Mr. Jinnah bears the responsibility for the seperation of Pakistan from India. Seventy years after the independence this is one the debated why did the seperation happen. Many Indian, Pakistan and European contemplated several theories on why and how the split happen and what are the side effects in historical and political sense.
Mr. Jinnah born on Dec 25, 1976 was a Muslim lawyer, politician, statesman and the founder of Pakistan. After completing his matriculation from University of Bombay, he left for England to become a lawyer. Western influnces were great on Mr. Jinnah, uptil until eventual split of India, he only wore western clothes. It is even alleged that he never wore the same silk toe twice. He mostly spoke in Gujrati and English until the time he started demanding the partition. Later, he switched to speaking exclusively in Urdu within his congregation.
Mr. Jinnah at the age 16 married for the first time to his distant cousin, Emibai Jinnah who unfortunately died just few months into marriage. Later at the age of 42, he fell in love with Rattanbai Petit, a Parsi. This would have a norm and nothing out of extraordinary that an elites in India married on basis of love and not base it on religion. But the hypocrisy comes when Mr. Jinnah then opposes the love relationship and eventual marriage of his daughter, Dina with Parsi-born Christian businessman, Neville Wadia.The opposition not based on the character of his son-in-law, but because he belonged to Parsi religion. Mahommedali Currim Chagla, who was Jinnah's assistant at the time, recalls: "Jinnah, in his usual imperious manner, told her that there were millions of Muslim boys in India, and she could have anyone she chose. Reminding her father that his wife (Dina's mother Rattanbai), had also been a non-Muslim, the young lady replied: 'Father, there were millions of Muslim girls in India. Why did you not marry one of them?' And he replied that, 'she became a Muslim'". Dina's eventual relationship was constrained by her father who broke all relationship with her. What a wonderful father? Or, may I say does it highlight the character flaw, as in the old idiom, Do as I say, not as I do!
In 1920, Mohandas Gandhi launched unsuccessful Non-cooperation movement. Most Indian elites not directly affiliated to the crown joined in and showed their support to the cause. Few notable exceptions were Mr. Jinnah who broke with Congress because he thought that is unlawful to do so. Playing safe, ein't he?
During final years of struggle, many attempts were made by the British, Indian Congress to reconile the differences between the Muslim league. Mr. Jinnah contemplated that after the British leave India, India will be left with more than 50% Hindus and hence Hindus will have permanent majority. There are various statistics regarding the population of united India before Independence. The most common figure quoted is 60% Hindus and 35% Muslims. Mr. Jinnah forwarded a suggestion the electoral votes be used for determining majority and that 60% of Hindus would only have 50% electoral votes and 35% of Muslims should have remaining 50% electoral votes. Ofcourse, fairly balanced as he was, he completely ignored any accomodation for Sikhs, Christians, Parsis, Jains or Bhuddhists. To a mere mortal like Nehru or Patel, this seemed highly hypocritical, one the one side, Mr. Jinnah was talking about inequity and was far more anxious of arrangement like this?
Gandhi who was trying very hard to hold India together was willing to offer to Jinnah, the Prime Ministership eventhough that he held only 16% of the votes in United India election. Thankfully Patel and Nehru wondered that Jinnah was blackmailing on the threat of partition with barely 16% of the votes, how would he behave once the British leaves. Would be consider making himself the supreme leader after the independence of India on constant threat of "Direct Action" as was illustrated by him in Calcutta in 1946. Jinnah's hardball eventually found no keepers and greater mistrust ensued between Muslim league and Congress. Hence, the idea was floated for weak center and powerful states, with states having rights to leave whenever they choose, this was vehemently opposed by Congress.
The talk of split before the formation of a country and acts of terrorism instigated by "Direct Action" and similar behaviors by agitating his followers folks of danger to the religion in united India, that in United India, Hindus will hold the gun to forcefully convert Muslims to Hindus. This is funny saying considering other than handful of Muslim rulers, most of them destroyed Hindu temples to convert them into Mosques, forcing people to additional taxes because they are not Muslims, or prosecuting them because any Kafir is unwelcome. If this is not hypocrisy what is?
Mr. Jinnah's close friends considered him to secular and having liberal views. He was considered to like the Western cultural aspects and found himself communicating even with the local folks exclusively in English. When such an individual later wants to divide the country into two based on religion, what should any one think? What else could be the reason? I often heard the most important reason that the jobs were not given to Muslims as Hindus were preferred by British. If one could bring down their shades, and wonder how come Mr. Jinnah, a Muslim was able to practice law successfully without any problem. Others would may say, he was the exception than the rule. For this my answer is pretty simple, if a job requires degree, a mere fact that someone is Muslim won't adjure them of having minimal requirements.Up untill the division of India, comparatively speaking, vast majority of Muslims did not care to learn English or get the appropriate qualifications for a job. Could it be possible this is the reason. Ofcourse, not! That seems to be too obvious! It has to be something else!
Finally, as per the desire of Mr. Jinnah, part of India was split into East and West Pakistan. Mr. Jinnah retained the complete power structure and sole power center proclaiming himself as the Governer-General. If this is not an act of power struggle, rather than selfless act for the fight for the protection of Muslim minority, then what is?
In his first speech after independence, Mr. Jinnah said "In course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims". If that is so, why then Pakistan? Also, I wondered whether he allowed for 50% electoral stake for minority Hindus that formed more than 25% of population in Pakistan. Ofcourse not, just like I would have assumed.
In the independent Pakistan, East Pakistan formed slightly more than 50% of the population, but in his cabinet recommendations, Bengalis formed the minoity partners. This form of discrimination increased further in the passing years, eventually split the country into two- namely, Pakistan and Bangladesh.
After Jinnah's death, this behavior was emulated by military generals on a pattern of continuous toppling of democratic governments in Pakistan. Can somebody blame the General for not looking upto their founder and following his path?
Are Indians generally better off with current state borders, I could easily vouch that most Indians born after two decades of Independence are quite satisfied with outcome. Part of India that split into Pakistan, eventually become the largest contributor of terrorism in the neighborhood and globe and the other part, Bangladesh, would form most distressed part of the world with constant flooding and drought sometimes happening at the same time in different parts of its country, meanwhile India is slowly moving ahead to take its place as a global player.
No comments:
Post a Comment