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.
An ardent Hindu nationalist L.K. Advani, President of BJP, not only heaped
lavish praises upon Quaid during his official visit to Pakistan in 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. He said it 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. The soothing statements given by Advani which were music for
Pakistanis were severely criticized by Hindu extremist groups RSS, Sangh Parivar
and VHP. 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. It clearly showed that hard-line Hindus had 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. 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. Seculars in Pakistan sing the Indian song and paint Jinnah as a
secular, while Altaf Hussain misses no opportunity to denigrate the great Quaid.
Jinnah had stated 101 times before Partition of India and 14 times during his
little over one-year life after creation of Pakistan that the foundations of
Pakistan will be laid on Islamic principles. In his considered view Pakistan and
Islam complimented each other and couldn’t be separated. He however never
supported theocracy and he didn’t mince his words saying that Mullaism had no
place in Islam. Those attaching terrorism, ethnicity, sectarianism and extremism
with Islam merely to promote secularism, or trying to find some kind of
connection between secularism and Pakistan movement and the ideals of
Quaid-e-Azam are oblivious of history.
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 to weaken the morals of the youth; and to use
Afghan soil to destabilize Pakistan covertly. Peace mantra was sung to buy time
to build series of dams over Rivers Chenab, Jhelum and Indus to dry up Pakistan.
After inflicting substantial damage through sabotage and subversion, it removed
its masked of friendship and came out in true colors after the Mumbai attacks.
Composite dialogue was put on hold for next two years and Pakistan subjected to
intense pressure.
India’s latest snare is the trade offer aimed at giving a deathblow to our
industries. Having cunningly entangled 150,000 Pak troops in US engineered war
on terror; India is expectantly waiting for the Pak Army to get snared in North
Waziristan so that it could exercise its military option. Pakistan is all set to
grant India the MFN status and land route to Afghanistan but India has willfully
heated up Line of Control in Kashmir with a devious intention. Protest lodged by
Pakistan over unprovoked firing by Indian troops on 06 January killing one Pak
soldier was cunningly covered up by making a bizarre claim that the other side
had conducted a raid on 8th January killing two Indian soldiers and decapitating
one of them.
The engineered incident has been blown up and Indian Army Chief Gen Bikram Singh
following in the footsteps of his trigger-happy jingoistic predecessors is
behaving imprudently. He is exhorting his commanders to respond aggressively and
offensively. Recently concluded visa regime has been put on hold and Pakistani
senior citizens wanting to visit India were turned back from the border post,
while visiting Pakistani hockey team has been sent back from India. 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. India
can never be a friend of Pakistan.
Asif Haroon Raja
The writer is a retired Brig and a defence analyst. Email: [email protected]