Its been years a read the book, i  remember i  had borrowed it initially from a friend who was preparing for his IAS exams.  He told me the UPSC recommends "The Freedom at Midnight" as an appropriate course material for Indian History.
Having bought it later as the book had made an impression on me,i thought it was time i revisited the book.As it was endorsed by the UPSC  i guess i  needed to go back to it before i penned down the thoughts.
Since  the Jinnah row re-appeared on the  news, the thought put forth by Mr Jaswant Singh had  haunted me. What made an Ambassador of  Hindu - Muslim unity  turn into Qaid -e-Azam of Pakistan.
And i still agree it was Gandhian Hinduism rather than Jinnah's Islam.
Islam for Jinnah  was just a surname he was  born into. He was non practicing anglicized barrister for whom practicalities  of life mattered more than rigid faith.
His day started  with  the best Bacon's of Bombay served  in a full English Breakfast, and ended  with  the Highland Malts and cigar.  I dont think  these can be traits of a religious fanatic  propagating Islam.
He was also one of the first  person to ostracize Mohammad Iqbals demands for the separate states.
Before pointing fingers we need to get a few facts right.  The demand for seperate electorates was first demanded by Sir Seyed Amir Ali of the (Aligarh Muslim university fame) along with Mr Aga Khan. The reason was less political and  more social , though it would go ahead and create a political divide. The Muslims then were losing out on social equity on  grounds of education. The demand of separate electorates were done as a quota system. The same system for which  our friends from the UP legislature still hails B.R Ambedkar.
To enforce this system required a leader who could fight the Muslim cause yet  remain united for the Indian cause. Mohammad Ali Jinnah was their man.
Mahatma Gandhi  on the other hand could have been a Mahatma when  we try understand his ideologies but for all practicalities of politic  he was just M.K Gandhi  for me. Though  he has been  portrayed as a great secular leader, to me , a person who enforces his own religious fundamentals on his followers is far from  being so. He was strong follower of  Hinduism and was preacher of atma suddhi, ( self cleansing of soul) dharma and vegetarianism . All traits of Hinduism. He did not even have faith in modern medicine , and wanted his followers to follow the same path.
And Jawaharlal Nehru  was a blind follower of Mr M.K Gandhi the politician.
In one of his writings the Mahatma had mentioned  his  detest  for modern parliamentary democracy. for people who do not know for him democracy was like a prostitute and parliamentarians her brokers. His perfect form government was the Ramrajya the self restaining vegeterian  form of government  with out any administration.  And for him Jinnah would not  fit the bill for such a  governance  he was too practical  for that. Hence even though  Jinnah was a better administrator he chose Nehru over him as the Prime Minister of India.
This was against  the aspirations of Jinnah, and also he realised in the kind of government  the Mahatma was endorsing  Muslims of the country would not be able to relate  to.
And rest as they say is history.
I dont know if Jinnah was secular or not he was  not religious... and to me Mahatma Gandhi too religious to be secular and to idealistic to be practical.
To end i would just like  mention some interesting facts. Jinnah died of tuberculosis  within  few months of independence, and during the same time  Nehru had gone to Lord Mountbatten and confessed he was not a good administrator. It was the last viceroy  who was running the Indian  Government for his Nehru's behalf.
Only if Jinnah ruled for these months  instead of  Mountbatten and had Nehru become his understudy , I guess when Nehru would have taken charge  it would have been an unified India
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)


 

 
