Views on Jinnah Debate

Wajid Ali Khan Panni

Muhammad Ali Jinnah has the image of demon in Indian political folklore. There are thousands of demons in Indian Mythology and the partition of the country in 1947 had added one more into the list. There are three national heroes as well-Gandhi, Nehru and Patel. Hence any attack or criticisms on these Pan- Indian heroes were treated as highly objectionable and to some extent insult to the whole country. Even though India always hails the rhetoric of resilience and tolerance, certain great idols were always remain untouched and above criticism. Unfortunately, Jaswant Singh has taken the path to unveil certain facts which will ultimately lead to de-glorifying great idols and personalities in contemporary Indian history. This is evident from the mass reaction to the book, though majority of Indians cannot read the book which is written in English.

I have not seen the book. But from newspaper reports and the large number of comments spreading through internet since the expulsion of Jaswant Singh from BJP, I could gather certain information about the book. I think the most objectionable part which forced BJP to expel the senior leader and Narendra Modi to ban the book in his state, is his perspective on partition and the role of the great idols and Jinnah in shaping the destiny of our subcontinent. Jaswant used historical facts to substantiate the role of Nehru and Gandhi in rejecting the Cabinet Mission Plan which envisaged a loose federation inclusive of the two contenting nations. That could have avoided the bloodshed and partition of the country. He further blames Nehru and Patel for the partition as against the popular perception of an ambitious Jinnah and communal Muslim League.

Those who protest against Jaswant’s views have their right to dissent. But, they should also respect his freedom of expression. This is especially important in a country which preaches democracy in spirit and practice. Jaswant is not the first writer who raised this issue. Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad, another pioneering hero of the freedom struggle also wrote about his painful experience with Nehru and Patel during the period of Cabinet Mission discussion. His book ‘India Wins Freedom’ reveals the whole episode of betrayal and lack of consensus among Congress leaders. Even Maulana was sidelined by Nehru and Patel through out the discussion. So I don’t understand why there is witch hunting for Jaswant alone? There is a long list of historians including mainstream intellectuals in India who share similar views about partition and birth of Pakistan. However there are quite a number of historians who expressed their view that it was an ‘avoidable’ historical mistake; not a necessity of circumstances.
The arguments- against this idea of united India with a loose federal structure- put forth by Nehru and Patel pointed to the subsequent balkanization of India. Needless to say, it sounds an equally valid point. Hence, this argument became the most predominant view on partition in post-independent India. But in closer analysis, this argument contradicts with India’s centuries old tradition of ‘unity in diversity’ and the rhetoric of tolerance and freedom to dissent. Why should the country with a history of more than five thousand years, afraid of powerful provinces? Why do the nation which survived various external conquests and invasions care about the threat within the boundaries? We are taught that Indian freedom movement was a pan-Indian upsurge which cut across religious linguistic and cultural boundaries in its struggle towards freedom. If so, they should be able to sustain the unity even after independence as there are common issues to be addressed. Hence, the ‘fear of Balkanization’ forces us to think that the Congress and its leaders were not absolutely sure about the success of unity rhetoric if provinces were given more power than the center. Moreover, the leaders were afraid of the popularity of certain powerful provincial leaders who had mass appeal, though not western educated and sophisticated.

However, amidst the criticisms one should admit the fact that Indian democracy survived at least in form and content when other post-colonial nation states failed to do so. The delivery of democracy, its substantive elements, the actual role of masses in power sharing etc are debatable issues. But, India, unlike other South Asian countries, was able to sustain procedural democracy without flowing into authoritarianism, though there was a brief and failed attempt of Mrs. Gandhi in 70’s.

According to popular view, the credit goes to the great leaders and their amazing skill and statesmanship. There is no doubt about their skill and leadership capability. But, I think, there is another equally important but almost forgotten reason behind this success-It is India’s unique constitution which is still novel in several aspects. There are too many checks and balances in the constitution which prevent any single power center or pillar to become omnipotent. Unlike other Asian neighbors, role of Army and Army Chief in official hierarchy is considerably low. Apart from that there is an excellent system of distribution of powers between center and state envisaged in the constitution. Above all, Indian Constitution always highlights independence and impartiality of judiciary which indeed made the system survive on several crisis situations. This stability and success of parliamentary democracy in India have immensely contributed to the economic success of the country as well. Regime changes have not affected the basic structure of the political system and the institutions like the judicial systems remained untouched. I think Bangladesh should learn from this experience. Amidst turmoil, internal crisis and political differences etc, we should not compromise on certain fundamental principles enshrined in constitution.

For this constitution, Indians should thank a forgotten and often sidelined real ‘hero’ who played vital role in drafting the constitution-Dr. B.R.Ambedkar. A downtrodden by birth, he knew the internal contradictions of Indian society and its evidently undemocratic feudal structure. Hence, he fought in the Constituent assembly for fundamental rights, directive principles and other humanitarian clauses to make an egalitarian system based on the ideals of justice, democracy and liberty. His analysis was so forceful that nobody in the constituent assembly was able to counter his arguments. I strongly feel that Indians are still reluctant to respect Ambedkar at par with other national heroes. It may be partly because of the reason that he collaborated with British. But his attitudes towards Congress and freedom movement changed only after he realized that the large majority of India’s untouchables will not have a place in free India unless and until there voice were heard separately. So he initiated the movements of the so called Harijans. Now Ambedkar is popularly regarded as the undisputed leader of untouchables; not as the leader of the whole country. A book titled ‘Worshiping False Gods’ was written by Arun Shourie, another senior BJP leader, years ago which condemns Ambedkar and his role. But the book was not banned even in Ambedkar’s home state Maharashtra. Though BJP and RSS always speak for Hindu unity and Hindu interests, why did they welcome Arun Shouri’s book? Ambedkar was also a national leader with equal statesmanship. Above all he was not even a Muslim like Jinnah. If Patel was responsible for the unification of independent India, Ambedkar drafted the constitution. Why the party and intellectuals follow paradoxical approaches?

While going back to Partition, I think, there are three reasons- the exclusivist attitude and shortsightedness of Congress, Jinnah’s ambition and British policy of divide and rule. All these three reasons are held equally responsible for the partition of the country. Putting the Blame only on one factor essentially means distortion of history. Demonizing one or worshiping the other will only lead to further cleavages and conflicts. Nevertheless, although, so many lives had to be given, there emerged three sovereign countries, India Pakistan and Bangladesh.