Posted on: 10 August 2012

Analysis:
Jinnah in India's history
By A.G. Noorani
Frontline, 2005

The story of Mohammed Ali Jinnah, canonised in Pakistan and demonised in India, has a contemporary relevance. His personality and record are central in any honest inquiry into the causes of Partition.

Ian Bryant Wells, an Australian scholar, understands that, but not fully. Which is why every setback in Jinnah's pursuit of conciliation drives him to declaim that he then turned to the other plank of his programme. His comments on many a juncture are out of place; but his research is painstaking and extensive. The book is an invaluable addition to the literature on Jinnah. It is not a definitive work even on the phase it covers (1910-1934) but it draws on some archival material hitherto unpublished (Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity: Jinnah's Early Politics; Permanent Black; pages 269; Rs.595). Few take this high road to scholarship and consult the record - Jinnah's own utterances in the legislature or public platforms and his writings - instead of spinning familiar theories; namely that he was embittered by his exclusion from Congress, more so after his wife's death, and he disliked mass politics. All are utterly false, as the record shows. It reveals Jinnah as he was. The book's title is derived from the compilation of Jinnah's speeches and writings published in 1918 by Ganesh & Sons, Madras, publishers of nationalist literature. It covered the period between1912 and 1917 and bore the title Mohomed Ali Jinnah; An Ambassador of Unity, with a biographical appreciation by Sarojini Naidu. She called him a "cross-bencher". In his foreword, the Raja of Mahmudabad, Mohamed Ali Mohamed, endorsed the sobriquet of "Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity".

Sarojini Naidu began by quoting Jinnah's confession "in a priceless moment of self-revelation". He had said: "It is my ambition to become the Muslim Gokhale." Even after he had become the Quaid-e-Azam and advocate of Pakistan, Jinnah praised Gopal Krishna Gokhale's liberal and broad-minded statesmanship in his presidential address at the Muslim League's 30th session in Delhi on April 24, 1943, and said "he [Gokhale] was a tower of intellect". Sarojini Naidu proceeded to quote Gokhale on Jinnah: "He has true stuff in him and that freedom from all sectarian prejudice which will make him the best ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity."

An ambassador can perform his role only when he enjoys the confidence of both sides. Throughout his career, Jinnah rose above communal feeling and tried "to combine Hindus and Muslims in one harmonious union for the common good" (December 20, 1913). That is how he brought about the pact between the Congress and the League in Lucknow in 1916. Wells writes: "As a Muslim with a demonstrated record of concern for the Muslim community, he was in a position to pressurise the Muslims to reduce their demands without being seen as a Congress lackey. As a noted nationalist and a colleague of Gokhale, he was similarly able to persuade the Hindus to make concessions to the Muslims without being labelled a communalist."

Read more:

Part 1: Jinnah in India's history

http://bit.ly/MmrKKF

Part 2: ASSESSING JINNAH

http://bit.ly/QUQU5Y


 View Post on Facebook

Comments from Facebook

Has anyone ever worn suits with a better cut?

When Jinnah joined the League in 1913, he insisted on a condition, set out in immaculate English, that his 'loyalty to the Muslim League and the Muslim interest would in no way and at no time imply even the shadow of disloyalty to the larger national cause to which his life was dedicated.' The constitutionalist in Jinnah found mass politics ambitious, and the liberal in him rejected the invasion of religion in politics. When S Naidu first met a young Jinnah, she remembered him as a symbol of 'virile patriotism'.

Mr. Amitabha Pande : He had over 250 suits and most were tailored by Savile Row of Mayfair. His grandson Nusli Wadia also sports Savile Row.

बहुत ही प्रतिभा के धनी कमाल की अंगरेजी भाषा बोलते थे

The reason why Jinaah is despised (a lot like Nehru now, that people understand him better -- shorn of the hero worship) Is that 1) He like Nehru, in the ultimate analysis -- had a marked difference between stated views and actions on the ground. As such they were the archetype politicians in the worst sense of the word (unlike say MKG and Patel) -- to whom all other matters other than their own position and power were secondary. 2) Apart from the dichotomy between their actions and supposed views -- they in the end let down their supposed initial value system once they got a chance to break free and be themselves. 3) Both of them were -- nearly slavishly obedient to the English value system -- despite their supposed and purported views about the love for nation et al -- they were primarily White men chafing in their brown skins (in their minds) They thus both brought great misfortunes on their respective nations despite the hard work of many around them -- to build and raise the country -- and single handedly managed to each damage the country they had claimed allegiance to.

Mr.Sudershan : But Jinnah didn't live long to damage his country and personally don't think his stated views and actions were much different. However, I would agree on all the above Nehru counts...

Jinnah did not pass on "Y" chromosomes to Nusli Wadia.Jinnah's wiife was Nusli wadia's great grand aunt. Jinnah and Wadia are not related by DNA.

This man will never be forgiven in the History of " Hindustan ". His a bloodyest man in the world. Even Hittler is good when compared to him.

I am surprised that Jinnah lived in a Palatial house in posh Malabar Hill in Bombay

@rajendra asthana: sir jinnah did not pass Y chromosome but he did pass X chromosome to his daughter who gave nusli the X he has...he is genetically related to jinnah and is related to him by DNA

Arindam Sen Mahodaya: >> Jinnah didn't live long to damage his country I meant India. There is only one country which is India

That is a short sited view. It must be remembered that the ideology of Pakistan did not grow or was active in the physical area of India which is now Pakistan. In fact both demographically and culturally the older area of Pakistan were more tolerant than many areas inside what would be considered the nation-state of India today. In any case, partition did not solve any problems for us today did it?