The movie Jinnah, your opinions?

[saiyan0321]

Will pencil it in. Just need to go out and do these things - watching movies, eating out, travelling - a little more.

Well if you are travelling then hop across the wagah border.

 

[TMA]

No. It was never Muslim vs Hindus for Jinnah. If Jinnah was a fundamentalist like you claim why did you think he defended Tilak in the sedition case? Tilak represented the right wing group of Congress. Do you know Jinnah said “it is my ambition to become a Muslim Gokhale”. Gokhale was guru of Gandhi and represented the liberal group of congress and was a rival of Tilak in Congress.



Yes But Jinnah moved towards Muslim/Right wing politics only after Gandhi took over the leadership of Congress in 1920. Until then he was never for Muslim rights.

But for the Vedantists, it was Muslims vs Vedantist.

I never claimed he was fundamentalist or extremist.
He spent time in the Congress working for unity, however he saw with his OWN eyes, what would become of Muslims, it was his experience working with Vedantist politicians that led him to becoming disillusioned with Congress.

 

[shootingstar]

But for the Vedantists, it was Muslims vs Vedantist.

I never claimed he was fundamentalist or extremist.
He spent time in the Congress working for unity, however he saw with his OWN eyes, what would become of Muslims, it was his experience working with Vedantist politicians that led him to becoming disillusioned with Congress.

Both Jinnah and Nehru were politicians with their own ambitions. Since religion was a emotive issue than secularism, Jinnah won over Nehru.

 

[Kambojaric]

Yes But Jinnah moved towards Muslim/Right wing politics only after Gandhi took over the leadership of Congress in 1920. Until then he was never for Muslim rights.

Yeah that is why he was the President of the Muslim League in 1916! Jinnah was concerned about Muslim rights from the beginning. Initially he was convinced that these rights would be best preserved within the wider Indian independence struggle led by Congress. The increasingly Hindu leaning tilt of the Congress despite the official avowance of secularism convinced him otherwise. Make of this what you will but to call him power hungry is ridiculous given that he had one foot in the grave already when the Pakistan movement took shape. The man genuinely believed in his cause lest he would have compromised and enjoyed the power and prestige Congress were wiling to offer him in this world.

 

[MultaniGuy]

Yeah that is why he was the President of the Muslim League in 1916! Jinnah was concerned about Muslim rights from the beginning. Initially he was convinced that these rights would be best preserved within the wider Indian independence struggle led by Congress. The increasingly Hindu leaning tilt of the Congress despite the official avowance of secularism convinced him otherwise. Make of this what you will but to call him power hungry is ridiculous given that he had one foot in the grave already when the Pakistan movement took shape. The man genuinely believed in his cause lest he would have compromised and enjoyed the power and prestige Congress were wiling to offer him in this world.

Ofcourse Jinnah was a genuine person. The Congress party leaders were being dishonest towards the Muslim community.

Thus partition was inevitable.

 

[Kambojaric]

Ofcourse Jinnah was a genuine person. The Congress party leaders were being dishonest towards the Muslim community.

Thus partition was inevitable.

The mainstream Indian narrative always demonises Jinnah as an unreasonable character when in fact he made numerous overtures to try and resolve the problem amicably. Case in point being the option of staying within an Indian federation but with internal autonomy, in a way that the US allows its states. It is Nehru and the senior Congress leadership that refused Jinnah's overtures, probably convinced that the presence of leaders like Bacha Khan and Abdullah gave them enough credibility amogst the Muslims.

 

[Jackdaws]

I had seen the movie a while back - sometime in the early 2000s - coincidentally, with a Pakistani friend. The guy playing the younger Jinnah was even more impressive than Christopher Lee in my opinion. In the end, it tends to flounder going into a territory where no historical bio-pic should - with Gandhi and Nehru sitting on computers, Shashi Kapoor playing an angel who loses his file and if I remember correctly - some weird courtroom scene. But it is a decent attempt.

The mainstream Indian narrative always demonises Jinnah as an unreasonable character when in fact he made numerous overtures to try and resolve the problem amicably. Case in point being the option of staying within an Indian federation but with internal autonomy, in a way that the US allows its states. It is Nehru and the senior Congress leadership that refused Jinnah's overtures, probably convinced that the presence of leaders like Bacha Khan and Abdullah gave them enough credibility amogst the Muslims.

To call Nehru a senior leader is a fallacy. @Joe Shearer - can probably shed more light.

Reality is that Nehru was handpicked by Gandhi for his youth and provide a sense of continuity in leadership. Nehru era of India started only after Patel's demise. Nehru was an entire generation younger and even among the younger generation, he was not half as popular as Bose who would have won any election hands down.

But yes, Jinnah did agree to keep India together under a loose federation under the Cabinet Mission Plan. If I remember right, Congress accepted certain provisions of the Plan and rejected the others.

 

[Kambojaric]

To call Nehru a senior leader is a fallacy. @Joe Shearer - can probably shed more light.

Reality is that Nehru was handpicked by Gandhi for his youth and provide a sense of continuity in leadership. Nehru era of India started only after Patel's demise. Nehru was an entire generation younger and even among the younger generation, he was not half as popular as Bose who would have won any election hands down.

But yes, Jinnah did agree to keep India together under a loose federation under the Cabinet Mission Plan. If I remember right, Congress accepted certain provisions of the Plan and rejected the others.

Senior leadership of a party implies people at the very top of the party hierarchy, which Nehru despite his young age undoubtedly was. It was perhaps this young age that made his so over-confident. As Stephen P Cohen writes "Nehru expected Pakistan to collapse within months". Well that didnt happen.

 

[Jackdaws]

Senior leadership of a party implies people at the very top of the party hierarchy, which Nehru despite his young age undoubtedly was. It was perhaps this young age that made his so over-confident. As Stephen P Cohen writes "Nehru expected Pakistan to collapse within months". Well that didnt happen.

Yes, he was at the top but he was often over-ruled. The "Police Action" against Hyderabad State took place when Nehru was not in the country and was ordered by Patel. Maneckshaw's account states that Nehru was reluctant to send troops to Kashmir even after its accession and apparently Patel gave the orders even as Nehru was wondering how the world would react. I am not anti-Nehru - I think he did a lot of good in building institutions and holding election after election in India when he could have clung onto power. He was an idealist. But I doubt he had the kind of clout that people think he did when Patel was around.

I was wondering if I could find the interview of Maneckshaw - here it is -

"As usual Nehru talked about the United Nations, Russia, Africa, God almighty, everybody, until Sardar Patel lost his temper. He said, 'Jawaharlal, do you want Kashmir, or do you want to give it away'. He (Nehru) said,' Of course, I want Kashmir (emphasis in original). Then he (Patel) said 'Please give your orders'. And before he could say anything Sardar Patel turned to me and said, 'You have got your orders'.

I walked out, and we started flying in troops at about 11 o'clock or 12 o'clock."

Full interview -

http://www.rediff.com/freedom/0710jha.htm

 

[Kambojaric]

Yes, he was at the top but he was often over-ruled. The "Police Action" against Hyderabad State took place when Nehru was not in the country and was ordered by Patel. Maneckshaw's account states that Nehru was reluctant to send troops to Kashmir even after its accession and apparently Patel gave the orders even as Nehru was wondering how the world would react. I am not anti-Nehru - I think he did a lot of good in building institutions and holding election after election in India when he could have clung onto power. He was an idealist. But I doubt he had the kind of clout that people think he did when Patel was around.

I agree, which is why I wrote "Nehru and the senior Congress leadership". Patel similarly did not think Pakistan would last. As for the positives, sure Nehru has many, the biggest one being the establishment of a tradition of democracy and regular elections. It is only after 70 odd years that this culture is being established in Pakistan (although there are many underlying factors that aided the establishment of democracy in India and not in Pakistan, the most notable one being that the Punjab which formed the bulk of the Pakistani populace was modelled on a feudal structure with the urban middle class negligible in size. India meanwhile inherited the bureaucracy and civilian structures including the financial, cultural and administrative hubs of Mumbai, Delhi and Kolkata). Still it was under Nehru's guidance that the tradition of democracy was established and credit should be given where due. Jinnah unfortunately did not live long enough to establish the same tradition, and those civilian politicians who emerged in Pakistan after him barring Liaqut Ali Khan and Fatima Jinnah were an embarrassment.

 

[Jackdaws]

I agree, which is why I wrote "Nehru and the senior Congress leadership". Patel similarly did not think Pakistan would last. As for the positives, sure Nehru has many, the biggest one being the establishment of a tradition of democracy and regular elections. It is only after 70 odd years that this culture is being established in Pakistan (although there are many underlying factors that aided the establishment of democracy in India and not in Pakistan, the most notable one being that the Punjab which formed the bulk of the Pakistani populace was modelled on a feudal structure with the urban middle class negligible in size. India meanwhile inherited the bureaucracy and civilian structures including the financial, cultural and administrative hubs of Mumbai, Delhi and Kolkata). Still it was under Nehru's guidance that the tradition of democracy was established and credit should be given where due. Jinnah unfortunately did not live long enough to establish the same tradition, and those civilian politicians who emerged in Pakistan after him barring Liaqut Ali Khan and Fatima Jinnah were an embarrassment.

Wasn't Fatima Jinnah around till the 1960s? And how is Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan seen in Pakistan?

 

[Kambojaric]

Wasn't Fatima Jinnah around till the 1960s? And how is Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan seen in Pakistan?

Indeed she was. A popular theory states that she won the election in 65 but rigging resulted in Ayub Khan being declared the winner. She therefore never got the chance to rule.
Bacha Khan is a divisive figure. He remodelled his political theory post 47, becoming a proponent of Pashtun rights within Pakistan, rather than becoming a secessionist. This allowed his political successors to operate without being found as traitors and they have even won elections in KPK in 2008 for example. In 2013 they were trounced however by Imran Khan's PTI.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I had seen the movie a while back - sometime in the early 2000s - coincidentally, with a Pakistani friend. The guy playing the younger Jinnah was even more impressive than Christopher Lee in my opinion. In the end, it tends to flounder going into a territory where no historical bio-pic should - with Gandhi and Nehru sitting on computers, Shashi Kapoor playing an angel who loses his file and if I remember correctly - some weird courtroom scene. But it is a decent attempt.



To call Nehru a senior leader is a fallacy. @Joe Shearer - can probably shed more light.

I'd like to stay neutral on this. Nehru was younger, sure, but Patel wasn't fighting hard for leadership. He was realistic, and knew that with his indifferent health, he might or might not be able to take the strain for a prolonged period. He gave in to Gandhi's wishes with complete calm acceptance, with tremendous maturity, but his acceptance of Nehru as Prime Minister did not stop him - never stopped him - from giving Nehru a tremendous scold from time to time, in public. For instance, in the meeting that Manekshaw, then a very young officer who had accompanied Menon to Kashmir, when the question of what to do was put to them, Nehru started rambling on and on about international relations and the march of history. Patel interrupted with an impatient,"Do you want Kashmir or not, Jawaharlal?" He got a mumbled assent. Patel turned to Manekshaw and said, crisply,"You now have your orders." And Manekshaw marched out, and being in the DMO's staff, moved the waiting troops to the planes and out to Srinagar.

There were other anecdotes, too.

Reality is that Nehru was handpicked by Gandhi for his youth and provide a sense of continuity in leadership. Nehru era of India started only after Patel's demise. Nehru was an entire generation younger and even among the younger generation, he was not half as popular as Bose who would have won any election hands down.

Fair evaluation.

But yes, Jinnah did agree to keep India together under a loose federation under the Cabinet Mission Plan. If I remember right, Congress accepted certain provisions of the Plan and rejected the others.

Yes, that's right.

Jinnah believed that it was the whole plan, no chaffering, or nothing. Nehru announced at a press conference on 10th July 1946 that delegates to the constituent assembly would vote according to their conscience. For Jinnah, that was the last straw. He informed the government that the League stood for Pakistan, uncompromising and without further discussion, and he launched Direct Action Day.

 

[Jackdaws]

I'd like to stay neutral on this. Nehru was younger, sure, but Patel wasn't fighting hard for leadership. He was realistic, and knew that with his indifferent health, he might or might not be able to take the strain for a prolonged period. He gave in to Gandhi's wishes with complete calm acceptance, with tremendous maturity, but his acceptance of Nehru as Prime Minister did not stop him - never stopped him - from giving Nehru a tremendous scold from time to time, in public. For instance, in the meeting that Manekshaw, then a very young officer who had accompanied Menon to Kashmir, when the question of what to do was put to them, Nehru started rambling on and on about international relations and the march of history. Patel interrupted with an impatient,"Do you want Kashmir or not, Jawaharlal?" He got a mumbled assent. Patel turned to Manekshaw and said, crisply,"You now have your orders." And Manekshaw marched out, and being in the DMO's staff, moved the waiting troops to the planes and out to Srinagar.

There were other anecdotes, too.



Fair evaluation.



Yes, that's right.

Jinnah believed that it was the whole plan, no chaffering, or nothing. Nehru announced at a press conference on 10th July 1946 that delegates to the constituent assembly would vote according to their conscience. For Jinnah, that was the last straw. He informed the government that the League stood for Pakistan, uncompromising and without further discussion, and he launched Direct Action Day.

I've posted the Maneckshaw interview above

 

[Joe Shearer]

But for the Vedantists, it was Muslims vs Vedantist.

I never claimed he was fundamentalist or extremist.
He spent time in the Congress working for unity, however he saw with his OWN eyes, what would become of Muslims, it was his experience working with Vedantist politicians that led him to becoming disillusioned with Congress.

It seems to me that you neither know nor care what is a Vedantist.

I've posted the Maneckshaw interview above

Sorry, didn't notice. Yours is the more authentic, in the sense, closer to the interview and its wordings.