In order to hide their crimes
and to distort historical facts, Indian historians and political leaders have
chosen to paint Quaid-e-Azam as the ‘villain of the piece’. The Indians
propagate the theme that ‘Muhammad Ali Jinnah was a communalist responsible for
the bloody break up of Pakistan. He founded a theocratic and non-secular State’.
The BJP and other Hindu hardliners even now accuse him of leading a communal
agitation to achieve the goal of Pakistan. This is travesty of history and
negation of facts that prove beyond doubt that Partition was a legitimate and
democratic outcome of the collective choice made by all Muslims and Hindus of
the subcontinent. They conveniently and deliberately close their eyes to the
hard fact that politics, not religion led to creation of Pakistan. Acceptance of
Cabinet Mission Plan by Jinnah in 1946 demonstrated his earnestness for amicably
resolving the communal problem. It was Nehru and his Congress colleagues who
wasted that opportunity and dug the last nail in the coffin of united India.
Nehru’s and other Indian leaders’ acts of commission and omission are far too
many and have already been narrated by historians.
Indian passions flowing from distorted historiography notwithstanding, the Quaid
was as tall a man as history has ever carried. His penetrating vision had room
for a united India but he simultaneously foresaw the dangers of unrelenting
Congress led Hindu domination. Congress confirmed his fears. He knew parting was
inevitable. After the Congress had rejected the Cabinet Mission Plan, the
Congress was the first to sign the Act of Partition. The Muslim League signed it
subsequently. In the backdrop of these crystal clear historical facts, how come
Quaid is being blamed by certain segments of Indian society? The blame rests
squarely on the shoulders of Gandhi, Nehru and Patel who deliberately turned the
course of history. It is naïve to dub Pakistan as a theocratic State if it came
into existence as a result of the intransigence of a ‘majority’ that preferred
partition over granting the ‘minority’ it’s due rights and proportionate share.
Nirad Chaudhri, in the second volume of his autobiography “Thy Hand, Great an
Arch” observed, “I must set down at this point that Jinnah is the only man who
came out with success and honor from the ignoble end of the British Empire in
India. He never made a secret of what he wanted, never prevaricated, never
compromised, and yet succeeded in inflicting unmitigated defeat on the British
Government and the Indian National Congress. He achieved something, which not
even he could have believed to be within reach in 1946”. Former Advocate General
of Maharashtra H.M. Seervai exonerates Jinnah and holds mainly the Indian
National Congress responsible for Partition. In his book “Partition of India:
Legend and Reality”, Seervai maintains, “It is a little unfortunate that those
who assail Jinnah for destroying the unity of India do not ask how it was that a
man who wanted a nationalist solution till as late as 1938, when he was 61 years
of age, suddenly became a communalist”.
While the entire Indian leadership was involved in the bloodletting of migrating
Muslims in India at the time of Partition, Pakistan’s violent birth did not
embitter the unbending Quaid. Even after the holocaust he stood by his
principles, as his August 11, 1947, address to Pakistan’s Constituent Assembly
demonstrated. He had pleaded for equality of all the citizens in the eyes of the
State and freedom of worship for all citizens irrespective of their religion,
caste or creed. He never uttered any single statement of settling of scores or
vengeance. He sought peace and good neighborly relations with India. Even
Quaid’s most diehard critics had to admit that he was a man of the highest
standard of probity and honor.
For the first time in the hate-filled history of India, an ardent Hindu
nationalist L.K. Advani, President of BJP, not only heaped lavish praises upon
Quaid during his official visit to Pakistan in the first week of June 2005, but
also astonished the Pakistanis and his fellow countrymen by saying that Jinnah
was not communal but secular and that Partition was an unalterable reality of
history. This visible change occurred probably because of the immense warmth and
hospitality that he got both from official and private circles. This was in
spite of his past tainted record of being a hardcore RSS activist, firebrand
Muslim basher and reportedly involved in the assassination attempt on Muhammad
Ali Jinnah.
After becoming BJP President in 1986, he was in the forefront to inflame
communalism in India. He led Ram Rath Yatra in 1990, spearheaded the Ram
Janambhoomi movement that ended in the destruction of Babri mosque and said that
he was not ashamed of it. He condoned Gujarat pogrom in 2001, vociferously
pleaded Hindutva as the basis of nationhood and Hindu cultural nationalism and
ruined Agra Summit. His pronouncements jolted the age-old concept of Akhand
Bharat feverishly pursued by the Indian nationalist leaders and incensed
one-nation theory advocates to an extent that they demanded his resignation if
not his head.
The soothing statements given by Advani which were music for Pakistanis were
severely criticized by Hindu extremist groups RSS, Sangh Parivar and VHP. It
clearly showed that hard-line Hindus who have a lot of say in Indian politics
have not accepted Pakistan. Going by the track record of Indian leaders, they
have a reputation of backtracking, breaking promises, brazenly uttering
falsehoods and above all past masters in deception and intrigue. It was indeed
hard to digest such a radical overnight change from a political diehard like
Advani. If this change of heart had taken place out of noble sentiments and not
political expediency, it was indeed a very good omen. It was the first drop of
affection that had dropped on the soil of Pakistan and it was ardently hoped
that this drop would soon convert into a river of love and affection to submerge
the clouds of mistrust and communal hatred once and for all. It was a first
attempt to cut the umbilical cord of communal abhorrence, intrinsically woven
with Indo-Pakistan hostility.
It did not take long to discern the real purpose as to why he admired the Quaid
so profusely. It triggered a heated debate on Mr. Jinnah in India as well in
Pakistan aimed at undermining his standing as a larger-than-life hero and
leader. It gave strength to secularists in Pakistan who have always considered
Quaid a secular and offended the sensibilities of those who regard him as a
forward looking Islamist. The debate generated in India exposed how history is
interpreted to suit expeditious and competing political designs and how
widespread is antagonistic view across various divides in India about Mr. Jinnah
and creation of Pakistan.
Advani was in a position to bring a change in the mindsets of hardliners that he
commands. Jaswant Singh’s book was another attempt to wash away perception in
Pakistan that all Hindu Indians hate Quaid-e-Azam and Pakistan. However, later
events have proved that Hindu extremism and hatred of Pakistan is increasing
rather than decreasing. Indo-Pak peace treaty signed in January 2004 and
resumption of composite dialogue to resolve all contentious issues including
Kashmir dispute was a big trap to numb the senses of our leaders so that it
could activate the eastern front for cultural onslaught and show the soft face
of India and to weaken the morals of the youth; and to use Afghan soil for
covert war to destabilize Pakistan. Peace mantra was sung to buy time to build
series of dams over Rivers Chenab, Jhelum and Indus to dry up Pakistan. Having
inflicted substantial damage through patronized terrorism and subversion, it
removed its masked of friendship and came out in true colors after the Mumbai
attacks. India’s latest snare is the trade offer aimed at giving a deathblow to
our industries. It is expectantly waiting for the Pak Army to get snared in
North Waziristan so that it could exercise its military option. Yet we foolishly
keep falling into India’s deadly embrace whenever it smiles at us captivatingly
under the happy premise that this time it will not harm us.
The writer is a retired Brig and a defence analyst. Email: [email protected]