The prominent BJP leader Jaswant Singh recently published a book on the founding father of Pakistan, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, in which he praised Jinnah, and largely criticized Nehru and the Congress party for causing the Partition of the Indian subcontinent in 1947. The book, which has not been released outside of India yet, is called Jinnah: India, Partition, Independence (interesting that Singh puts “India” rather than “Pakistan” in the title).
Praising Jinnah is heresy for BJP leaders, so this week, Jaswant Singh, who has been with the party for many years and served in several Cabinet posts under Vajpayee, was formally expelled from the party.
Update: There is a long interview (PDF) with Jaswant Singh and Karan Thapar from CNN-IBN, with a transcript up at The Hindu. I would highly recommended it, if you have the time. (Thanks Al Beruni)
Below are some excerpts from an article in Dawn [with quotes from the CNN-IBN interview] indicating the general outlines of Jaswant Singh’s perspective on Jinnah. Though Congress does come off badly in his account, which seems logical for a BJP leader, Jaswant Singh appears sincere in his desire to correct what he sees as a distortion in the popular perception of Jinnah in India. Surprisingly, he also seemingly bears no animus towards the idea of a two nations theory, or Jinnah’s use of religious loyalty for political ends:
It was historically not tenable to see Mr Jinnah as the villain of 1947, Mr Singh said. ‘It is not borne out of the facts… we need to correct it… Muslims saw that unless they had a voice in their own economic, political and social destiny they will be obliterated.’
Mr Singh said the 1946 election was a good example to show the fear held by Muslims. That year, he said: ‘Jinnah’s Muslim League wins all the Muslim seats and yet they don’t have sufficient numbers to be in office because the Congress Party has, without even a single Muslim, enough to form a government and they are outside of the government.
‘So it was realised that simply contesting elections was not enough… All of this was a search for some kind of autonomy of decision making in their own social and economy destiny.’[…]
‘He single-handedly stood against the might of the Congress Party and against the British who didn’t really like him … Gandhi himself called Jinnah a great Indian. Why don’t we recognise that? Why don’t we see (and try to understand) why he called him that?’
Mr Jinnah was as much a nationalist as any leader in India. ‘He fought the British for an independent India but also fought resolutely and relentlessly for the interest of the Muslims of India … the acme of his nationalistic achievement was the 1916 Lucknow Pact of Hindu-Muslim unity.’
Among the aspects of Mr Jinnah’s personality Mr Singh said he admired his determination and will to rise. ‘He was a self-made man. Mahatma Gandhi was the son of a Diwan. All these (people) — Nehru and others — were born to wealth and position. Jinnah created for himself a position. He carved in Bombay, a metropolitan city, a position for himself. ‘He was so poor he had to walk to work … he told one of his biographers there was always room at the top but there’s no lift. And he never sought a lift.’ (link)
(Again, a longer interview can be found here)
I am at present agnostic on the claims Jaswant Singh is making. I don’t hold any particular animus against Jinnah — and I certainly understand where he was coming from — but I also question many of his (Jinnah’s) choices in the lead-up to Partition. (One bad choice that is often mentioned by critics of Jinnah is Direct Action Day, in 1946, which led to widespread communal rioting.) If people have specific historical accounts of Jinnah they would recommend (with links, if possible), which might either support or contradict Jaswant Singh’s take, it would be helpful to see them. I am also curious to hear from readers how this fits into their understanding of Jaswant Singh: what is he up to? What are the likely implications of this book and the controversy that’s followed it? In short: what is all this about?
A nice read on the controversy generated by Jaswant Singh’s book, with some competing historians’ interpretations of Jinnah’s role in the 1930s and 40s, is Soutik Biswas at the BBC. Biswas does address some of the “what is this all about?” questions.
We also had some discussions of Jinnah in the inaugural post from my short series on Ramachandra Guha’s book, “India After Gandhi.” Guha has a more critical take on Jinnah, though he distributes the blame for Partition amongst the three main players, including the Congress Party, Jinnah and the Muslim League, and the British.
For another take (more sympathetic to Jinnah than Guha), readers might be interested in reading some or all of Ayesh Jalal’s influential first book on Jinnah, “The Sole Spokesman.” The book is online for free at Google Books: here.
My concern is that this is just a knee jerk reaction by BJP – very likely they didnt even read the entire book before deciding on the fate of a very senior leader. This just speaks of the immaturity of the party that many thought was the next big hope for India.
Somewhere i get the feeling that the next elections are going to be a cakewalk for the Congress, with the BJP so intent on killing itself.
re-assessment of jinnah in india is long overdue – please also keep in mind that jinnah was an indian for all but the last two years of his life! And, yes, its fair to say that the INC has an vested interest in deflecting Jawaharlal Nehru’s role in the “partition”.
Transcript of Karan Thapar’s interview with Jaswant Singh
By the way, there is more to the expulsion than the book itself. In fact the book probably provided the final–and very good–excuse, for getting rid of a senior member who was becoming somewhat dissident (asking for clarification regarding “hindutva,” subtly questioning BJP’s tactics that alienated muslims etc.). He had made some powerful enemies in the party over the past two years or so….
Jaswant Singh symbolizes the worst examples of the shameful abandonment of principles of the Vajpayee administration, because of the role he played in the IA 814 Hijacking. But this is still wrong.
The BJP is shooting itself in the foot. The BJP used to accept differing views internally, but had some core ideals. Now it has abandoned its core ideals and is relying upon gimmicks. This is hypocritical because of all people Advani is the head of the party right now, and I doubt that any BJP supporters have forgotten Advani’s comments on Jinnah.
Al Beruni, thanks that interview is great — wish I’d seen it earlier! In fact, it looks like the quotes from Dawn were lifted directly from the interview.
Is it? I would imagine the INC would be more offended by praise for Jinnah than the BJP would. Hindutva can be regarded as a reaction of the two-nation theory in a way. Methinks the expulsion has more to do with electability than anything else. This would be like writing an American politician writing a book entitled “Ahmadinejad: He’s a Pretty Cool Guy I Guess” and expecting the rest of his party to still sit with him at the lunch table.
By the way Amardeep, Jaswant Singh would have no quarrel with that. His point is that Nehru’s tactics turned Jinnah into an instigator. From the interview with Karan Thapar that Al beruni links to :
I don’t follow Indian politics closely enough to have much insight here; all I can say is that my family had lived in Lahore for centuries, and some were killed when they were expelled coincident with Partition–so, Jinnah is viewed as very misguided by my family.
Congratulations.
Final comment, also after reading the excellent interview with Thapar: J.S. admits that he is contradicting himself. One one hand he says that a de-centralized India like jinnah wanted with reservations for Muslims would have kept India intact, but on the other hand he is against communal reservations in politics since he fears that such policies more often than not lead to fragmentation. So in effect if Jinnah had got what he wanted it would probably have been a matter of time–if you take this argument–before India would have in all probability broken up, or at least collapsed into civil war. In fact other cases like Yugoslavia, and Lebanon (which has sectarian reservations and intermittent civil wars) support this argument.
It sounds like a smart book. I’ve only read the Karan Johal interview so far — strongly recommended. It is heartening that a man with such a smart, subtle understanding of Muslims in India occupied such a prominent role in the BJP. They are clearly not all just bunch of Modis.
Some quotes to think about (and cross reference with Chaudhry Rehmat Ali’s famous essay Now or Never:: Are we to live or to perish forever?
Q:Was Jinnah secular or was he communal? A: It depends on the way you view the word ‘secular,’ because I don’t know whether secular is really fully applicable to a country like India. It’s a word borne of the socio-historical and religious history of Western Europe.
A: Here is the central contest between minorityism and majoritarianism. With the loss of the Mughal empire, the Muslims of India had lost power but majoritarianism didn’t begin to influence them until 1947. Then they saw that unless they had a voice in their own political, economical and social destiny, they would be obliterated. That’s the beginning. That’s still the purpose.
Q:Both Jinnah and Besant have been borne out? A: In the sense that mass movement, unless combined with a great sense of discipline, leadership and restraint, becomes chaotic.
A: Yes, indeed why? I cannot yet find the answer. Look into the eyes of the Muslims who live in India and if you truly see through the pain they live  to which land do they belong? We treat them as aliens, somewhere inside, because we continue to ask even after Partition you still want something? These are citizens of India  it was Jinnah’s failure because he never advised the Muslims who stayed back.
A: Indeed, because I think what has happened is that we try and treat this whole thing as if it’s an extension of the image of the U.P. Muslim. Of course the U.P. [Muslim] is… Pakistan is a step-child of U.P., in a sense.
Whoops! Karan Thapar, not Karan Johar. That would be a very different sort of interview!
Thanks Ikram. Yeah I find those parts especially revealing (reminds me of some of the things that my grandmother, who was born muslim, but was a socialist, used to tell me).
Also these other answers to give some context to the last one Ikram quotes:
Q: But you’re the first person from the BJP I have ever heard say, “look into the eyes of Indian Muslims and see the pain.†No one has ever spoken in such sensitive terms about them before. A: I’m born in a district, that is my home — we adjoin Sind, it was not part of British India. We have lived with Muslims and Islam for centuries. They are part…. In fact in Jaisalmer, I don’t mind telling you, Muslims don’t eat cow and the Rajputs don’t eat pig. Q: So your understanding of Indian Muslims and their predicament is uniquely personal and you would say A: …Indeed, because I think what has happened is that we try and treat this whole thing as if it’s an extension of the image of the U.P. Muslim. Of course the U.P. [Muslim] is… Pakistan is a step-child of U.P., in a sense.
Hell, not even Modi is one of the “Modis.” The “Modi” is a caricature assembled from all the worst aspects of grassroots activists congealed into the Platonic form of the Hindutva villain.
From what I’ve read here and at Pak Tea House, Singh’s book seems very sensible. It is high time for a reassessment of Jinnah in India. Nehru and Jinnah were both good and decent men but also politicians who sometimes made mistakes. Jinnah used Pakistan as a bargining chip and Congress called his bluff, leaving him with a moth-eaten Pakistan. Then Jinnah died and Pakistan’s subseqent leaders moved away from his secular vision and allowed the national discourse to get hijacked by the religious right. That’s Pakistan’s tragedy.
It took great courage for Jaswant Singh to write what he did, considering that he is part of the BJP. It’s shameful that they’ve kicked him out for daring to dissent.
Jinnah was secular in his religion but rather strident when it came to advocating for Muslims. So his secularism should be put in the proper context. As Mirza Ghalib said ‘I have none of the hallmarks of a Muslim; why is is that every humiliation that the Muslims suffer pains and grieves me so much’.
Paagal wrote: Jinnah was secular in his religion but rather strident when it came to advocating for Muslims
Read the JS interview. He says: JS: Jinnah is fulsomely receiving Gandhi and Gandhi says I’m glad that I’m being received by a Muslim leader. Q: So [Gandhi] was only seeing Jinnah in Muslim terms? JS:Yes, which Jinnah didn’t want to be seen [as].
So — reading into JS here — Jinnah, in 1915, wants to be an Indian leader, and Gandhi calls him a Muslim, leader, ghettoizing the pork-eating, whiskey-drinking politician to Mullah-ville.
I noticed the JS was soft-pedellingn his nagative comments on Gandhi. A BJP leader can make Nehru a villain, but not Gandhi. Not yet.
Kabir wrote: It’s shameful that the [bjp] kicked him out for daring to dissent.
The BJP is a political party, not a reading club. I’m sure BJP leaders arenT’ that upset in private, but they have to pretend to be outraged, for political purposes. The same sort of stuff happens in Pakistan all the time.
Why would they make Gandhi a villain?
YogaFire Why would they make Gandhi a villain?
Gandhi was a Congress party leader, like Nehru. Congress is their main electoral rival. But maybe Nehru is special to the BJP. They seem to love Sardar Patel, even though he is another Congress leader. More about ideology than party?
YogaFire also wrote: Hell, not even Modi is one of the “Modis.” The “Modi” is a caricature assembled from all the worst aspects of grassroots activists congealed into the Platonic form of the Hindutva villain
I’d love to think so, but now this: Narendra Modi-led Gujarat Government on Wednesday banned sale of the expelled Bharatiya Janata Party leader Jaswant Singh book … The Gujarat government blamed Jaswant’s book for denigrating the image of Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel … .
The only interview I’ve read of Modi is this, in the Atlantic. He sounds like a man who personally dislikes Indian Muslims. It may not be true — I’d love to read a better interview, if you’ve got something.
Within the Indian academia, especially BJP supporters, or rather Congress haters among the educated elite, there has been a strong sense that Jinnah would have been a much better choice as India’s first Prime Minister (much like Sardar Patel) than was Nehru. Jinnah had declared himself an atheist early on. He grew up in a liberal Gujarati Khoja muslim household. He was also instrumental in keeping the Muslim League’s demands under control for a long time. But Jinnah (like Sardar Patel) got a raw deal from the Congress, my feeling is, not because he was Muslim, but because Congress was pretty much run by Nehru-Gandhi friendship. Rich dude Nehru, who was antagonistic and British-bred, and probably much less aware of Indian sentiments and realities than was the self-made middle-class intellectual Jinnah, supported (financially and politically) Gandhi’s mass-protests. Gandhi in turn was dedicated to making Nehru the first Prime Minister, much against the wishes of many within the Congress itself. But the Nehru-Gandhi clan was too powerful and had too much mass support from the people of India for anyone to speak up against. Jinnah’s ego got hurt when he realized that he is not going to be in a position of power equivalent to his capabilities (and I believe this had little to do with his sympathies and sentiments for his fellow Muslim brethren, whom he had never identified with to begin with), he decided to support the Muslim League’s aspirations for an independent homeland. He, of course, knew that by doing so, he would be the most powerful man in the new country. With his ego bruised and health failing him (he had a terminal condition that he hid from everyone other than his sister, a staunch Muslim and supporter of the Muslim League as well as Jinnah’s nurse in his final days) Jinnah decided he is going to see how far he can take his game. The partition talk was also a ploy he played so that the Congress would take him more seriously, and understand he could do serious damage. He was probably more shocked than relieved when Nehru and Gandhi seemed to start relenting to the two-nation theory (rather than having opened up negotiation room towards the parliament of India as he had hoped) At the end, like Jaswant Singh claims, Jinnah died a failed man: one who failed his beliefs (as an atheist and a political liberal), and failed his actions (given the current state of the country he became founding father of). So, I guess, the Partition of India was a game of squabbling Congressmen gone too far…who had the final laugh? The British of course!
@ 20: in my previous comment, I meant to say Nehru was agnostic, not antagonistic…
17, #19: Ikram, you sound annoyingly sensible. Can’t you adopt some extreme ideological position to fit in ?
Most Indian pols were Congress people at one point or another, but pre-Emergency Congress is very different from post-Emergency. Indira Gandhi turned it from a large and oftentimes misguided (on economic policy and poverty alleviation especially) but nevertheless nationalistic party into a patronage machine with herself at the center. Either way it doesn’t make much sense to draw equivalence between the INC of today with the Congress of yesteryear even though I will admit this is done frequently by Congress-wallahs and their discontents alike.
I read that issue a while ago, but other stuff from Kaplan that I’ve read suggests to me that he didn’t exactly go in with an open mind and other things I have read by him suggest he is someone with a knee-jerk aversion to the Indian Right in general.
Unfortunately I don’t understand Hindi so most of the other statements of his I had to receive second-hand from friends and colleagues who do. There was one very good English interview in some paper I read a year or so ago, but I can’t seem to find it anymore. Basically he strikes me as someone with a very single-minded focus on modernization, state-building, and economic development with little patience for issues that distract from it. Insofar as “cultural” issues are concerned I suspect he is just extremely good at manipulating them to build the kind of loyalty that will push his state-building agenda. He may or may not like Muslims or Islam personally, but from that interview I read I get the feeling that his moral compass is pretty deontological (i.e. rigid, un-nuanced, rule oriented) so I doubt he would act on it overtly.
I get the feeling it’s not so much that he dislikes Muslims so much as he doesn’t particularly care about their concerns so long as he can realize his ambitions for Gujarat. That can be problematic, but my personal opinion has always been that with poverty and bad governance being as endemic as it is in India we could benefit greatly from putting everything else on a back-burner until we fix those. In fact, fixing those will generally help the communal, class, and caste cleavages take care of themselves.
Anyone would have made a better leader than Nehru, who was unqualified for any position of power. Gandhi’s biggest mistake was anointing Nehru the leader.
@ 25: As I mentioned in my earlier post, Gandhi and Nehru’s personal friendship gave a lot of color to the Congress decisions. Once Gandhi solidified his position among the masses, it was difficult to oppose his opinions/decisions within the Congress party. It was not his mistake, but in his personal interest, to appoint his biggest supporter, Nehru, who never found anything Gandhi did controversial, as the first leader of Independent India.
Ikram wrote
1.
Gandhi was more than just any politician. He was the father of a nation. And he never contested elections, or showed any inclination towards gaining formal political power. In a sense, he was an ideologue, and he publicly demanded the dissolution of the Congress post independence. That the BJP has never criticised him openly is in a way a manifestation of the Indian tradition of respecting the father. Even if you don’t agree with him, you don’t go around dissing him in public. People may point out that Godse was associated with the RSS, but then the link with RSS (which he left in 1932 ) is itself tenuous, never mind his link to present day BJP.
2.
The Congress of today is Congress (I), Indira Gandhi’s party (formed after the INC split in 1969). Patel belonged to an earlier generation of nationalists of the Indian National Congress. Of course the nationalists from the grand old party are ideologically closer to the nationalist parties of the present time than, say MMS or Sonia Gandhi.
3.
Possibly you could begin by reading a few more interviews before forming an opinion, including news reports like this or this
About the Jinnah business- well, no sympathy for a man who never faced jail for a day during the independence struggle, was a deracinated Anglophile, allegedly a British puppet and sowed the seeds of a divisive hatred that has turned into a jungle that blocks the path of development for the entire subcontinent. As he said, he had a pistol and he used it.
All those who are dissing Nehru here must not forget that Nehru spent a big chunk of what could have been his most productive years, in prison. Yes, he was born into wealth but that’s not his fault. And prison life ain’t luxurious.
The Congress until well after independence always had a “conservative” faction within it which can be categorized “pro-Hindu.” (This does not necessarily mean anti-Muslim.) Figures like Sardar Patel, Rajendra Prasad and Purushottam Lal Tandon are good representatives. It must not be forgotten that when the Somnath Temple was rebuilt after Independence, Sardar Patel was prominently associated with it. It’s not surprising to see the BJP admire Sardar Patel.
Jaswant Singh attributes Nehru’s unwillingness to accept Jinnah’s representation demands for Muslims (within a unified India) to his Socialist leanings which lead him to favour a centralised rather than a federal state. Surely, there’s more to it than that. One significant issue was that if one conceded what Jinnah wanted – which essentially was some sort of a veto right for the Muslim community – then you have to concede the same right to other communities too. Otherwise, it would be “unjust.” On the other hand, if all communities have veto rights, then how on earth are you going to make everyone feel that they are part of a common state? See Pratap Bhanu Mehta’s remarks in the Delhi Roundtable on Secularism on youtube. (Pratap Mehta starts talking at roughly 3:10)
“His principal disagreement was with the Congress party.” Jinnah divided India between Muslims like him and everyone else (Hindu, Sikh, Muslims who did not believe in two nations, Jains, etc…) because he disagreed with Congress. That sounds like utter selfishness that god knows how many South Asians ended up paying for with their lives during partition and ever since.
“Oh yes, because he created something out of nothing, and single-handedly he stood up against the might of the Congress party and against the British who didn’t really like him.” The British thought he provided a great opportunity for them to remain in South Asia “[Turkey] had lost her leadership of Islam and Islam might now look to leadership to the Muslims of Russia. This would be a most dangerous attraction. There was therefore much to be said for the introduction of a new Muslim power supported by the science of Britain … It seemed to some of us very necessary to place Islam between Russian communism and Hindustan. – Sir Francis Tucker, General Officer-Commanding of the British Indian Eastern Command.” They liked him well enough for with him the partition of India was possible, which meant a strategic victory for them against Communist Russia.
“I think we misunderstood because we needed to create a demon.” You don’t need a demon. Without Jinnah how likely would have an Islamic country Pakistan been? Far less likely.
“And those assurances amounted to reservation, which I dispute frankly. Reservations went from 25 per cent to 33 per cent. And then from reservation that became parity, of being on equal terms. Parity to Partition.” “He had ideas about certain provinces which must be Islamic and one-third of the seats in the Central legislature must be Muslims.” I also don’t think there should be reservations for religions. A secular democracy should neither favor nor discriminate against any religion, majority or minority. That is the only space people of all religions should expect. The fact that Jinnah wanted special privileges for Muslims is anything but secular. It also means to me Jinnah was not a secular person. He may have been a lax Muslim but he was not secular by asking for more for Muslims than anyone else was to get, and then making sure that the land was partitioned in order to get it. “…Muslim fear of Congress majoritarianism…” There were many Muslims who did not share the two nation theory and even went campaigning against it. The Muslim League did not represent all Muslim Indians.
“He in fact went to the extent of saying that let there be a Pakistan within India.” There should be one law for all people in a secular democracy where no religion is promoted or discriminated against, majority or minority.
“He was not a Hindu-hater but he had great animosity with the Congress party and Congress leadership. He said so repeatedly: I have no enmity against the Hindu.” By promoting his particular religious group for reservations to be treated not as equals with Indians of all religions but special, he does not have to hate Hindus to make a situation where Hindus are separate and unequal to Muslims.
“He was non-sectarian. Gandhi used religion as a personal expression. Jinnah used religion as a tool to create something but that came later. For Gandhi religion was an integral part of his politics from the very beginning.” Gandhi used his religion to unite Indians of all religions. Jinnah used his religion to divide Indians between Muslims who think like him and everyone else. Jinnah was sectarian in the worst way.
“And Jinnah wanted religion out of politics. Out of politics. That is right — there are innumerable examples.” You can’t have religion out of politics and at the same time push for Muslim reservations and Muslim “space.”
“Look into the eyes of the Muslims who live in India and if you truly see through the pain they live — to which land do they belong?…Muslims have paid a price on both sides.” Despite the dwindling non-Muslim populations in Pakistan and Bangladesh, you could ask the same question for them as they live their lives in an Islamic state where they cannot ever be PM because they are not Muslim. Indians of all religions have paid the price on both sides.
Ikram@17, Gandhi might have called Jinnah a Muslim leader because he joined the Muslim league, and became an advocate of Muslim interests.
As I understand, Jinnah was never a mass leader, except that the Muslim league looked up to him for his influence in the power circles. He’s a constitutionalist and a brilliant lawyer. He’s probably more like Ambedkar than Nehru.
Some news from the Hindustan Times which shows that the expulsion decision may be more complex. Excerpts: “But Singh had it coming, say BJP insiders. If it was only praise of Jinnah, Singh could have expected a more calibrated response against him. What could not be digested by senior BJP leaders and cadres was Singh’s decision to fault Sardar Patel, along with Jawarharlal Nehru for causing Partition.”
Regarding Narendra Modi government’s ban of Jaswant Singh’s book: “Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi ordered a ban on the book after he was told that the Opposition Congress was planning a massive agitation on the issue.”
A little bit about the Muslim League and its relationship with Britain by Maulana Azad:
“”The Muslim League was established in 1906 in Dacca after the session of the Muslim Educational Conference during Christmas. It owed its origin to the efforts of Nawab Mushtaq Husain. I was present at the session and remember the two reasons advanced for the establishment of the League. It was said that one of the objects of the League would be to strengthen and develop a feeling of loyalty to the British Government among the Muslims of India. The second object was to advance the claims of the Muslims against Hindus and other communities in respect of service under the crown and thus safeguard Muslim interests and rights. The leaders of the League were therefore naturally opposed to the demand for political independence raised by the Congress. They felt that if the Muslims joined in any such demand the British would not support their claims for special treatment in education and service. In fact they described the Congress as a disloyal organisation of rebels and regarded even moderate political leaders like Gokhale or Sir Ferozeshah Mehta as extremists. During this phase the British Government always used the Muslim League as a counter to the demands of the Congress…
“The Muslim League entered into the second phase of its activities when it found that the Government was compelled to introduce some reforms as a result of Congress pressure. It was somewhat disturbed when it saw the Congress achieving its object step by step. The League still remained aloof from the political struggle but as soon as any advance was made, it put in a claim on behalf of the Muslim community. This programme of the Muslim League suited the Government well. In fact there are reasons to think that the League was acting according to the wishes of the British. During the Morley-Minto Reforms as well as the Montford scheme of provincial autonomy, this was the attitude adopted by the League.
Then came the third phase in the League’s programme during World War II. Congress had gained immensely in prestige and strength. It was now clear that the British Government would have to recognise Indian freedom. Mr. Jinnah had now become the leader of the Muslim League and felt that he must take advantage of every difference between the Congress and the Government. Whenever there were discussions between the Congress and the Government for the transfer of power, Mr Jinnah would in the beginning remain silent. If the negotiations failed he issued a milk and water statement condemning both parties and saying that since there was no settlement there was no need for the Muslim League to express any opinion on the British offer. This is what he did during the August offer in 1940 and the Cripps proposals of 1942. The Simla Conference presented him with a new situation that he had never faced before.” …
“Now that the political issue between India and Britain seemed on the point of solution, the Conference broke down over the question of communal representation in the new Executive Council.
… Congress had taken a national stand on this question while the Muslim League demanded that the Congress should give up its national character and function as a communal organization. Mr Jinnah took the strange stand that the Congress could nominate only Hindu members of the Executive Council. I asked the Conference what right Mr Jinnah or the Muslim League to dictate whom the Congress should nominate.” [pp. 118-119]…” http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/writings/other/azad/india_wins.htm
The current arrangement looks better than all the “if only” possibilities raised by Jaswant.
Interesting interview. I don’t know how big of a deal this is in itself since he hasn’t been hugely influential within the party recently, but given the post-election hand wringing and self-examination, the general message this sends about their intended future direction isn’t very comforting.
It is however, encouraging, that they read 600 whole pages. Shabash
BJP are being silly, history can’t be one sided..if those are Singh’s conclusions, there must be a good reason for it
Jinnah might have been a self-made man, but he definitely wasn’t a pauper. He was the son of a prosperous Gujarati merchant (Wikipedia says so). Probably not that different in status and background from Gandhi, the son of a Diwan.
It’s of course easy to second-guess in hindsight, but arguing for a centralized Indian state given that it would be democratic as well, was hardly an illogical choice given the challenges independent India faced in 1947-48. Not including the integration of the erstwhile princely states, the diverse India that the british had kept together through force/dealing was thought by many back then, impossible to hold together along with democratic, representative government.
But it held together, and the 50s were a heady time. Nehru’s not without his flaws, as is Jinnah, but give credit where it’s due.
nehru wasn’t able to hold india together. the chinese and pakistanis both carved out a piece for themselves, and even after the world shows india’s altered borders, both countries claim many more regions (rest of Kashmir, arunachal pradesh etc)…no, cannot give nehru credit for holding india together
I believe Advani also offered compliments to Jinnah, so if it is heresy it has only recently been deemed so. The VHP wing of the BJP is often pro-“two state” in that they begrudgingly accept that Pakistan is here to stay and would very much like to be their Hindu analogue. That Mr. Singh was booted may be a sign that the “secular right” faction of the party is taking over or the party leadership has made a pragmatic decision to go that way after their recent electoral losses
Amardeep,
The summary needs an update.
Remarks against Patel, not Jinnah, led to Jaswant’s expulsion: BJP</b>
Unfortunately, the indian press is incapable of reporting without editorializing, so this is the closest to a direct quote that I could get.. BJP on Wednesday said Jaswant Singh was expelled not for his views on Pakistan founder but for his “uncharitable” comments against Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel.
Here is an clear opinion piece on what could be the hidden reason http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_it-s-a-signal-to-raje_1283836
There are reasons to criticize the BJP’s actions and the methods in this matter, but the Jinnah angle — saying that Jaswant was expelled because of remarks against Jinnah — is just editorializing passing off as reporting press by an incompetent Indian press.
Some thoughts:
1.By referring to Jinnah as ‘poor’, Jaswant has shown that his research may not have been all that perfect.I am actually surprised Karan Thapar did not question JS on that.
2.The role of the Bombay-based businessmen – Parsis like JRD, Ardeshir Shroff and Gujaratis like Lalbhai and Birla – needs be to be looked at when trying to understand the pulls and pressures on Gandhi and others.It is incorrect to say that Nehru’s riches financed Gandhi’s civil movements.It was primarily the Gujju businessmen in Bombay who bankrolled the expenses related to Gandhi’s struggles.My theory is that none of these businessmen felt comfortable enough with Jinnah.Nehru was more suited to their world view, especially on how the post-independence economy needs to be run.Even though Nehru did not accept the Bombay Plan formally, the five-year plans owe as much to the Bombay Plan as to the Soviet Union.
3.The other aspect (I have not yet read the book – I take my time unlike the BJP head honchos who seem to have read it in less than 48 hrs) that I wish Karan Thapar asked JS about relates to Jinnah’s problems with the rich and influential Parsi community of Bombay.Jinnah, who married an impressionable Parsi lady 24 years his junior, much against the wishes of her parents (Dinshaw Petit, who was a businessman selling stuff to the Brits whilst being a ‘Nationalist’), and then proceeded to neglect the girl’s needs due to his political work- was not to be trusted with running the country ?
4.So, I don’t think Jinnah ever had any chance of convincing Gandhi and his businessmen backers.Nehru fit the bill perfectly – like Jinnah, he was close with the Brit establishment; Nehru also had friends in the Soviet Union, and British Labour.He understood business and can be trusted to take decisions that would allow protectionsim for domestic industry.The Parsis, and the Gujjus were on his side.
5.In spite of all these advantages, the provincial congress chiefs still did not favor Nehru as their PM candidate in 1946.Out of 16 PCCs (Pradesh Congress Committees), 15 backed Patel as PM and one backed J.B.Kripalani (another Gujju-Sindhi politician).Gandhi first forced the CWC (Congress Working Committee – the high command) to announce Nehru’s name (a fine example of how Gandhi and Nehru actually practiced democratic ideals !), and then forced Kripalani to withdraw in support of Nehru.Patel was also convinced by Gandhi to withdraw, leaving the field open for Nehru.Gandhi-Nehru’s disdain for democratic processes was evident even earlier in both Jinnah’s case and Subhas Bose’s.Being a clever man, Jinnah would have known that this coterie would never allow him to reach his goal of becoming the PM of free India.I think Jinnah wouldn’t have minded being second in command for Gandhi, but to accept a much junior Nehru (politically as well as a professionally as a lawyer) would have galled him to no end. In fact, Jinnah seems to have given up hope and relocated to London almost permanently, when he was called back by the Muslim League in 1936.
6.It is also possible that Jinnah saw himself as the metaphor for Indian Muslims (what is good for me is good for muslims), and the wily INC-Bania nexus as the villain.
7.I agree with JS that all of them – Jinnah, Gandhi, and Nehru can be seen as failures in terms of their larger visions.Nehru may have failed the country in one aspect, but he did manage (with Patel’s help) to lay the foundation for a stable Indian democracy, albeit much federal than he ever wishes for (and much centralised than the Indian right ever wanted).
Coming to the political fallout of Jaswant’s book, I have seen many lazy opinion pieces in Indian newspapers since yesterday.And I agree with DizzyDesi that Amardeep could have been more accurate in giving his headline.
Jaswant’s remarks on Patel is being cited as the official reason for his booting.But it is such a lame excuse, even if one accepts that Patel = Gujarati pride and that BJP can’t afford to slight its core constituency.
Jaswant has always tried to portray himself as the ‘liberal’ in BJP.Without Vajpayee’s charisma, I doubt the RSS coterie in BJP would have allowed Jaswant any position in the Govt or the Party. (I suspect Jaswant sees a lot of Jinnah in himself – some times it happens with biographers.)
And now that Vijaya Raje needs to be taught a lesson, Jaswant was available as a soft target to deliver the message.Most of what’s happening seems to be the handiwork of Rajnath Singh and his RSS-nominated coterie.They still see BJP being in power in some major States, and they don’t want to share the power with any one who has not been with RSS.
Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie, and now Jaswant Singh.Three capable and honest people in BJP are now on the sidelines.
That leaves the ‘Iron Man’ LKA, who has been reduced to an impotent titular head.
If NaMo and a few other mass leaders wish, this is the time to split the BJP and fashion a genuinely right of center political movement in India – one that is devoted to transparency, federalism, democracy and inclusiveness.But I don’t think Congress is sitting idle. They have already announced an agitation in Gujarat against Jaswant’s book – forcing NaMo’s hand, and making him look part of the problem and not the solution.
haven’t read jaswant singh’s book, but this statement is not incorrect, and unfortunately, the indian veneration of pious myths means that the immensely tortured history of 1920-1950 is hardly examined in detail. that said, jinnah was wrong on the big picture, specifically the paradox of a liberal religious state.
of course, jaswant’s comments about jinnah (and i don’t know i he makes the equation with the bjp’s own view of india and hindutva) strike at a foundational and institutional view of the bjp, and it seems to be moving in a predictable direction, much like the republican party’s narrowing of its miniscule tent in the us.
also, modi has banned jaswant’s book in gujarat.
Kumar,
a fine example of how Gandhi and Nehru actually practiced democratic ideals !
See Akeel Bilgrami’s comments on Gandhi’s attitude towards representative democracy in the Youtube clip that I mentioned in comment #28. (See approx 6:30-8:10 in the clip.)
You mean like Great Britain, Sweden, Greece, Finland, Norway, Iceland, Denmark, and parts of Switzerland?
Also, la-la land.
Rahul
Read the last paragraph of Kumars post for context (just above your post)
Also: Congress supports Guj govt’s ban on Jaswant’s book http://www.zeenews.com/news556918.html
“According to the (Congress –DD) spokesperson, Congress suspected praising Jinnah was “a pre-planned design” of BJP to defame Patel. “
Modi could have taken the position to not ban the book on liberal principles. But as disheartening as it may be, such a decision would have been against the multiparty consensus in Gujarat and highly unpopular.
Personally, I want to see what happens in Simla and what direction the party takes. I hope LKA retires. Fresh blood is needed.
Rahul, that was NOT Jinnah’s vision of the role of Islam in Pakistan, to the extent that one existed, to the best of my knowledge. He, publicly, anyway, stated on some occasions that Muslims were a social and cultural group. I would say he was wrong on the big picture too, but the bigger problem was that all of the nationalist leaders – Jinnah – Nehru – even Gandhi – made choices that resulted in Partition. Where Jinnah maybe can be given more responsibility is in his failure to deal with the necessity of a popular Pakistani movement – especially after Pakistan was born. Those first few years were crucial, and statements like ‘Urdu is the language of Muslims’ or along those lines by him and Liaqat Ali Khan were extremely counterproductive.
But the counter to that are the ideas that Pakistan at independence is a) how unsettled the question of what ‘Pakistan’ meant was and b) its economic and geopolitical weakness (e.g. India inherited 90% of the industry- which has economic political and social consequences- and, I think, held the debt that Britain owed to Pakistan). There’s a short essay version of Ayesha Jalal’s argument in South Asia and World Capitalism, ed. Sugata Bose.
Just FYI, partial text of the Lahore Resolution (1940) that helped lay the groundwork for Pakistan(s) (possible plural). You can find this on the wiki page for Lahore Resolution.
This is a demonstration of exactly how unsettled South Asian Muslim nationalism was on its ideas at the moment of independence, which combined with the other factors that made Pakistan difficult to navigate, helps to explain some of the reasons why it eventually became an Islamic and military-bureaucratic state.
I too have got to agree with DizzyDesi at #40 that Amardeep’s summary requires a further update. I am also willing to meet DizzyDesi halfway on this:
“Halfway” because the Jinnah angle isn’t entirely irrelevant; there are individuals, who are party to Jaswant Singh’s expulsion, whose decision would have been tempered not so much by the political effect the expulsion would have, but by their heartfelt ideological dislike for any humanizing (?) accounts of Jinnah. That Jaswant Singh has a few critical observations on Sardar Patel — who is a sort of a political colossus to the BJP — must not have helped either.
Critical and calmly analytical assessments of Sardar Patel are a true rarity. The only other assessment — by someone of substance — that I can remember is Maulana Azad’s ring-side account, “India Wins Freedom” of the days leading up to the Partition. (However, Azad was so grieved by the Partition that one could debate whether “India Wins Freedom” is a consistently analytical book.) It appears that Jaswant Singh must have read “India Wins Freedom” quite carefully. To Azad, his perspective on Patel and Nehru was potentially so explosive that he deemed that certain key excerpts of the book remain under wraps for the next 30 years. Here is some of what he had to say about Patel that was redacted from the first edition:
This is taken from page 197 of the Orient Longman edition of “India Wins Freedom”. From my (admittedly superficial) reading of a part of Jaswant Singh’s book, I am quite sure that he must have read the above words.