Jinnah’s solution for Muslims was a disaster

[Guest guest]

Jinnah's solution for Muslims was a disaster, Nehru and Patel

lacked foresight'

 

Dr Rafiq Zakaria's book The Man Who Divided India:An Insight

into Jinnah's Leadership and its Aftermath (see box) has come

in for sharp criticism in Pakistan. Leading the anti-Zakaria

campaign is Najam Sethi, editor of the Lahore-based weekly

magazine The Friday Times who dubbed Zakaria's

condemnation of Pakistan's creation as a ``dangerous idea''.

Initiating a fresh debate on Jinnah's diabolical Two-Nation

theory, the book has been reviewed by various national and

international publications. BBC has already interviewed Zakaria

while America's channel DIALOG, which airs nationally every

Saturday and also on ATN in Canada, has sought his

appointment. Stung by Pakistani intelligentsia's comments,

Zakaria fiercely defends his book in an interview with

MOHAMMED WAJIHUDDIN:

 

Your book has evoked strong reactions in Pakistan. Did you

expect it?

 

It's not unexpected. But Najam Sethi and his ilk have

misunderstood me. My book is not about Jinnah's foibles, but

about the disaster he brought onto the Muslims of undivided

India. Those who are opposing my book have irrationally put

their blinkers on.

 

Sethi claims you have recycled Stanley Wolpert, the well-known

historian and biographer of Jinnah.

 

Rubbish. I referred to him only thrice. Sethi says I have not

referred to Ayesha Jalal. I referred to a number of authentic

official and non-official sources including Jalal, Jinnah's papers

and comments in Pakistani newspapers like Dawn.

E X C E R P T S

 

``...Sometimes when his detractors questioned him on what

sacrifice he would be ready to make for the Muslims, he scoffed

at them saying he did not believe in aping Gandhi whose

methods of non-cooperation and mass agitation he detested.

He missed no opportunity to pour venom on the Congress and

the Hindus and always kept the British on his side; within the

League he was able to have complete sway. This he did

surprisingly by maintaining a distance from all. He enjoyed being

eulogised; his monumental ego brooked no opposition. He

thrived on his command being unquestionably obeyed. His

vanity was overbearing; he had contempt for all those who

disagreed with him. In the evening of his life, when he was

obsessed with his pet scheme of Pakistan, he had convinced

himself that it was the solution. He refused to listen to any

argument against it. Nor was he deterred by mounting

opposition unleashed by his opponents. The more they

questioned him about the viability of Pakistan the more dogmatic

he became in pursuing it. Jinnah's weapon was not logic but

debating skills in which few could equal him. Also few could

match his organising capacity. He adhered firmly to the

constitutional path; he did not encourage illegal agitations. Only

once when he was utterly frustrated, after the failure of his

negotiations with Viceroy Wavell, did he agree, under pressure

from his colleagues, to declare `Direct Action'; it unfortunately

resulted in more death and destruction of the Muslims. This

reaffirmed his resolve not to ever deviate from the constitutional

path. He genuinely regretted having come down from the politics

of the ivory tower to that of the marketplace. There are, indeed,

few instances in history where a leader had been able to achieve

so much by doing so little, except through play of words. He once

remarked that he got Pakistan by using just the services of his

secretary and typewriter...''

 

But what is your main complaint against Jinnah?

 

My main complaint is that the solution Jinnah chose for the

Muslims of the sub-continent was disastrous. First, he created a

religious frenzy by saying Islam was in danger. That despite the

fact that he had no love for that religion. He ate pork, drank liquor,

neither did he offer namaz nor did he go for Haj. Yet he claimed

to be a saviour of Islam.

 

Secondly, by misguiding Muslims that they would be eternally

under Hindu domination in India, he sowed a seed of hatred

which we are reaping till today. He took away the educated,

affluent Muslim middle class, leaving poor Muslims in the lurch.

In united India, in five out of eleven provinces, Muslims had their

own governments. By dividing the sub-continent into India,

Pakistan and Bangladesh, Jinnah reduced the once

forward-looking community into hewers of wood and drawers of

water.

 

No one ever claimed that Jinnah was a practising Muslim. Aren't

you flogging a dead subject?

 

If they think so, why is he still called Quaid-e-Azam(Great Leader)

in Pakistan? Theologian and founder of Jamaat-I-Islami

Maualana Maududi once said: ``One cannot discover even a hint

of Islam in the ideas, ideals and the political style of Jinnah...

>From the most trivial to the most crucial problems, he shows no

knowledge of the Quranic point of view nor does he care or

consider it necessary to seek it. All his knowledge comes from

western laws and sources.'' Many prominent Muslims who

participated in the struggle for Pakistan including Chaudhury

Khaliquzzaman, who moved the resolution for Pakistan,

Suharwardy and Fazlul Haq, deplored their decision.

 

You have held Nehru and Patel responsible for the Partition as

well. Don't you think that not heeding Jinnah's demand would

have pushed India into civil war?

 

Nehru and Patel lacked the determination and foresight of

Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln would have rather faced a civil war

than budged from his resolve to keep America together. During

Partition and its aftermath we lost more lives than we would

probably have in a civil war.

 

Many shared Jinnah's view and continue to believe that Hindus

and Muslims, being different nations, couldn't live together.

 

This is a lie. For thousands of years Hindus and Muslims have

lived together. They may be following different religions, but they

have a lot in common in terms of culture, custom, tradition and

language. In my book, I referred to the great Muslim leader of the

19th century, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, who often described Hindus

and Muslims as the two beautiful eyes on the face of India. If one

was hurt, he said, the other was bound to be affected.