Jaswant Singh, Jinnah and History
Jaswant Singh asked for his expulsion from the BJP. And he got it. There was nothing else that the party could have done after Singh heaped praise on Mohammed Ali Jinnah. And more so because Singh’s reason to praise Jinnah happened to be that he created Pakistan. Jaswant Singh could have earned a ``promotion’’ in the BJP if he had praised Jinnah for having defied Islam. The fact is that Mohammed Ali Jinnah lived a life that was un-Islamic. He loved his drink and relished Western cuisines and several things in his life were un-Islamic.
The BJP would have loved anyone pointing to these aspects about Jinnah. And Jaswant Singh, in the event he had done that, would have found himself come under attack from the Islamic clergy. It is a fact that the man who steered the movement to create Pakistan, an Islamic nation, happened to be a non-practising Muslim. But then, it is also a fact that Pervez Musharaf too does not fall in the category of an Islamic fundamentalist. And one can think of a large number of prominent people in Pakistan who are not fundamentalists.
Well. Even Jaswant Singh does not belong to the clan of such people in the BJP who desist from drinking, eat only vegetarian dishes and believe in the Brahmanical Hindu way of life. Jaswant Singh, we may recall, declared his drinking habit on the floor of the Lok Sabha as recently as some weeks ago when he criticized Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee for being miserly with the Income Tax exemption limits. The BJP leader, as he then was, said that the relief in this budget will not even fetch him a bottle of scotch whisky. Pranab Mukherjee then asked Jaswant to kick the bottle like he himself had quit smoking! Well. I think I know why Jaswant Singh likes Mohammed Ali Jinnah so much! Be that as it may.
There is a larger issue here. And that is about the business of writing history and the necessary skills that the historian then must possess and the rigour that will have to gone through while attempting to write something called history. And that is wanting in Jaswant’s comments about Jinnah in his book: From what I have come across in the media, Jaswant Singh’s point is that Jinnah created Pakistan from out of nothing. This is simply a travesty of facts. Pakistan and its making did not happen out of nothing as Jaswant Singh would like to believe and it is sad that no one seems to have pointed this out.
The idea of Pakistan, in fact, existed long before Jinnah spoke about it in 1940. It existed even before the colonial rulers sanctioned it. It existed long before Jinnah called for Direct Action in August1946. And it existed long before the Indian National Congress agreed for partition in its Delhi session. The idea of Pakistan existed long before Jawaharlal Nehru emerged as the natural choice as Prime Minister of independent India and even before Sardar Vallabhai Patel began putting the geographical entity called India together. All these have been discussed, debated and somewhat settled among historians of significance.
It is also a fact that the Hindu Mahasabha, from where a number of the Jan Sangh leaders, including its founder Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, emerged had in a way provided the basis for Jinnah to justify or gather support for his idea of Pakistan. It is also a fact, established by historians of repute, that the attitude of the leaders of the Indian National Congress, particularly in the United Provinces (present day Uttar Pradesh), towards the members and leaders of the Muslim community during the elections to the Provincial Assembly in 1935, ended up creating the basis for Jinnah to talk about a separate nation.
Jinnah, in fact, was among those who vehemently opposed the idea of two nations when it was discussed in the Muslim League conference as late as in 1937. And in 1940, he raised the demand. There is a lot more on this that has been discussed, debated and even contested and all these have taken place among historians. It is certainly not correct to say that Jinnah created Pakistan from nothing. And Jaswant Singh cannot be taken seriously for saying such nonsense. It is another matter that the media played it up, his book received a certain hype that it could not have if the same thing was written by some unknown person.
The sad part is that there is a tendency, promoted by the 24 X 7 news channels to make a mound out of a mould (or create a controversy out of nothing to borrow an expression from Jaswant Singh) and make a book, that must have been dismissed as pulp, into one of significance.
Jaswant Singh asked for his expulsion from the BJP. And he got it. There was nothing else that the party could have done after Singh heaped praise on Mohammed Ali Jinnah. And more so because Singh’s reason to praise Jinnah happened to be that he created Pakistan. Jaswant Singh could have earned a ``promotion’’ in the BJP if he had praised Jinnah for having defied Islam. The fact is that Mohammed Ali Jinnah lived a life that was un-Islamic. He loved his drink and relished Western cuisines and several things in his life were un-Islamic.
The BJP would have loved anyone pointing to these aspects about Jinnah. And Jaswant Singh, in the event he had done that, would have found himself come under attack from the Islamic clergy. It is a fact that the man who steered the movement to create Pakistan, an Islamic nation, happened to be a non-practising Muslim. But then, it is also a fact that Pervez Musharaf too does not fall in the category of an Islamic fundamentalist. And one can think of a large number of prominent people in Pakistan who are not fundamentalists.
Well. Even Jaswant Singh does not belong to the clan of such people in the BJP who desist from drinking, eat only vegetarian dishes and believe in the Brahmanical Hindu way of life. Jaswant Singh, we may recall, declared his drinking habit on the floor of the Lok Sabha as recently as some weeks ago when he criticized Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee for being miserly with the Income Tax exemption limits. The BJP leader, as he then was, said that the relief in this budget will not even fetch him a bottle of scotch whisky. Pranab Mukherjee then asked Jaswant to kick the bottle like he himself had quit smoking! Well. I think I know why Jaswant Singh likes Mohammed Ali Jinnah so much! Be that as it may.
There is a larger issue here. And that is about the business of writing history and the necessary skills that the historian then must possess and the rigour that will have to gone through while attempting to write something called history. And that is wanting in Jaswant’s comments about Jinnah in his book: From what I have come across in the media, Jaswant Singh’s point is that Jinnah created Pakistan from out of nothing. This is simply a travesty of facts. Pakistan and its making did not happen out of nothing as Jaswant Singh would like to believe and it is sad that no one seems to have pointed this out.
The idea of Pakistan, in fact, existed long before Jinnah spoke about it in 1940. It existed even before the colonial rulers sanctioned it. It existed long before Jinnah called for Direct Action in August1946. And it existed long before the Indian National Congress agreed for partition in its Delhi session. The idea of Pakistan existed long before Jawaharlal Nehru emerged as the natural choice as Prime Minister of independent India and even before Sardar Vallabhai Patel began putting the geographical entity called India together. All these have been discussed, debated and somewhat settled among historians of significance.
It is also a fact that the Hindu Mahasabha, from where a number of the Jan Sangh leaders, including its founder Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, emerged had in a way provided the basis for Jinnah to justify or gather support for his idea of Pakistan. It is also a fact, established by historians of repute, that the attitude of the leaders of the Indian National Congress, particularly in the United Provinces (present day Uttar Pradesh), towards the members and leaders of the Muslim community during the elections to the Provincial Assembly in 1935, ended up creating the basis for Jinnah to talk about a separate nation.
Jinnah, in fact, was among those who vehemently opposed the idea of two nations when it was discussed in the Muslim League conference as late as in 1937. And in 1940, he raised the demand. There is a lot more on this that has been discussed, debated and even contested and all these have taken place among historians. It is certainly not correct to say that Jinnah created Pakistan from nothing. And Jaswant Singh cannot be taken seriously for saying such nonsense. It is another matter that the media played it up, his book received a certain hype that it could not have if the same thing was written by some unknown person.
The sad part is that there is a tendency, promoted by the 24 X 7 news channels to make a mound out of a mould (or create a controversy out of nothing to borrow an expression from Jaswant Singh) and make a book, that must have been dismissed as pulp, into one of significance.
posted by Krishna Ananth at
8:05 AM
9 Comments:
This is a good critique of Jaswant Singh's book and the media hype surrounding the content of the book. Why do you think people in BJP beginning with Advani and now Jaswant Singh has to invoke the persona of Jinnah at this juncture? Do they want to perpetuate the communal divide by highlighting/legitimizing the Jinnah's demand/creation of Pakistan? Do you think there is any relation to Sachar committee report on Indian Muslims? Not that these BJP leaders are speaking out of nothing.
As the article says, what Jinnah did has been debated properly amongst historians of repute. However, the current political scenario has nothing to do with history... which I've started to doubt seriously as every 'intellectual' has his/her own version these days.
The current political scenario is a very interesting one. It seems Jaswant Singh, Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie have accepted (finally) that there is nothing to be gained from being associated with BJP... especially seeing its currently meandering ways.
One cant help but ponder where BJP is going or rather what is RSS's agenda. Has it given up on the effort to look moderate? Is another riot on its way in a chariot? The reigns in Rajnath's hands and Modi doing what he does best... shooting arrows! ;-)
As for why the BJP is raising such issues (raised by anonymous): These issues were debated and raised even in the past. But they are getting foregrounded now because of the media having become what it is. I think it has become an obsession for the journalists now to rake up controversies than issues in the name of news.
As for Abhishek Jha, I do agree that Jaswant-Arun-Yaswant, whose prominence in the BJP was not because of their political toil but their ``stature'' are finding the party a sinking ship as it is. But then, I am not too sure if the party can revive its fortunes by way of another rath and another round of riots... I may sound too optimistic but then, that's my hunch now.
In terms of economic policy there is no difference between BJP and Congress or for that matter the regional parties in India. Left parties stand apart from all these parties which are unanimously toeing the line of neo-liberalism. What is the issue in BJP crumbling? If the parties like Congress toe the line of neo-liberalism and stand for the interest of foreign capital, as it does, then it would lose whatever little secular credentials it has as well!
I do not see any difference between BJP and Congress in terms of where they are heading. The only difference being the leadership of BJP is crumbling while Congress is dictated by Sonia Gandhi and mouthpiece of IMF, World Bank.
Why should we at all pay attention to the crumbling of BJP if there is more need to expose the 'pseudo' secular, neo-liberal Congress?
By turning the attention to BJP, the mainstream media, academicians and activists of unorganized left are protecting the Congress.
On fascism, Trotsky tells us: "once it has resorted to methods of civil war, it insists on having peace for a period of years. And the fascist agency, by utilizing the petty bourgeoisie as a battering ram, by overwhelming all obstacles in its path, does a thorough job."
One can notice this in the trajectory of the BJP, in its
movement away from the explicit voicing of hard Hindutva in
everyday practice, towards the trope of (bourgeoisie) 'national
development'. Nothing more exemplifies this than Narendra Modi, the butcher of Gujarat, who is more likely these days to speak of industry and GDP.
This is not because the BJP has turned less communal, but
because the times have integrated communalism into development.
The (Hindu) nation must progress (in the fashion decreed by high
capital), and the others (minorities, adivasis, social justice activists) are the impediment.
The sins the right imagines of the Muslims and others have been stripped off their religion and have been tattooed onto their very soul, so to say.
It is the same, therefore to speak of this kind of development and to speak of the treacherous minorities. Thence comes the collusion between neo-liberalism and Hindutva, and Prabhat Patnaik has written on the impossibility of defending secularism without simultaneously battling neo-liberalism.
I'm slightly less optimistic on your statement that it is doubtful if the BJP can revive its fortunes by means of riots.
The fascism of our times, Kalecki reminds us, is a dog on a
lease. The enemy must be there in the background, even if it is
not necessary that the society is permanently whipped into murderous passion.
Thus, Modi in the last phases of the election, suddenly regresses into Muslim bashing. He has to remind his audience of the threat. They must not forget, nor must they lose their keenness.
But I hope you are right!
your argument is persuasive cheri. i do realise, many a time, that my take that organising communal pogroms will not help the fascists and hence they will not do that is more a wish than a substantive argument. let me also confess that i begin to wish that way because i do not see myself doing anything to ensure the safety of the minorities in times of a communal riot; except that i join all those who petition against such fascist onslaughts... impotent rage i must admit. hence i wish such things will not take place again...
The Bjp ensured its own downfall when it made an attempt to sandpaper the riots in 2002 and made the man responsible for the mess a hero. The party can never make a serious attempt at coming to power at the centre unless they throw Modi out, bring in a moderate face and provide a decent right of centre alternative to the congress...the days when riots could bring in votes are over, better sense must prevail, if they want to remain relevant in Indian politics
Narendra Modi has been awarded 'FDI Asian Personality of the year 2009' by Financial Times. Cheri's comment is very relevant. Business and fascism go hand in hand. Palmiro Togliati's lectures on Fascism underscore the link.
Sir,
I read Jaswant's book. He does see separate electorates -- and the Divide and Rule Policy -- as moves towards Pakistan decades before it was born. Here, he borrows from Bipan Chandra and party.
Also, he follows in the footsteps of Ayesha Jalal when he argues that Nehru and Patel's intransigence from 1937 to 1946 left no room for a basically secular Jinnah.
I think he is arguing contradictorily -- perhaps many researchers put the book together. He talks about a foundational Indian culture much in Hindutva ways, but also talks about the fears of the Muslim minority, trying to romance many schools of history writing at one time.
Much of the media had not read the book before writing on it. Even those senior journalists who commented on it either did not read this book or maybe read only this one and no other book on Partition.
And, by the way,Bimal Prasad's just-released book points to personal correspondence between JInnah and Iqbal early in 1937 that shows Jinnah had begun supporting Pakistan by then.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home