-Zaman, who thinks that Jinnah emerged as a great leader because of the absence of leaders of national standing. He points out that Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar (1874-1931) and Sir Mian Mohammad Shafi (1869-1932), who could challenge him, were dead by the time his charismatic leadership was on full display (1937-47). Sir Fazl-i-Husain was in poor health and the Agha Khan was no longer involved in national politics. In his opinion, while Jinnah had a charismatic personality, Pakistan did not come into being simply because Jinnah willed it but because his followers who had adopted the ideal of an independent Muslim state were not prepared to settle for anything less than a sovereign state. In other words, he rejects the notion that an individual, however charismatic, could have single-handedly created a sovereign state.
Another scholar who believes that Pakistan could not have come into being without Jinnahs charismatic leadership is Sharif-ul-Mujahid. Unlike Waheed-uz-Zaman, he attaches absolute primacy to Jinnahs charisma for the emergence of Pakistan. In his opinion, it was the direct result of Jinnahs bold and enchanting promise to restore political power to the Muslims of South Asia. He rejects the deterministic view, according to which Pakistan was in the womb of time and would have come into existence irrespective of Jinnahs leadership. He concedes that Jinnah was not the originator of separatist tendencies among the Muslims of South Asia but contends that he not only used them but also contributed much of his own to promote the concept and cause of Pakistan through his personal talent, and political and intellectual leadership, and concrete achievements.
Mujahid, like Hayat, regards Jinnahs emergence as a leader in the Weberian sense of the term but fails to elaborate the point.
Another scholar who tries to explain the relationship between Jinnahs political leadership and the creation of Pakistan is RJ Moore, who attributes it to both his charisma and his constitutional strategy. He dismisses the charge of the intellectual distance between Jinnah and Indian Muslims as exaggerated. In his view, there was an extraordinary match of man and movement.
Last but not least is Stanley Wolpert, who wrote the following memorable words in his biography of Jinnah: Few individuals significantly alter the course of history. Fewer still modify the map of the world. Hardly anyone can be credited with creating a nation-state. Mohammed Ali Jinnah did all three. He credits this outstanding feat to the fact that, Quaid-i-Azam Jinnah was one of the recent historys most charismatic leaders.
Having disposed of the scholars who regard Jinnah as a charismatic leader, Hayat turns his attention to the deniers. Of these, he first focuses on Khalid bin Sayeed, who denies Jinnah this status because, according to him, charismatic leaders are individuals, who can conceive a great idea, mould a crowd big enough to carry it into effect and force the crowd to do it, a quality which, in his opinion, the latter utterly lacked. He explains Jinnahs hypnotic hold over the Indian Muslims to the fact that his call for Pakistan was answering one of the deepest urges of the Muslim community, namely the fulfilments of the promise of political power that the Quran offered to Muslims. In his opinion, the Muslims considered it their religious duty to follow Jinnah who, unlike Maulana Abul Kalam Azad or Hussain Ahmad Madni, was prepared to unite the community and bring earthly glory to Islam.
Hayats next focus of attention is Saleem Qureshi, who is of the view that Jinnah lacked the indispensable quality which goes to make a charismatic leader which, according to him, is, the emotional involvement of the leaders with the followers. He argues that Jinnah was too much a man of cool, calculated deliberation, and reasoned logic to show any emotions; and that he had practically, no emotions and he never tried to appear what he was not. He explains the Pakistan miracle to Jinnahs identification with the Muslim cause, his steadfastness and total commitment to Muslim India, which he contends transferred the emotional, charismatic appeal of the cause to the man espousing it.
Hayat is at once critical of both those who credit Jinnah with charisma and those who deny it. He blames the proponents for their failure to systematically define the concept of charisma and charismatic leadership. He accuses Waheed-uz-Zaman and Wolpert of confusing the concept of charisma with popularity; Moore of absolutely failing to explain it; and Mujahid of not quite dwelling on the rise and role of charismatic leaders in general and Jinnah in particular.
Regarding the detractors, he thinks that both Sayeed and Qureshi fail to present an analytical definition of charisma, though, in his opinion, the former makes an attempt but relies on secondary sources which are themselves utterly flawed. Besides, he criticises them for relying on the perspective of charisma and charismatic leadership that Weber gave before WWI (with emphasis on emotions) and ignoring the perspective that he supplied subsequently. He is therefore not surprised that they reject Jinnah as a charismatic leader.
Hayat argues that Webers earlier perspective which emphasised the emotional or the anti-ascetic perspective was based on his unfinished and posthumously published work entitled Theory of Social and Economic Organisation. He points out that Weber presented another perspective on charisma in his later writings, particularly in Politics as a Vocation, whereby he reformulated the concept in terms of an ascetic-rational code which regards any kind of irrational and emotional behaviour of a leader as false charisma.
Simply put, Hayat contends that Weber made rationality and sobriety the Rosetta Stone of a true charismatic leader. He admits that Weber failed to integrate the two perspectives but the worst thing in his view was that the English-speaking world, which had been much impressed with the first perspective, did not pay much heed to the second.
Following the above critique, Hayat builds a theoretical framework in the first chapter on the basis of Webers second perspective. In the next six chapters, he interprets the events of the freedom movement to prove that it was Jinnahs charisma based on the second perspective that made the Pakistan miracle possible. Hayats contribution does not lie in establishing Jinnah as a charismatic leader because others before him had suggested that, but in his demonstration that a leader who was so different and distant from his followers in addition to being devoid of emotions made the creation of Pakistan possible.
The book is based on Hayats doctoral thesis. It is highly readable and well documented. One thing for which Hayat can be faulted is his comparison of Jinnahs charismatic leadership with that of Ataturk, Nkrumah and Lenin in the conclusion, which is not only highly perfunctory but also arbitrary as to the choice of leaders. It looks out of place. However, notwithstanding this minor shortcoming, the book stands out as an original contribution.
The writer is a former dean of social sciences at the Quaid-i-Azam University. He can be reached at hussain_ijaz@hotmail.com
