Pindi Boy
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2015
- Messages
- 1,685
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
It is a claim often repeated by Indians and desi liberals to an extent that most people eventually start believing it as a harsh truth without doing some research on the matter themselves.
I have been researching on the matter and so far I have not found any evidence to the claim, even typing the specific key words on Google don't bring anything that can be taken seriously aside from the same old claims of desi liberals or Indians on their own private blogs, I did not find any specific example of him eating pork or drinking alcohol nor is it reported by any neutral historians.
Anyhow I learned that there is only one reason for this belief and there is only one thing on which basis it is said and it is a book called 'Roses in December' written by a man named Mahommedali Currim Chagla and in his book he narrates a small incident which goes as follows:
As we were drinking our coffee and enjoying our sausages, in came an old, bearded Muslim with a young boy of about ten years of age, probably his grandson. They came and sat down near Jinnah. It was obvious that they were directed from Town Hall... I then saw the boy's hand reaching out slowly but irresistibly towards the plate of pork sausages. After some hesitation, he picked up one, put it in his mouth, munched it and seem to enjoy it tremendously. I watched this uneasily... After sometime they left and Jinnah turned to me, and said angrily: "Chagla you should be ashamed of yourself." I said: "What did I do?" Jinnah asked: "How dare you allow the young boy to eat pork sausages?" I said: "Look, Jinnah, I had to use all my mental faculties to come to a quick decision. The question was: should I let Jinnah lose his election or should I let the boy go to eternal damnation? I chose in your favour".
Now before we comment on the story first let us look at the background of the narrator. Chagla was at first friend of Jinnah who idolized Jinnah alot and even held membership in the Muslim League, but severed all ties to Jinnah after he began to work for the cause of a separate Muslim state. He, along with others, then eventually moved on to form a Muslim Nationalist Party in Bombay which was to work against Muslim league however the party was a failure and was largely ignored during the partition.
So the narrator cannot be taken much seriously as he is well known to be a friend turned foe, unless there is more evidence and documentation to his claim.
Also the story itself creates more questions then it answers, if Jinnah was a pork eater why would he get angry on Chagla for letting a Muslim boy tasting it? In that case pork was just another form of meat for him then why would he be so worried if a boy tasted it and that too without knowing what it was? And why was Chagla giving that justification in his defence? It is clear that Jinnah was arguing him on religious basis. But why would he do that if he himself ate pork? If Jinnah was himself so irreligious why was he scolding his friend for letting a boy tasting pork and that too on religious basis? This make no sense!
If this is so how can we believe that he was a pork eater? Regardless of the fact that the narrator of the story is unreliable the story itself is confusing and contradictory and makes no sense and hence can not be given much weight by any neutral and unbiased thinker.
Instead it proves that although Jinnah was not entirely religious he was a fundamentalist who couldn't tolerate anyone eating pork even out of mistake.
Either this story is fake, written very foolishly and carelessly or it is a fabricated version of the original story or maybe he just said it in figurative sense that they were having 'coffee and sausages' but in reality it was only Chagla who was eating sausages while Jinnah was just drinking coffee with his friend and hence when the boy tasted a piece from Chagla's plate Jinnah got angry on him for letting him do that which some people interpret as if Jinnah was eating pork as well.
I have been researching on the matter and so far I have not found any evidence to the claim, even typing the specific key words on Google don't bring anything that can be taken seriously aside from the same old claims of desi liberals or Indians on their own private blogs, I did not find any specific example of him eating pork or drinking alcohol nor is it reported by any neutral historians.
Anyhow I learned that there is only one reason for this belief and there is only one thing on which basis it is said and it is a book called 'Roses in December' written by a man named Mahommedali Currim Chagla and in his book he narrates a small incident which goes as follows:
As we were drinking our coffee and enjoying our sausages, in came an old, bearded Muslim with a young boy of about ten years of age, probably his grandson. They came and sat down near Jinnah. It was obvious that they were directed from Town Hall... I then saw the boy's hand reaching out slowly but irresistibly towards the plate of pork sausages. After some hesitation, he picked up one, put it in his mouth, munched it and seem to enjoy it tremendously. I watched this uneasily... After sometime they left and Jinnah turned to me, and said angrily: "Chagla you should be ashamed of yourself." I said: "What did I do?" Jinnah asked: "How dare you allow the young boy to eat pork sausages?" I said: "Look, Jinnah, I had to use all my mental faculties to come to a quick decision. The question was: should I let Jinnah lose his election or should I let the boy go to eternal damnation? I chose in your favour".
Now before we comment on the story first let us look at the background of the narrator. Chagla was at first friend of Jinnah who idolized Jinnah alot and even held membership in the Muslim League, but severed all ties to Jinnah after he began to work for the cause of a separate Muslim state. He, along with others, then eventually moved on to form a Muslim Nationalist Party in Bombay which was to work against Muslim league however the party was a failure and was largely ignored during the partition.
So the narrator cannot be taken much seriously as he is well known to be a friend turned foe, unless there is more evidence and documentation to his claim.
Also the story itself creates more questions then it answers, if Jinnah was a pork eater why would he get angry on Chagla for letting a Muslim boy tasting it? In that case pork was just another form of meat for him then why would he be so worried if a boy tasted it and that too without knowing what it was? And why was Chagla giving that justification in his defence? It is clear that Jinnah was arguing him on religious basis. But why would he do that if he himself ate pork? If Jinnah was himself so irreligious why was he scolding his friend for letting a boy tasting pork and that too on religious basis? This make no sense!
If this is so how can we believe that he was a pork eater? Regardless of the fact that the narrator of the story is unreliable the story itself is confusing and contradictory and makes no sense and hence can not be given much weight by any neutral and unbiased thinker.
Instead it proves that although Jinnah was not entirely religious he was a fundamentalist who couldn't tolerate anyone eating pork even out of mistake.
Either this story is fake, written very foolishly and carelessly or it is a fabricated version of the original story or maybe he just said it in figurative sense that they were having 'coffee and sausages' but in reality it was only Chagla who was eating sausages while Jinnah was just drinking coffee with his friend and hence when the boy tasted a piece from Chagla's plate Jinnah got angry on him for letting him do that which some people interpret as if Jinnah was eating pork as well.
