Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
By K.Subrahmanyam
It is very likely many Pakistanis may consider the new Indian thesis
as a total negation of what they have been taught to believe. It would
mean that Jinnah’s ‘ two nation thesis’ was a negotiating ploy and
Pakistan was not the result of a struggle of the people of Pakistan
against British imperialism and Hindu domination as they have been
taught to believe in the last 62 years. In Pakistan in all official
portraits , Jinnah has been made to shed his Savile Row suit and wear
a traditional Sherwani. All references to his drinking and eating
habits have been censored to remove his partiality to scotch whisky
and ham.
Surely Jinnah was not an orthodox practicing Muslim and was secular
in his outlook. Though he was like Iqbal, a second generation
convert from the Hindu faith - unlike Iqbal - he was not driven by
his religious fervor. Nor was he a man of the masses. If his concern
was for the Muslims he should have known that partition would subject
the Indian Muslims to greater handicaps. Were he a true federalist he
could not have attempted to impose Urdu on the majority Bengalis in
East Pakistan. If he was a person punctilious about the rule of law,
as he claimed to be, when he parted company with Gandhiji at the time
of Non-cooperation movement - he could not have ordered the Direct
Action Day and unleashed the Great Calcutta Killing in August 1946.
Jinnah was a careerist who was bent on acquiring power and glory.
Narendra Singh Sarila, in his seminal work “The Shadow of the Great
Game: The untold Story of the Partition” cites two statements of
Jinnah to successive viceroys. He told Wavell in November 1946: “(The)
British should give him his own bit of territory ,however small it
might be.” And on April 10, 1947 he told Mountbatten: “ I do not
care how little you give me as long as you give it to me completely.”
Sarila’s book brings out that as far back as 6/7 February 1946 ,
Wavell had sent a tentative plan for partition of India. It also
reveals that Prime Minister Attlee telegraphed to the Cabinet Mission
in India on 13th April 1946 that in the view of the British Chiefs
of Staff, mass chaos would take place in India if the scheme
creating Pakistan was not put into effect. The British had already
decided to partition undivided India so that Pakistan would be
available as a friendly base for the British to guard the ‘wells of
Power’ in the Middle East and to safeguard their communication lines
to the Far-East. Only when faced with the British threat of transfer
of power to individual provincial assemblies and the Princely
States, did Nehru and Patel accept partition to save India from
fragmentation.
When Sarila’s book was published in 2005 Jaswant Singh wrote: “The
outcome of original research, this book is unique in several
ways….This is not a revisionist book . It is revelatory of new facts.”
But in his biography of Jinnah, the author in Jaswant Singh has
chosen to overlook all the documentation on the British determination
to partition India as far back as early 1946 and Jinnah’s subsequent
role in helping the British to achieve that result and to fulfill his
own personal ambitions.
Jinnah was secular ,no doubt. He cynically used political Islam for
his personal ambition and in the process unleashed the first terrorist
attack on India , the Great Calcutta Killing. In that sense he
continues to be relevant in the contemporary situation in the
subcontinent.