Whatever motives Jaswant Singh had for writing the book on Quad e Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah are the subject of intense scrutiny and analysis.  The so called liberals in Pakistan have taken Singh’s monographs to again attack the basis of Pakistan and misrepresent the life and prestige of the father of the nation. It is not surprising that dawn.com has published a litany of article by Bharati authors on Mohammad Ali Jinnah. As if Pakistanis needed history lessons from the Hindu Mahasabah and discredited leaders of the Bharatay Janata Party and the RSS. The BJPhas repeatedly threatened Pakistan with total annihilation. Akhand Bharat remains its agenda. The RSS since its inception in the 1940s has been clamoring for “Shuddi” and “Sangtram” (conversion or expulsion) of Muslims from South Asia.

This is not the first book that blames Sardar Patel and Nehru for the failure of the Indian National Congress. These notions of blaming Nehru or Gandhi are just a ruse to create some sort of historical reality about “partition” as if all of South Asia was one country–ever. It was wasn’t it was a conglomeration of more than 570 states when the British came to South Asia and it was a smorgasbord of 570 states plus two dominions when they left in 1947. These are all tactics to propagate Akahnd Bharat.

The book, `The Tragic Story of Partition’ has unflattering references to Nehru and Patel. Seshadri clubs both and holds them responsible for partition, which is what Jaswant Singh has done in his book, `Jinnah: India, Independence, Partition’.

“This book talks about the importance of `Akhand Bharat’. It’s an immensely important thesis for Sangh’s ideology,” says Prof Hemant Shah, who teaches political science at Gujarat University.

Excerpts: “When the new Viceroy Lord Mountbatten announced on 3rd June 1947 the plan of transfer of power, it came as a stunning blow to the people. For that plan, approved by Nehru and Patel, had envisaged cutting up Bharat and creation of Pakistan! … The great and trusted leaders of Congress had turned their back on the sacred oaths they had taken, and the pledges they had administered to the people. What took place on the August 15-15, 1947, was this gross betrayal of the nation’s faith, the betrayal of the dreams of countless fighters and martyrs who had plunged into the fire of freedom struggle with the vision of Akhand Bharat in their hearts.”

On another page, Seshadri writes: “The Working Committee met in a tense atmosphere. Everybody felt depressed at the prospect of Partition. The Viceroy’s proposals were accepted without much discussion. As a matter of fact, Jawaharlal and Vallabhai were already committed to the acceptance of the proposals. There was no critical examination…”

Shahid M. Amin makes some good points in his article but in a very subtle manner he undermines the ideology of Pakistan. Like many other authors of  dawn.com Mr. Amin takes up  the flag of the RSS and written an article which selectively picks up Iqbal’s message, ignores his speech at Allhabad in 1930 and sidelines the a lifetime of his work which called for a Muslim state “khanjar hilal ka ho qaumi nishan hamara”. It is disgusting to see dawn.com set forth a steady drumbeat of anti-Pakistan articles which gnaws at the sensitivities of the Pakistan nation. We discuss all misquotes of Iqbal here: http://rupeenews.com/2007/11/27/shair-e-mashriq-hakeem-e-ummat-sir-dr-alama-mohammed-iqbal-three-phases-of-a-visionary/

“…Personally I would go further than the demands embodied in it [resolution of All-Parties Muslim Conference at Delhi in 1928concerning Muslim India within India]. I would like to see thePunjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sind and Baluchistan*amalgamated* into a *single state*. Self-Government within theBritish Empire, or without the British Empire, and the formation ofa consolidated North-West Indian *Muslim state* appears to me to bethe final destiny of the Muslims, at least of North-West India.The proposal was put forward before the Nehru Committee. Theyrejected it on the ground that, if, carried into effect, it wouldgive a very *unwieldy state*…Thus, possessing full opportunity ofdevelopment *within* the body-politic of India, the North-WestIndian Muslims will prove the best defenders of *India*…Nor shouldthe Hindus fear that the creation of *autonomous Muslim states*… I, therefore, demand the formation of a consolidated Muslim state inthe best interests of India and Islam…For India it meanssecurity and peace resulting from an *internal balance* of power… Alama Iqbal 1930

Iqbal, speaking as the President of the All Indian Muslim League was saying “Islam is in jeopardy“, and we must save it by creating a separate homeland for the Muslims of India. Perhaps he was saying that Islam is in jeopardy in India, and we must provide it a nurturing ground, in certain parts of India, where it can grow and prosper, and influence. Iqbal went on to announce his thoughts at the Allahbad session and I quote Iqbal

” India is a continent of human groups belonging to different races, speaking different languages and professing different religions …. To base a constitution on the conception of a homogeneous India …. is to prepare for a civil war.

The formation of a consolidated North West Indian State appears to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of North-West India”.

Jaswant Singh was foreign minister in India’s last BJP government that held power for nearly five years until 2004, and was regarded as a stalwart of the party.

He has just published a laudatory biography of Mohammad Ali Jinnah that has created quite a sensation in India and beyond. Over the years, not only Hindu extremists but probably also a cross-section of Indian society have demonised Jinnah in the context of the partition in 1947.

Jinnah has been described as a communal-minded, fanatical and obstinate Muslim leader who had a personal agenda of his own in breaking up India. Moreover, Hindu fundamentalists have always considered the 1,000-year Muslim rule over India as a period of national humiliation. Many continue even now to view Muslims with suspicion.

The BJP is a fundamentalist party and the political face of the Sangh Parivar, a loose collection of parties and organisations in which the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh has been a kind of spiritual leader. The Parivar has had a philosophy of glorifying Hinduism and denigrating Muslims.

It is against this background that Jaswant Singh’s book has come like a bombshell. He is full of praise for Jinnah and describes him as a fascinating but complex character of great integrity and honesty. Jaswant Singh argues that Jinnah was a secular-minded leader who did his best to promote Hindu-Muslim unity. Though never anti-Hindu, Jinnah sought to protect the rights of Indian Muslims within a united country.

Mr. Amin’s wild assed assertion that “Pakistan” was a “bargaining tactic” is nonsensical garbage. The entire Muslim elite, students and the Muslims from all corners of South Asia voted for the Muslims League which had a platform for the creation of Pakistan. Mohammad Ali Jinnah was not secular

Quaid-e-Azam, Mohammed Ali Jinnah said that:

” the differences in India, between the two major nations, the Hindus and the Muslims are a thousand times greater when compared with the continent of Europe.

India is not a national state, India is not a country, but a sub-continent composed of nationalities, the two nations being Hindus and Muslims whose culture and civilization, language and literature, art and architecture, name and nomenclature, sense of value and proportion, laws and jurisprudence, social and moral codes, customs and calendar, history and traditions, aptitudes and ambitions, outlook on life and of life are fundamentally different nay in many respects antagonistic”.

Chaudry Rehmat Ali’s “Pakistanproposal asked for SEVERAL MUSLIM STATES  in the subcontinent.” The map was published by Rahmat Ali in 1934 and came to be widely circulated in his pamphlet called “Now or Never” among the Muslims of the Subcontinent.

In this document a map of India has also been published showing India split into different states, named as Pakistan, Guruistan, Usmanistan, Bangsamispan, Hindoostan comprising Rajistan, Kathiwar, Maharashtra, Rajistan and Dravidia. This pamphlet was reproduced in 1934  (Ref: The Great Divide by H. V. Hodson page 81). Karakal Pakistan’ existed as autonomous region of USSR.

The demand for Pakistan and the partition of India were basically bargaining tactics that Jinnah was willing to abandon, even as late as 1946 when he had persuaded the Muslim League to accept the Cabinet Mission Plan that conceded Muslim rights within a united India. It was Jawaharlal Nehru, the Congress leader, who rejected the plan. In fact, Nehru had all along refused to accept the minimum demands of Muslims for the protection of their political, cultural and economic rights.

Expressing his  views on Hindu-Muslim  relations in the twentiethth century Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad  Ali  Jinnah  observed:

“The  Hindus  and Muslims belong to two  different  religious  philosophies,  social  customs  and literature. They neither intermarry,  nor interdine together, and indeed they  belong  to  two  different  civilizations   which   are  based  on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspects on life  and of life are different.”

Mr. Amin cannot explain away the words of Mohmmad Ali Jinnah or negate the words spoken by Jinnah at the establishment of the State Bank of Pakistan. Neither can Jaswant Singh.

On January 25, 1948, Jinnah spoke to the Bar Association of Karachi, and said:

“Why this feeling of nervousness that the future constitution of Pakistan is going to be in conflict with Shariat Laws? Islamic principles today are as applicable to life as they were 1,300 years ago.”

“Islam is not only a set of rituals, traditions and spiritual doctrines. Islam is also a codeforeveryMuslim, which regulates his life and conduct in even politics and economics and the like.”

Thus, Jaswant Singh argues, the onus for the division of India must be laid mainly on Nehru, though he also puts some blame on Sardar Patel and Mahatma Gandhi. Jaswant Singh is, therefore, critical of the persistent demonisation of Jinnah by many Indians, which he thinks is based on a lack of information and objective analysis.

Jaswant Singh’s book has been strongly denounced by the BJP and led to his immediate expulsion from the party. In effect, he has questioned the validity of the long-held beliefs of the party. If Jaswant Singh’s thesis is accepted, then it would seem that extremists in the Hindu community have been barking up the wrong tree. They also stand to lose at least some of the ammunition that has long fuelled their anti-Muslim feelings.

But the real question is: why has Jaswant Singhchosen to write this book? He says he was drawn to Jinnah’s fascinating personality and found, on research, that Jinnah had been largely misunderstood. This might well be the truth. But then, there are the political realities. Jaswant Singhmust have known that telling this kind of truth would be akin to stirring up a hornet’s nest and could cause him serious harm. Still, he thought it worthwhile to take the risk.

In writing this book, I suspect, he had two motives. Firstly, he wanted to discredit Jawaharlal Nehru whose personality cult remains strong in India and has all along benefited the Congress party, the main rival of the BJP. The love affair of the Indian people with Nehru as yet shows no sign of ending. He is seen not only as the hero of Indian independence but also as a leader who gave the country a solid start.

The Congress has all along cashed in on Nehru’s popularity. It has also kept the Nehru dynasty in power: his daughter Indira Gandhi, followed thereafter by Rajiv Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi and the-soon-to-come Rahul Gandhi. If Jaswant Singh’s book does damage Nehru’s political standing, that would be to the BJP’s advantage.

The second motive of Jaswant Singh in writing this book might have been to create an uproar and divisions inside Pakistan. Following his expulsion from the BJP, he did remonstrate, ‘I thought this book would set Pakistan on fire.’ Jaswant Singh evidently thought that his book would lead to a deep controversy in Pakistan about the rationale for the creation of Pakistan as also about the thinking of its founder, and that such a controversy might shake the very foundations of the country.

The fact of the matter is that many in Pakistan have lost track of the rationale for the creation of Pakistan. There has been a systematic distortion of facts and a rewriting of history with a view to impose religion in matters of the state. The historical record shows that ever since the Muslims started their political struggle in the latter half of the 19th century during the British colonial period, their demand was for the protection of their political, cultural, religious and economic rights in a united India.

Mr. Amin’s assertion that “no Muslim leader of note ever demanded the establishment of a Muslim state”  is not only a distortion of facts, it is a blatant and unadulterated lie. Almost all Muslim leaders wanted self rule for the Muslims. The only difference between the religious and moderate parties was the mechanism. The Jamat e Islami and the Jamiat e Ulema Hind wanted to rule all of South Asia, while Quaid e Azam and the Muslim League wanted a separate state for the Muslims of South Asia. It is amazing that Mr. Amin could write this without being challenged by the “Quality Assurance” department of dawn.com. Oh yes! None exists at dawn.com. They only publish anti-Pakistan garbage. Why we created Pakistan? One Nation Theory vs Two Nation Theory:

The All India Muslim League session of 1936

1938 RESOLUTION ASKED FOR SEPARATION:Even earlier in 1938 Sir Abdullah Haroon moved a resolution for establishing independent Muslim states in the north-west and eastern zones. The word states continued to be used in subsequent sessions of the All India Muslim League till about 1943. Originally the two zones were meant to be autonomous and sovereign and it was only when the British and the Hindus insisted that Punjab and Bengal were to be partitioned that Pakistan began to be talked about as one state.

THE PAKISTAN RESOLUTION OF 1940: The Lahore Resolution (later known as the Pakistan Resolution) The Lahore resolution moved by Fazlul Haq at the 27th Session of the All India Muslim League, at Lahore on March 23, 1940 stated:

 “that geographically contagious units are demarcated into regions which should be so constituted, with such territorial adjustments as may be necessary, that the areas in which the Muslims are in a majority, as in the north-west and eastern zones of India, should be grouped to constitute independent states in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign.”

By the year 1941 He was indeed a firm believer in Pakistan and the Two Nation Theory

” Cant you see that a Muslim, when he was converted more than a thousand years ago, bulk of them, then according to your hindureligion and philosophy, he becomes an outcast and he becomes aMalecha (an untouchable) and the Hindus ceased to have anythingto do with him socially , religiously , culturaly or in any otherway? He, therefore belongs to a different order not merely religiousbut social and he has lived in that distinctly separate and antagonostic social order, religiously, socially and culturally…can you posiballycompare this with that nonsensical talk thatmere change of faith is no ground for a demand for Pakistan? Cantyou see the fundamantle difference ? “ 2 march 1941. Pres. address toPunjab Muslim Students Fed.

Mr. Amin’s assertion fly in the face of facts.

However, it is notable that no Muslim leader of note, since the days of Sir Syed, ever demanded either the division of India or the establishment of a Muslim state based on the rule of Sharia. Some people think that in the Allahabad address of 1930, Allama Iqbal had demanded the creation of a Muslim state in the northwest, but Iqbal himself had clarified that ‘Pakistan is not my scheme. The one that I suggested in my address is the creation of a Muslim province i.e. a province having an overwhelming population of Muslims in the northwest of India. This new province will be, according to my scheme, a part of the proposed Indian federation.’

The question arises as to why then was the demand for the division of India made by the Muslims in 1940? This happened because all of their efforts for reaching a national consensus failed due to the persistent refusal of the Congress to accept the minimum Muslim demands, notably one-third representation in the central legislature and in jobs.

The final blow was the shocking treatment of Muslims under Congress rule (1937-39). That forced Muslims to demand, in the Lahore Resolution of March 1940, the breakup of India and creation of independent Muslim states in the northwest and eastern zones of India where Muslims were in numerical majority. The truth is that the division of India (and creation of Pakistan) was not the first preference of the Indian Muslims. It was rather the last preferred option.

It is also notable that the Lahore Resolution made no mention of the proposed Muslim states being based on the rule of the Sharia. Jinnah was undoubtedly a secular leader.

Jaswant Singh is right to bring out some of these facts in his book. However, his motives are questionable since he seems to think that an internal debate in Pakistani society on the rationale behind the creation of the country and the secular ideas of Jinnah would set Pakistan on fire and presumably destabilise it.  Jaswant Singh’s bombshell By Shahid M. Amin Wednesday, 26 Aug, 2009 | 10:08 AM PST |

India had 400 million people. The Muslims were a minority, and because of colonialism had lost the political power in the Subcontinent. The British had taken actions to snatch the control from the Muslims at all echelons of power. The Muslims were demoralized, penury-stricken and were unable to compete with the the more affluent and more educated Hindus. Separate electorates allowed them to elect their own representatives, but the fear of “majoratarianism” scared the minority. Indian “democracy” still does not have any safeguards to prevent “majoratarianism” from dictating to the minority. Requests for one third seats in parliament were not acceptable to the Indian National Congress, and though on many occasions agreements were reached, pressures within the Congress did not allow the agreements to materialize.

The Cabinet Mission Plan was the closest the INC came to an agreement with the Muslim League. It was under these circumstances that they marched for freedom. The following narrative helps us remember the historical chronology and the ideological battles that were waged then and are being waged now over the internet.

The supporters of  the TNT won the elections and won the arguments, and the believers of the ONT lost the elections. The INC and the Jamat e Islami were rejected by the Muslims. The TNT became fact and the ONT remains a fascination by many. These pages will distinguish the origins of the ONT and the TNT.

Listen to Mr Jinnah before the formation of Pakistan, raising the spectre of Hindu majoritaranism: “We Muslims have got everything – brains, intelligence, capacity and courage- virtues that nations must possess. But two things are lacking, and I want you to concentrate your attention on these. One thing is that foreign domination from without and Hindu domination here, particularly on our economic life that has caused a certain degeneration of these virtues in us.”

Or listen to him after a meeting with Egyptian and Palestinian Arab leaders in 1946: “I told them of the danger that a Hindu empire would represent for the Middle-East … If a Hindu empire is achieved, it will mean the end of Islam in India, and even in other Muslim countries.”

At the same time, it is true that Mr Jinnah felt short changed by the Congress. On 26 July 1946, Jinnah and his working committee spoke about Muslim India having “exhausted, without success, all efforts to find a peaceful solution of the Indian problem by compromise and constitutional means; and whereas the Congress is bent upon setting up Caste-Hindu Raj in India with the connivance of the British…”(BBC. Why the Hindu right wing loves Mr Jinnah. Soutik Biswas | 08:35 UK time, Tuesday, 18 August 2009)

In February that year, in an address to Americans: “I do not know what the ultimate shape of this constitution is going to be, but I am sure that it will be of a democratic type, embodying the essential principles of Islam.”

Pressed for an answer about the structure of government at a press conference in Delhi on July 14, 1947, he said the matter was for the Constituent Assembly to decide. Asked: “What is your personal opinion?” He said: “No responsible man expresses his personal opinion in anticipation of a supreme body like the Constituent Assembly, the function of which is to frame the constitution.”

To the question, “Will Pakistan be a secular or theocratic state?” he replied: “You are asking me a question that is absurd. I do not know what a theocratic state means.” When the correspondent said it was a state in which only people of a particular religion, for example, Muslims, could be full citizens, Jinnah said: “I am afraid you have not studied Islam. We learned democracy 13 centuries ago.”

Why would a secularist be this ambiguous? Not becauseJinnahwas a hypocrite, but because he understood his constituency. Jinnah would not have been surprised by the creeping Islamisation that came with Zia’s amendments.