Stanley Wolpert paid tribute to the Quaid in the following words, “Few individuals significantly alter the course of history. Few still modify the map of the world. Hardly anyone could be credited with creating a nation State. Muhammad All Jinnah did all three”. Pakistan overcame insurmountable problems of influx of 1947 refugees, skimpy finances and myriad other problems to emerge as a viable entity. We welcomed refugees, while India was all set to drive out 4.7 million refugees from its eastern state of Assam.
Fanatic Hindus in Indian National Congress thought that Pakistan would, at best, be a still-born baby. But Pakistan was able to survive all hurdles. It proved its viability despite severe politico-economic jolts.
Since the Quaid did not live long enough after the Partition, so a host of controversies have been debated as to whether he was frustrated or delighted at his achievement, PAKISTAN.
Some people even allege that as the Quad had sacrificed the idea of Pakistan at the altar of the Cabinet Mission Plan. He agreed, though conditionally, to a united India. It was Nehru’s obduracy not to accept the Cabinet Mission’s recommendations that culminated in creation of Pakistan (Jaswant Singh, Jaswant Singh. Jinnah: India, Partition, Independence). Some loud mouths may even snarl that it was the inanimate government-of-British-India notification that created the two states, not animus between Jinnah and Nehru.
Pakistan: A blunder
A view is that the Quaid was remorseful at the creation of Pakistan. He considered it a blunder (Jinnah Bashing Back with CAA but What Were His Views on Partition? Mohd Ali Jinnah, till the time of his death, even wanted to return to India after his purpose was solved in Pakistan, The Print December 26, 2019).
The Quaid thought that the Muslim League leaders around him were `base coins’ (khotey sikkey) and the `legal tender’ was in pockets of his adversaries (Shorish Kaashmiri. Boo-e-Gul, Naala-e-dl, dood-e-chiragh-e-mehfil, pp.317, 419-420). Chaudhry Ghulam Abbas corroborated this view. He ` remembered that once Quaid-i-Azam had told that “What is Muslim League? It essentially comprises three of us; me, my sister and typewriter.”
Historian Mubarik Also confirmed this view. `In one of his articles, Dr Mubarak Ali mentioned in passing that Mr. Jinnah used to claim that he had founded Pakistan with the help of his typewriter and stenographer.‘
Lajpat Rai, not Jinnah, propounded two-nation theory
Jinnah was a proponent of Hindu-Muslim amity until his cherished wish was thwarted by the fanatic Hindu. Barring Nehru and Gandhi, all the Hindu leaders were communalistic.
A. G. Noorani has pointed out in his book The RSS: A Menace to India (p. 18):
“He [Lajpat Rai] was the first to propound the two-nation theory and also the first to suggest partition of India, in 1899, he wrote: “Hindus are a nation in themselves, because they represent a civilization of their own.” So, it was Lajpat Rai who first propounded the Two-Nation Theory. He also suggested the partition of India….
Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru were the only two Congress leaders who remained steadfast to the ideals of secularism and Hindu-Muslim unity throughout their lifetime.
Rudrangshu Mukherjee, in his book Nehru & Bose, Parallel Lives, (Page 42) has recorded that shortly after Nehru became the chairman of the Allahabad municipality in 1923, under his guidance the Municipal Board “rejected the suggestion to prohibit cow slaughter.” So, from the very beginning of his political life, Nehru never yielded to the sectarian Hindu demand for banning cow slaughter. …..
Barun Das Gupta, in an article Congress, Hindutva and Indian Nationalism (Mainstream Weekly. August 22, 2020) says `We blame the Muslim League and its leader, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, for unleashing communal violence and for the partition of India. However, there is no denying the fact that at present there is a surge of militant Hindu nationalism which is not only anti-Muslim but also anti-science, anti-history and against the very idea of India being a plural polity with diverse language, culture, costume, food habit, etc’.
He adds, `There is no denying the other fact either that in the pre-independence days, with the exception of Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, most other Congress leaders also cherished a strong Hindu identity and had a strong sympathy for Hinduism (whatever that may mean). Name any prominent Congress leader of those days — Pandit Motilal Nehru, Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya, Pandit Bhulabhai Desai, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Babu Rajendra Prasad, Chakravarti Rajagopalachari, Lala Lajpat Rai, Bal Gangadhar Tilak — and you will find a strong Hindu identity characterizing them all. Both Lala Lajpat Rai and Bal Gangadhar Tilak, two of the three famous Lal-Bal-Pal trio, had a strong Hindu sentiment. Though Lajpat Rai once said that “To require India to coalesce into a nation with one religion and one tongue . . . would revive the medieval idea of one empire, one people, one church”, he joined the Hindu Mahasabha. Babu Rajendra Prasad’s India Divided brings out both his Hindu identity and his anti-Muslim sentiments’.
‘Today, when Hindu communalism is threatening to transform India from a secular, democratic State to a Hindu theocratic State and a weak and enervated Congress is finding it tempting to play “soft Hindutva” politics for immediate electoral gains, the future, indeed, seems gloomy’.
Quaid might have been frustrated at the delay in framing a constitution for Pakistan. He is surely unhappy at the sordid interpretation of religious orientation of Pakistan’s Constitution.
He wanted Pakistan to be an enlightened, welfare-oriented (not elite-dominated) Islamic state but not a theocracy (AK Brohi in his The Fundamental Law of Pakistan distinguishes a `theocracy’ from an `Islamic State’).
He snubbed his fan who called him `maulana Jinnah’ and clarified that he preferred to be called plain Mr. Jinnah. He forbade Khutba in Karachi mosques calling him an emperor. The Quaid had a logical mind and understood the bane of communalism (Lucknow Pact).
He wanted to be `protector general of minorities’. Even after partition, he wanted India and Pakistan to engage in a joint-defence pact. He wished India well while Patel called him `poison’.
Many things in Pakistan would please the Quaid at his birth anniversary, as compared to India. In India, they have named Moghul monuments after Hindu icons. They even want to change the name of Hyderabad. Several states have passed anti-conversation laws in flagrant violations of provisions of Indian constitution.
Under Uttar Pradesh anti conversion (love jihad) law, Hindus are allowed to marry Muslims but not vice versa. The law is being applied by police even retrospectively to jail Muslims who married Hindu women years back. Courts are barred. The so-called love jihad law interferes with personal liberty. It violates Articles 25 to 28, under which an Indian citizen is guaranteed the freedom to practise any religion of his or her choice. It allows Indian State to intervene not only in the citizens’ private relationship with God, but also in the choice of their spouse. The atrocious law disobeys res judicata, Supreme Court’s decisions in Shafin Jahan v Ashok KM (2018), K.S. Puttaswamy v UOI (2017) and Allahabad High Court’s (November 11) Salamat Ansari v Uttar Pradesh (2020).
India’s prime minister named a bio-technology centre after Rashtraya Swayemsevak Sangh ideologue Golwalkar.
Read more: Op-ed: Future of Muslims in India
The Citizenship Amendment Act and national Register of Citizenship are communalist ploys to harass the Muslim.
The Hindutva influence percolated into even Indian courts. Look at Ram Janambhoomi judgment, verdict that `mosques are not necessary for Muslim worship’ and Rajasthan High Court judge Mahesh Chandra Sharma’s 193-page judgment on `cow’.
His judgment, a mélange of scriptures and law, glistens with hijinks like ‘Peacocks Don’t Have Sex’, ‘Cow is a Surgeon’, `a complete pharmacy’, and cow is a ‘National Animal’. As per Article 48 and 51A (g) it is expected from the state government that they should take action to get a legal entity for cow in this country.”
This `erudite’ judgment mocks Article 51A (h) of Indian Constitution: “It shall be the duty of every citizen of India to develop scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform”.
Mr. Amjed Jaaved has been writing free-lance for over five decades. He has served federal and provincial governments of Pakistan for 39 years. His contributions stand published in the leading dailies and magazines at home and abroad (Nepal. Bangladesh, et. al.). He is author of eight e-books including The Myth of Accession. He knows many languages including French and Arabic. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Global Village Space.