N. JAMAL ANSARI turns the pages of history to conclude that the debate on Jinnah is unending and Jaswant’s book is only an addition to it, and suggests to the BJP to realise the realities and adopt corrective measures.
BJP has expelled senior party leader Jaswant Singh for his comments and observations on Muhammad Ali Jinnah in his book Jinnah: India-Partition, Independence. Press reports suggest that Jaswant Singh has written that, “Jinnah has been demonised in India”. L.K Advani had also made some positive comments about Jinnah during his visit to Pakistan in 2005. It seems that all people know the truth but do not have courage to express it. Moreover, expulsion of Jaswant Singh clearly indicates that there is no space for freedom of expression in BJP.
To understand the role of Jinnah, one should seriously study the history of our freedom struggle. In July 1925 Lord Birkenhead, Secretary of State for India, called upon Indians to frame a Constitution. In November 1927 a Commission having only members of British Parliament was appointed with Sir John Simon as chairman. Exclusion of Indians was opposed by all political formations. In protest, an All Party Conference appointed a committee with Pandit Motilal Nehru as president. The committee submitted a Report (Nehru Report) recommending principles for drafting a Constitution of India. The committee rejected outright separate electorates for the Muslims. The Muslim League suggested some amendments to Report which provided for separate electorates for the Muslims. In the All Party Conference, the League amendments were considered. Jinnah made strong pleas for acceptance of the amendments if “Revolution and Civil War” (Hector Bolitho, Jinnah, p. 94) were to be avoided. However, amendments were rejected and Jinnah is on record commenting that, “This is the parting of ways” (Ibid, p. 95). The Lucknow Pact had accepted separate electorate but the same was rejected by the Nehru Committee because the race of succession to British regime had not begun in 1916 as it began in 1928. The Congress made blunder and the nation was divided.
The Congress made another blunder by deciding against coalition ministries: “The decision of the Congress was extremely unwise. The Muslims now fully realised that as a separate community, they had no political prospects in future” (Majumdar Record in the History of the Freedom Movement Vol. III, p. 563). Even after elections of 1937, Jinnah was not keen on a separate State. Shiva Rao writes, “In a public statement, shortly after the elections of 1937, he (Jinnah) declared – nobody will welcome an honourable settlement between Hindus and Muslims more than I and nobody will be more ready to help it” (Framing of India’s Constitution, A study, p. 22). As late as on March 17, 1938, Jinnah wrote, “It is the duty of every true nationalist to whichever party or community he may belong to help achieve a united front” (Brecher, Nehru, A Political Biography, p. 233).
Some other efforts were made to preserve the unity of India like Desai-Liaqat Ali Pact, Sapru Committee Report and the Shimla Conference of 1945 but all failed.
One point often overlooked is that till 1937 Jinnah did not use religious sentiments in order to gain political mileage whereas the Congress used Hindu religion and symbols to arouse sentiments of Hindus from the very beginning. It was when Nehru refused to acknowledge Hindu-Muslim question that Jinnah responded with a powerful speech at the session of Muslim League in October 1937. Gandhiji called that speech a “declaration of war” and Jinnah said that “it was made in self defence”. Jinnah’s speech indicates that all means of persuasion exhausted but the Congress was not willing to address real issues. Jinnah was forced to demand Pakistan.
When Jinnah was leaving India on August 7, 1947, he appealed to Hindus and Muslims to “bury the past” and wished India success and prosperity but analysed what Patel had said: “The poison had been removed from the body of India.” Patel overlooked the fact that Jinnah was not poison, it was Hindutva traits of Patel which poisoned Indian polity.
BJP cannot dilute historical facts. Savarkar formulated his “Two Nation Theory” in 1923 and RSS was born in 1925 whereas the Muslim League demanded Pakistan in 1940. Jinnah struggled for united India for 17 years after Savarkar sowed the seeds of two nations. Hindu Mahasabha also passed a resolution in favour of the concept of two nations in 1937 much before Jinnah demanded Pakistan in 1940. There is no iota of doubt that the Hindu revivalist organisations contributed to partition of India.
There were some other players too. Little attention has been paid to the role played by powerful Hindu businessmen in partition of India. G.D. Birla writes: “Communal representation should go and if possible redistribution of provinces should be made. I do not know whether splitting the Punjab and Bengal would be liked by the people but I would personally welcome it (Notes of Conversation with Malviyaji, File.10) Aisha Jalal in her much discussed book, The Sole Spokesman, Jinnah, The Muslim League and the Demand of Pakistan writes: “Much of Jinnah’s demand for Pakistan would seem to correspond with the idea of Birla.” Intellectuals should ponder over why Savarkar, Hindu Mahasabha, RSS, Birla are treated as “nationalists” and Jinnah as “Prophet of Partition”. Because history has been turned into myths by Hindutva propagandists!
As far as Patel is concerned, his role in partition and hate campaign against Muslims is well documented. Maulana Azad writes: “It would not perhaps be unfair to say that Vallabhbhai Patel was the founder of Indian Partition”. (Azad, India Wins Freedom, 1988 ed., p. 198). He also painfully writes: “I was surprised that Patel was now an even greater supporter of the two-nation theory than Jinnah. Jinnah may have raised the flag of partition but the real flag bearer was Patel”. (Ibid, p. 201).
Whatever Jaswant Singh wrote in his book, Jinnah: India-Partition, Independence is based on facts. Even HM Seervai writes: “Such an account cannot rest content with the popular view in India that the partition of India was brought about by the disappointed ambition, the vanity and the intransigence of one man, Muhammad Ali Jinnah. This view receives no support from the materials now available to students of history” (Seervai, Legend and Reality, p. 4). By expelling Jaswant Singh BJP has proved that it does not care for democratic norms or freedom of expression. Banning of the book by Narendra Modi in Gujarat is no surprise because he is not a democrat. But BJP leadership should have shown some decency and restraint. It seems that non-RSS men have no place in it. Jaswant did not write against the core ideology of BJP. He wrote against the myths created by Congress and BJP both. BJP should realise that facts are facts and realities are realities. In this age of information fusion, historical facts cannot be hid behind ideological curtains. BJP must adopt corrective measures
[The writer is Aligarh based socio-political commentator.]