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.
@ PS (245),
Maybe ethnicity is the wrong word. How about nationality? The point is that the Kashmiris don’t identify as Indian or as Pakistani, but as Kashmiri. Abduallah used the word qaum on purpose. A lot of Kashmiris feel that rule from Delhi is just the latest in the foreign powers who have occupied them: The Mughals, the Afghans, the Sikhs, the Dogra dynesty, and now Delhi.
The point is that you can’t force someone to identify with you. You can give them incentives and try to make them feel that they are better off with you, but if they’re not convinced, you may have to consider letting them go. How long can a military occupation last?
239: Does it now make sense why Kashmiris wave Pakistani flags and support Pakistan in cricket matches? They are doing it because this is what will upset India the most.
Do the people in POK do anything similar ? Wave Indian flags or some such to upset Pakistanis ? Have any of them made common cause with Indian security agencies to blow up Pakistani civilians ?
Frankly from an Indian vantage, they seem to mean exactly how it appears – we want to be one with our Pakistani brethren and we will use their help to hurt you any way we can. I agree this may not be the only voice of Kashmir separatism.
First of let’s please not call it “POK”. I have refrained from calling the Valley “occupied Kashmir”, like a lot of Pakistanis do. This is not conducive to discussion. We can either call it Pakistan-Administered Kashmir (like the NYT or BBC do) or Azad Jammu and Kashmir, which is it’s official name.
Now to answer your question, as far as I know, the people of AJK have not started a movement comparable to that in the Valley. This could be either because they want to be part of Pakistan or because Pakistan at least technically supports the Kashmiri right to self-determination. This is why Pakistan has not offically made AJK a province of the country. Instead AJK has it’s own PM and President.
Kabir, Thank you for an honest answer to my question, but I cannot completely agree with you about Kashmiris being a distinct ethnicity. Their ethnicity (and language) is as different from the rest of the Indians (and most Pakistanis) as that of Bengalis and Malayalees. Throughout the centuries, “India” has always referred to a distinct cultural and economic unit. Do you have any evidence to suggest that say, Kashmiris were influenced more by Central Asia than by India, or their economy was more tied to Central Asia than to the Indian subcontinent? My reading of history suggests the opposite. Also, Kashmir itself is as ethnically diverse as India, if you include Ladakh, Gilgit, Aksai Chin, etc. Did Kashmiris suffer under (foreign) Mughal and Afghan rule (mostly based in Delhi)? Sure, but I would bet that most Delhiites considered Mughal rule (at least the earlier Mughals) to be foreign occupation. I agree that indefinite military occupation is not a good or a just status quo, both for the occupier and the occupied. Yet, assume that militancy stops some day in the not too distant future . Military occupation would likewise wind down. (I know, it sounds utopian, but let’s say that happens). Would you be happy with “distinct ethnicity” as a sufficient rationale for Kashmiri independence? As I mentioned before, it is perfectly possible to live a dignified life (both personally and within one’s community) and retain one’s culture under the Indian constitution. Anyway, I don’t think we are going to reach an agreement on an issue that involves as much emotion as logic.
Isn’t nationality itself is an outdated concept? (Started mostly by Europeans and they themselves have given it up and made EU). I believe that Kashmir will do better as an Indian state than falling into the flames of radical Islam like Pak, Afghanistan.. Sentiments apart, India cannot afford to lose Kashmir because of its strategic importance 1. It is a high ground (Anyone even without reading ‘The Art of War’ would know the importance of a high ground) 2. Rivers, there will be water wars in future and India cannot let that territory controlled by others
In India’s interest the way forward would be make Kashmir less Kashmiri by creating conducive environment for people from other parts of India to migrate to Kashmir. The same way China is doing with the Tibet by encouraging the Hun Chinese to migrate to Tibet. I don’t tell it is the best way but it serves the interest of majority. Peace!
Dr. A,
I am not the dictator of proper interpretation. Acharyas and Pandits classically schooled in all these texts are. I am simply relaying to you what I have learned from them. They are in the proper position to offer direct interpretation, not you or I. Am I saying hinduism is somehow unitary–no, there is a great tradition of philosophical debate or vadana in hinduism (Adi Shankara debating Mandana Mishra–Mishra’s wife was the moderator–being the most famous). That said, while there may be numerous opinions on the meaning of life or different commentaries on the Vedas, that doesn’t mean there can’t be an absolutely wrong interpretation–yours here is just such an example.
You continue to raise hackles at how you felt Krishna was speaking as though you were beneath him and that was a turn off. But assemble any one of the quotes of Christ (whom I admire but am just juxtaposing for argument’s sake) and one can feel the same way. Regardless of how academically accomplished you may be, these people/divinities are spiritually superior to us. That is why if you are truly concerned with spiritual enlightenment you must cast aside ahankar. If Buddhist monks can worship at the feet of Sakyamuni, I see no reason for you to run aghast at bowing before Krishna or any other spiritual master/divinity. Your mentorship point is a rhetorical cul de sac
Regarding power–that’s the problem, whether its conflict or political theory you are still obsessed with deconstructing something of which you obviously have limited understanding. That’s the point–first master the material before you start critiquing it and stuffing it into inapplicable frameworks.
Of course there are power differentials in any society at any given time, and naturally they will be reflected or often even justified in religious texts. Remember, the Bible has been used to justify both slavery and freedom and awful and cruel inquisitions (even in India–see the Goan inquisition instituted by the Portuguese). The church actively permitted and encouraged class differentials and used its power to declare the divine right of kings. That does not mean one should not dig deeper into the Bible to find its true message on how to live a good and decent life as Christ and his early followers intended. The same applies with hindu religious texts. This is a moot point.
The Gita discusses spiritual enlightenment, not academic minutia of “hinduism and hindutva in the post-pokhran era”. The latter you can seek on your own, but even the most spiritually aware, such as Swami Vivekananda, recognized the need for their own gurus in order to attain enlightenment themselves.
Actually, your level of understanding became apparent when you professed an unfamiliarity with Maitreyi and Satyakama and declared that the tradition of tapasvinis and yoginis were just hindutva propaganda–a blatant falsehood to even most communist of indologists. Accordingly, just because you might find the proper interpretation of hindu texts to be restrictive does not mean that hinduism forbids you from finding your own way. One can be an atheist, a polytheist, a monotheist and monist and still be a hindu. Remember there were nastika schools that rejected the authority of the Vedas as well.
7.
My remarks about humility were due to the fact that you remain convinced of your own interpretation and qualification to deconstruct hinduism in spite of the fact that you remain bereft of a basic understanding of key vedic philosophical principles. You are free to interpret things as you like, but just recognize that you should have the necessary understanding and training before you start using your interpretations to push a debate point as you did above. Your points about subsumption of brahman by Krishna were again amateurish and emblematic of an elementary lack of understanding–and I say this in the most humble tone as possible. As for gurus and perfection–a true shishya has the humility to not chasten his guru on imperfection, seeing as in many cases his master truly is spiritually enlightened, and by definition then, is perfect since he has attained self-realization. Like I said, if having a guru is not your thing, no problem, but have the humility to recognize that you might need some formal classical training to even have an iota of the proper understanding of these texts.
Actually, it’s emblematic of the same double standards that the PC brigade has employed elsewhere. Without Godhra, there would be no “Gujarat”. In the name of humanity you exhorted the so-called emerging liberal bjp’ers to condemn modi and his alleged involvement in gujarat upthread, yet here you are, unable to even utter a word of sympathy for the innocent hindu women and children who were burnt to death or condemn the communal mob that sparked the riots. I am sorry Dr. A, but you have no leg to stand on now, considering even the most vehement BJP supporters who comment here expressed genuine sympathy for ALL the victims of the Gujarat riots and decried religious violence in ALL forms. On the basis of your own standards, your self-declared and oft-trumpeted moral authority has collapsed. In the name of politics, you have rejected your shared humanity with these innocents. I have been polite until now, but that’s really shameful…Also, if you truly are as in tune with Indian politics as you profess to be, you really should know who the mass-murderer hafeez sayed is, especially after the events of last november.
Your comments in your previous post speak for themselves. You specifically discussed catholic doctrine being linked to institutional church power plays and then assumed similar behavior in hinduism–sorry, but you remain guilty as charged. As for the latter part of your comment, again, you are generalizing without understanding. I am not affiliated with anyone who is attempting to abrahamize the hindu tradition and have obviously not done so myself–which is why i said you can be an atheist, a polytheist, etc and still be a hindu (something avowedly un-abrahamic almost by definition). I think you are just attempting to erect the strawmen you wish to tear down…
Ultimately, here’s the deal, Dr. A. You have to decide whether you want to properly understand these texts or continue to sharpen your debate sword against hinduism, because you can’t do both. Right now, it’s apparent that you aren’t willing to study these in good faith, but prefer develop theories of conflict (i.e. Krishna v Brahman etc, etc) where none exist. To do the former and be prepared to engage in cogent and honest discussion you must seek out your betters (proper vedic and pauranic scholars) and learn from them. Otherwise, you are welcome to do the latter and keep doing whatever it is that you are doing. I’m not saying the hindu tradition or the Gita can’t bear you scrutiny (they most certainly can), I am just saying you at the very least need to do the one before you can do the other; otherwise, you are not attempting to learn or even discuss in good faith for that matter…
can you point to writings from hindu scholars about the carvaka school in a positive light? i only know of the carvaka school from historical writings by hindu scholars dissing it left and right, and nothing positive seems to have survived afaik. but i could be wrong…
The Arthashastra is probably the most readily available text that had a fairly favorable view on Carvaka/Lokayata–Kautilya being the skeptic pragmatist that he was; however, the bulk of the text is naturally focused on statecraft. The original barhaspatya sutras were lost, which might also explain why most of what is out there is negative commentary against lokayata. Interestingly, Richard Dawkins followers have taken to the study of lokayata, no doubt expedient for their goal…either way, a quick google search should give you some good origin of carvaka books.
253: Kabir, I apologize if POK offends you. I have no particular sensitivity to the use of IOK or any other name/term anyone wishes to use so long as it is clear what it is that is being referred to.
You say AK is not a province of Pakistan. How then do Pakistani PMs dismiss AK governments and detain their heads ?
Your scepticism towards Indian claims to Kashmir is commendable. It sits oddly with the somewhat uncritical acceptance of what is happening on the other side of the LOC. What do you think, for instance, of the separation and annexation of the Northern Territories (out of Kashmir) and the gifting away of part of it to China ?
@Rama (254). Maybe ethnicity was the wrong word, but the Kashmiris definitely feel themselves to be a different nationality (qaum was Sheikh Abdullah’s word). I agree with you that it is possible to live a decent life and retain one’s culture under the Indian Constitution, but the issue is that a majority of Kashmiris first have to democratically agree that they want to live under this Constitution. The whole debate about J and K’s status as “disputed territory” revolves around the argument that the whole population–on the Pakistani and Indian sides has never been given the chance to do this.
@Akash (255). I don’t think making Kashmir less Kashmiri is a good idea. What China is doing in Tibet is not right either. The Tibetans like the Kashmiris have the right to self-determination.
@ Wunderbar (259). AJK is technically not a province of Pakistan. This is Pakistan’s concession to the status of the whole former princely state as disputed territory. I agree that de facto “Azad” Kashmir is part of Pakistan.
Regarding the Northern Areas (or to give the area it’s proper name “Gilgit-Baltistan), according to the Schofield book I referred to above, this area had rebelled against Hari Singh and declared themselves the independent republic of “Gilgit Astore”. Also Gilgit, Hunza and Nagar, were independent kingdoms annexed by the Dogras. Thus, it’s debatable whether this territory is actually even part of Kashmir. In any case, most inhabitants of the Northern Areas want to become full Pakistani citizens and not have any special status at all. Unfortunately, because of the association of the NA with J &K, Pakistan can’t do this at the present time. Thus, the population of this area has no representation in the National Assembly and can’t vote for President or Prime Minister of Pakistan, the country that the are de facto part of. This I think is a travesty.
Re: the sale to China. I think Pakistan had no business selling any part of a disputed territory to anyone. So you see, I am not uncritical of events on one side of the LOC while being critical of the other (India).
@kabir (260) Your sense of lack of integrity is really astonishing me. How can one think that one community or ethinicity or “anything for that matter†can form a separate nation or country because they feel that they are totally different from the rest? Don’t you think that is wrong? How many countries in this world are surviving like that? Why don’t you look at EU(esp Yugoslavia) , Arab nations and central Asian countries. As far as my wisdom is concerned I have always believed in “unity in Diversity†which I consider as a divine quote.
Do you really think Kosovo can survive? Do you think Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro can hold their identities and coexist peacefully. If you really think they can then here is some wisdom for you. Take the example of Germany during word wars 1 and 2. They have suffered heavily from identity crisis which caused them to express themselves through Nazi party. These identity clashes are there since the beginning of Human existence. Now Europe has realized that it’s only through integrity that any nation or continent can survive. One has to realize by now that having a separate nation in not at all a viable solution, not only for them but for surrounding nations too.
That’s why Bharat (India) is a leading example in this world for many such issues. India is a live example for it. Even though there are problems here and there, they are very self-adjusting in nature. If you look at the divisive politics done by many politicians in India it is only because they have no Knowledge or they don’t know what they are talking.