Jawswant Singh’s epiphany about Quaid e Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah has surprised most Bharatis. The reaction is sad reflection of the illiteracy of the Bharati press and media about the life and accomplishments of Mohmmad Ali Jinnah. The furore over the books is also a commentary of the condition of the educaiton system of Bharat which doles out the old Congress “companyline” as history of the Subcontinent. Of course what he said is common knowledge in Pakistan. This is basic history of the Subcontinent  and serious students of the history of South Asia know these basics well. Much of this is summarized in Why we created Pakistan? One Nation Theory vs Two Nation Theory an article we wrote about thirty years ago.

The Daily Times is run by Najam Sethi, a very pro-Indian publisher in Pakistan. Both the Friday Times and the Daily Times constantly publish articles in favor of Delhi. The Daily Times also publishes Anti-Pakistan articles. However this article by Najmuddin A Shaikh caught our eye. It has kernels of truth in it so we reproduced it on our site. 

• Loving Jinnah in the land of Gandhi: Why Nehru haters like Jinnah?
• Jinnah partitions BJP-bares Bharati schizophrenia
• Ghost of Jinnah still haunts Bharati leaders: 1946 Cabinet Misison Plan dirge

We must not allow ourselves to be held hostage by false or mistaken notions about the part our religion played in the creation of our country and the consequent assertion that we have to see ourselves as a centralised state under theocratic rule

The publication of Jaswant Singh’s new book has caused a furore in India. Ostensibly, the decision of the BJP to expel Singh, a veteran BJP leader of 30 years standing and a former foreign minister who won high praise from his American interlocutor, Strobe Talbott, was attributed to his departure in his book from the BJP’s public stance of holding the Quaid responsible for the partition (or more vividly the vivisection) of India.

A BJP spokesman, speaking to a Pakistani channel, explained that that in holding Nehru and more particularly Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel responsible for partition, Singh had contradicted a basic tenet of the BJP’s interpretation of the tumultuous political developments that led to the emergence of Pakistan on the world map.

What Singh found after his five years of research is nothing new. Political scientists the world over have long acknowledged that the Quaid, a long time advocate of Hindu-Muslim unity in the struggle for independence from British rule, had been forced to seek a separate homeland for the Muslims of South Asia only after Nehru and his even more hard-line colleague Sardar Patel refused to agree to any equitable power sharing arrangement between Hindus and Muslims in an independent India.

If there were any doubts, they were settled by the publication of The Sole Spokesman. This meticulously researched book by Ayesha Jalal, which was published some 25 years ago … made it clear that it was the obsession of the Indian Congress leaders, Nehru and Patel, to maintain the same centralised control that the British had used in India that forced the Quaid to depart from his much praised role as ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity and become the leader of the movement for an independent Pakistan.

Subash Chandra Bose and Mohammad Ali Jinnah: Quaid e Azam agreed with Bose's ideas which opposed those of Mohandas Gandhi.

Khuswant Singh in an interesting article on Indian Muslims says the
following:

 “Long before Chaudry Rehmat Ali propounded his views on Pakistan, and
Mohammed Ali Jinnah put forwarded the TNT, as early as 1924 Lala Lajpat Rai, the most prominent nationalist leader of Punjab and a pillar of the National Congress endorsed the view of the Bhai demand of the Hindu Mahasaba that ‘Punjab should be partitioned into two provinces, Western Punjab with a large Muslim majority to be a Muslim-governed province and the same principle can be applied in Bengal’.

He went on to add:

‘Under my scheme Muslims will have four provinces, the NWFP, West Punjab, Sindh and Eastern Bengal.’  Lajput Rai elaborated: ‘It should be distinctly understood that this is not a united India. It seems a clear partition of India into Muslim India and non-Muslim India. ‘

The mistrust of the Muslims was exploited by the Hindu leaders who dwelled on the fact that the Muslims were aliens in India. Here is an excerpt of Gurudev Rabindranath Tagore’s fears about the divided loyalty of Muslims published in th  ’Times of India’ April, 18, 1924.

“…. A very important factor which is making it almost impossible for Hindu-Muslim unity to become an accomplished fact is that the Muslims cannot confine their patriotism to any one country. I had frankly asked many Muslims whether, in the event of any Mohammedan Power invading India, they would stand side by side with their Hindu neighbours to defend their common land. I was not satisfied with the reply I got from them. I can definitely state that even such men as Mr. Muhammad Ali has declared that under no circumstances it is permissible for any Mohammedan whatever be his country to stand against any Mohammedan. …….” Gurudev was also quoted by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in his “Pakistan”, see page 272-273.

The above is parhaps one of the best reasons for the creation of Pakistan, for as long as India was one country all Muslims would be aliens in their own land. Today’s Indian Muslims are suspected of loyalties to Pakistan. Facing
Iran or Arabia or Afghanistan, Muslim loyalties would always be under suspicion in a united India.

Here is another quote by Lala Lajpat Rai in “Muslim Leaders cannot override Quranic and Hadic injunctions?”Lala Lajpat Rai wrote to C.R. Das (in 1924):

“……….I am not afraid of seven crores (of Muslims) of Hindusthan but I think the seven crores of Hindusthan plus the Armed hordes of Central Asia, Arabia, Mesopotamia, and Turkey will be irresistible. I do honestly and sincerely believe in the necessity or desirability of Hindu-Muslim Unity. I am also prepared to fully trust the Muslim leaders, but what about the injunctions of the Quran and Hadis? The leaders cannot override them. Are we then doomed? I hope not. I hope your learned mind and wise head will find some way out of this difficulty.  …….” “Pakistan”, by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, page 274.

Critics that accused Golwalkar of fascism have often pointed to his extreme right-wing and Anti-Muslim bigotry. In his 1939 book, “We, Our Nationhood Defined”, Golwalkar expressed praise of Hitler, saying:

“To keep up the purity of the Race and its culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging the country of the semitic Races — the Jews. Race pride at its highest has been manifested here. Germany has also shown how well nigh impossible it is for Races and cultures, having differences going to the root, to be assimilated into one united whole, a good lesson for us in Hindusthan to learn and profit by.”

“The Christians committed all sorts of atrocities on the Jews by giving them the label “Killers of Christ”. Hitler is not an exception but a culmination of the 2000-year long oppression of the Jews by the Christians.”MS Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts, Jagarana Prakashana, Bangalore, 1966, p.210

It was the Hindu Mahasaba type of communal thinking that which wanted to impose the Rajha Rama in India that planted the seeds of the TNT in the minds of the Muslims of that era.

Dr. Ambedkar was a protege of Jinnah and Jinnah nurtured him. In the case of Ambedkar, there has been marked response in his life after meeting the different leaders. After meeting Jinnah in January 1940 along with Periyar, Ambedkar became more confident and reassured.. Ambedkar, Periyar and Jinnah on Januay 9, 1940: Mohammad Ali Jinnah courted, mentored and helped Dr. Ambedkar get elected. He strived for a Muslim-Dalit coaltion that would have given them the majoirty. The Muslims of Bharat must reach out to the Dalits, form alliances with them, and liberate them from Untouchability through Islam

Najmuddin A Shaikh goes on to describe the reasons behind Mr. Singh’s recent decision to praise the Qauid e Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah

It is clear, however, that there is much more to the BJP decision than this acknowledgement by Jaswant Singh of what has been long accepted by impartial political scientists. Singh had for long been a thorn in the side of BJP hardliners, especially the extremist organisations that have provided the bulk of the BJP’s electoral strength but have been forced to operate from behind the scenes because of the perceived need of the BJP to find support among the more moderate sections of the Indian electorate. For these hardliners the partition of “Mother India” and the “villainous role” that the Quaid played in bringing this about is an article of faith.

Any departure was not to be tolerated, as LK Advani, the parliamentary leader of the BJP, discovered when during his visit to the city of his birth, Karachi, he uttered a few words of tepid praise for the Quaid and then had to offer his resignation to quiet the storm that this had occasioned. Advani of course was forgiven his trespasses after he had offered a half-hearted apology.

Earlier, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, a former prime minister and an iconic figure in the BJP, suffered, I was told by Indian friends, a considerable loss of political support when as part of the now much praised Yatra to Lahore in 1999, he visited the Minar-e-Pakistan and acknowledged in his remarks in the visitors book that Pakistan was a reality, and with whom India would seek good neighbourly relations. Again while Vajpayee paid a political price, this was seen as no more than a hiccup from which he soon recovered.

Admittedly Jaswant Singh’s book, which one assumes will become available in Pakistan soon, is of much greater consequence in the eyes of the hardliners than the misdoings of Vajpayee or Advani, but the strength of the reaction owes much to the disdain with which this Rajasthani aristocrat, with increasingly strong intellectual credentials, has treated many of the BJP’s other leaders. Words of high praise for Jaswant’s negotiating skills and Jaswant’s vision in Strobe Talbott’ book Engaging India, written after his long and tedious negotiations with Pakistani interlocutor Shamshad Ahmad and Indian interlocutor Jaswant Singh, only served to increase the irritation of the lesser BJP stalwarts who had secured no such recognition for their intellectual prowess and who, more often than not in private conversations, termed Singh as a charlatan who often sacrificed India’s interest to further his own image.

In India, the ruling Congress party has also condemned the book but that was to be expected given the Nehruvian heritage of the party and the fact that his heirs still provide the leadership for the party. That it will affect the party’s attitude towards Pakistan appears unlikely at least for the moment. The BJP will suffer a further decline in popularity not because the popular sentiment will be to endorse …ANALYSIS: Singh’s book and its repercussions —Najmuddin A Shaikh. Daily Times

This map is the basis of the Cabinet Mission Plan and defines how the Muslims majority provinces would balance the Hindu majority provinces. The beauty of Jinnah’s plan was the fact that both the Muslim majority and the Hindu majority areas would still have sizable minorities and their rights would be protected becuase of the simply fact that the “majoirty” was a “minority” in the other area.

This map shows the struggle of the Muslims of South Asia. Continent of Dinia and dependencies Ch. Rehmat Ali map depicting Muslim rule in South Asia after the British left. The Muslim homeland that was part of the struggle for independence. Rehmat Ali and the Muslims wanted the region returned to Muslim rule as it was before the British arrived

Our article discusses the details of the Cabinet Misison Planand.  Quaid e Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s stature and principled stand does not need any vindication from either the likes of Jaswant Singh or the research of Ayesha Jalal. Both are only partially right about the father of the nation of Pakistan. Both say what they wanted to say–and both have an exe to grind. Mr. Singh is using the Quaid to malign his biggest nemesis the Nehru family. Ms. Jalal puts forward a theory about the Quaid based on the Bharati theory for the separation of Pakistan–according to the Jalal theory, Jinnah’s Pakistan was created by the landlords of the Muslim provinces. Of course Jalal’s theory has as many holes as a seive. The fact of the matter is that all the landlords of the Punjab and Sindh actually opposed the Qauid and the Saheed e Millat, Khan Liaqat Ali Khan. The Noon, the Tiwanas and the Hyatts all belonged to the Zamindara Party of Sir Choutto Ram which later changed its name to the Unionist Party. The Unionist Party in the Punjab was the biggest nemesis of the Muslim Leage–the party of the Quaid. 

We wrote the following in 1996–it is as valid today as was a decade ago.

HISTORICAL BASIS FOR THE SOVERIGINITY OF MUSLIM PROVINCES

Throughout history, the struggle for the independence of the Subcontinent has been struggle against centralism and the struggle has been waged to create for provincial autonomy.

The Government of India Act of 1919 set out in clear terms the subjects which were to belong to the provincial sphere and those to the Central sphere. But both the Congress and the Muslim League boycotted the elections to the provincial and Central Legislatures held in November 1920 under the Act, because they felt that the Central Government had still retained too much of power over the provinces. When the Congress Party appointed a Committee to prepare a blueprint of the future Constitution for India under the chairmanship of Motilal Nehru, the then Congress President M.A. Ansari spelt out the fundamental principles on which the future Constitution was to be founded. Speaking at the annual session of the Congress on 28 December 1927 at Madras, Ansari had said:

“Whatever be the final form of the Constitution, one thing may be said with some degree of certainty that it will have to be on federal lines providing for a United States of India with existing Indian States as autonomous units of the Federation taking their proper share in the defence of the country, in the regulation of the nation’s foreign affairs and other joint and common interests.”

The Muslims cooperated with the Congress as long as they felt that the sovereignty of the Muslim majority provinces would be kept. When the Muslims felt that their sovereignty would not be honored, they deserted the ranks of the Congress and joined the Muslim League

The Nehru Committee Report submitted on 10 August 1928, reiterated the principles of provincial autonomy and reorganisation of the States on the basis of linguistic homogeneity

The Congress vehemently opposed the powers of the Governor General to override the Central Legislative as well as the powers granted to the provincial governors to rule directly during emergencies. The Congress first decided to boycott the election in protest but later decided to take part.

During the war years the Cripps Mission arrived in India in March 1942 with a draft declaration on the future government of India. Recognizing the possibility of irreconcilable differences among Indians on the Constitutional future, the Mission proposed the following guarantees to accommodate them.

It conceded:

1. “The right of any province of British India that is not prepared to accept the new Constitution to retain its present Constitutional provision and for its subsequent accession if it so desired.”

2. “With such non-acceding provinces, should they so desired, His Majesty’s government shall be prepared to agree upon a new Constitution giving them the same full status as the Indian Union….”

The Congress Working Committee in a resolution adopted on 2 April 1942 while objecting to the right of non-accession given to provinces, however, made the following significant point: “The Committee cannot think in terms of compelling the people of any territorial unit to remain in an Indian Union against their declared and established will… Each territorial unit should have the fullest possible autonomy within the Union, consistently with a strong national State.”

The Cripps Mission failed.

Elections to Provincial Assemblies were held towards the end of 1945 following termination of the war. Then arrived the Cabinet Mission in March 1946 to discuss with the Indian leaders the Constitution and the political modalities to be evolved for them to realize the goal of self government for Indians. After eliciting views from all the political parties and the groups, the Mission proposed a plan of government which was finally accepted by the Congress, the Muslim League and the Sikhs. There was to be, under the plan, a Union of India embracing both the British and the princely States.

The Union was to deal with Foreign Affairs, Defence and Communications and to have the power to raise finances required to administer these subjects.

All other subjects and residuary powers were to vest in the provinces which were to constitute themselves into groups with common executives and legislatures, and each group assuming such provincial subjects to  administer in common as the provinces joining the group desired. Within this broad framework the Constitution for the Indian Union was to be framed by a body to be constituted by the provincial legislators in the ratio of one member to a million and choosing their representatives for the communities – Hindu, Muslim and Sikh – in the ratio proportionally representative of their population strength. The Constituent Assembly was to have the total strength of 350. The Cabinet Mission Plan also conceded the right to provinces to change their Constitutions after 10 years by the majority vote of their assemblies.

Both the Congress and the Muslim League accepted the Mission Plan. The Sikhs also accepted the Mission Plan and agreed to join the Constituent Assembly, under persuasion by both the Cabinet Mission and the Congress, as has already been explained.

The Cabinet Mission Plan had been devised to avert the partition of India.

However, Nehru and Vallabhai Patel, having first accepted it, sabotaged the scheme after coming around to the view that it was better to give away a part of India to become sovereign Pakistan, and then to rule the rest of the subcontinent with a totalitarian hold instead of presiding over a democratic federation with provinces being virtually autonomous. With this view they, together with Mountbatten, worked out the partition plan. Punjab was truncated.