September 28, 2022

Quaid-e-Azam and Indian Writers

The first book on Quaid-e-Azam was published in his life only one year after the Lahore Resolution. “The Tragedy of Jinnah” by Kailash Chandra. There are two main reasons for this.

Quaid-e-Azam

The Quaid-e-Azam was responsible for the partition of India and the creation of Pakistan and in view of his historical process, it was very natural to expect that all Pakistani historians would be his supporters and all Indian historians against him, but in reality this is not the case. The recommendation of our intellectuals to remove the two-nation theory from the curriculum of Pakistan or to write that the Quaid-e-Azam was a politician and Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad was a strategist or that Pakistan was created due to economic greed and the Quaid-e-Azam was a politician. Azam deliberately did not give a clear picture of Pakistan. Also, admitting that partition was the result of riots, insisting that partition was the cause of riots. Even criticism of Liaquat Ali Khan is actually a criticism of Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah. On the other hand, the realization that the role of Quaid-e-Azam was a historical character and his motivations have historical significance. The result is that although a lot was written in India against Muhammad Ali Jinnah, but very serious writings were written in the spirit of self-accountability, without the study of which neither all corners of the Pakistan Movement can be enlightened nor All aspects of the Quaid-e-Azam’s personality. The number of books written by Hindus on Quaid-e-Azam is not less than 15, and all of them cannot be covered here, but an effort must be made to write in detail on relatively more important books, so that our Urdu-speaking class also Get to know them and increase their understanding. It is worth mentioning here that these Indian historians wrote in a hostile environment without any desire for praise or reward.

The first book on Quaid-e-Azam was published in his life only one year after the Lahore Resolution. “The Tragedy of Jinnah” by Kailash Chandra. There are two main reasons for this. One is that Pakistan cannot be established. Second, Pakistan should not be established. Here are Kailash Chandra’s arguments under why it cannot be established. 1. Until today, no Muslim state has become a power of first importance. 2. Kailash Chandra suspects that Muhammad Ali Jinnah did not have the support of the Muslims. 3. Jinnah is weak and frail (fell unconscious while traveling to Madras). Kailash Chandra gives three reasons why Pakistan should not be established. 1. Pakistan does not have the capacity to flourish economically. 2. Pakistan is close to the Russian border. 3. Muslim League’s inflammatory orators are calling for a radical state. Obviously, these arguments have been debated for months and years. However, this book reflects the concerns that the Pakistan Movement raised among Hindus and will be essential reading for any historian of Pakistan. The second book in this series is “Mr. Jinnah: A Political Study”. This book by VN Naik was the last book printed on the Quaid-e-Azam in his life. In this book, Naik has clearly tried to do justice. Naik admits that Gandhi’s being a sadhu and spiritualizing politics left Indians in a quandary. In this book, Naik writes, “Aiyan Dekha Hal,” while presiding over a meeting in Bombay, which was organized to support the election of R.P. Paranjype, Jinnah dealt with the interfering hooligans. That is, he was disproving the impression that Jinnah was merely a drawing-room politician and incapable of dealing with the brunt of political conflict. Naik has tried to do justice to Jinnah. However, he complains that Jinnah fought the Congress with the help of Winston Churchill and tarnished Indian independence, although he admits that the major responsibility for the partition of India lay not with Jinnah but with Congress’s short-sightedness. In his book, Jinnah and Gandhi: Their Role in India’s Quest for Freedom, SK Majumdar’s main argument is that Jinnah was associated with modern science, while Gandhi was superstitious. And they were bereft of stereotypes and science and industrial progress. According to Majumdar, Gandhi was opposed to the English treatment and preferred the Atayat. Majumdar’s story is based on the fact that when Gandhi’s wife, Kasturba, fell ill, he kept reciting Ashlokas around her deathbed, but did not allow a single drop of medicine to come down from his wife’s throat, which could have saved Kasturba’s life. . Majumdar was a Bengali Hindu and from the mistreatment of Bengali leaders by Mahatma Gandhi, Majumdar realized what kind of abuse Jinnah had to endure at the hands of Gandhi at the Nagpur 1920 Congress session and even after that. When Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose was elected as the President of the Congress against Gandhiji’s wish, Gandhiji severely criticized the Congress and stated that those who are naturally Congress-minded should leave the Congress and those who belong to the Congress. There will be real representatives.

Majumdar has written about how Jinnah nominated Gandhiji to succeed him as President of Home Rule, so Gandhi derailed the Home Rule League and expelled all its members, of whom Jinnah was probably the only Muslim. gave Majumdar used his own words to show Gandhi’s nature. The reason was conflict. I had stolen the bangles of my dear wife in my youth because her beloved bangles were the cause of discord between us.” How did Gandhi dismiss them? In 1918, Jinnah and Tilak made it clear to Viceroy Chelmsford that unless the British agreed to commission Indian soldiers, they would not cooperate in the Great War. (It should be clear that Muhammad Ali Jinnah was not only saying this in support of the Muslim soldiers, but also in support of the Hindu and Sikh soldiers) while Gandhi assured the British of unconditional cooperation on the spot. Great support. It was during this time that Mahatma Gandhi’s famous saying that “a civil activist never harasses a government” came to light. However, when the prince (who would become Edward VIII) began touring India, Mahatma Gandhi Gandhi considered the British government helpless and interrupted the Prince’s trip. The same Gandhi, who had launched the Quit India Movement in 1942, was distributing leaflets of this article in 1918, which read, “The easiest and most direct way to get Swaraj is that we defend the British Empire.” Take part. If the empire ends, so will our aspirations.” Majumdar even says that Mahatma Gandhi had given Pakistan its financial assets in 1947 because Lord Mountbatten. And Pandit Nehru had turned his back on him at the historic moment of independence and he retaliated by saying that the Congress should be dissolved and replaced by Gau Sevak Singh. Also, Gandhi mockingly called Nehru “King” and stated that a poor farmer should be made the Prime Minister of India. It should be kept in mind that Majumdar did not write the poem of Quaid-i-e-Azam, but held him responsible for the Calcutta riots of 1946. However, as much as Majumdar has written, it provides substantial support to Jinnah’s supporters.

Now comes the turn of Ajit Javed’s book, “Secular and Nationalist Jinnah”. In this book, Ajit Javed also basically compares Gandhi and Jinnah. She tells that when Jinnah was demonstrating against the Governor of Bombay, Lord Willingdon, Gandhiji refused to participate saying that he was from Ahmedabad, not Bombay! This is the Jinnah, about whom Jawaharlal Nehru never tired of saying and his Pakistani followers never tired of saying that Jinnah was not interested in public politics. A demonstration was held by Jinnah in the hall and his wife Rati Jinnah was giving a speech outside the hall: “We are not slaves.” All of them ate police sticks. According to Josh, “They used to give the praise of patriotism with sticks.” Jinnah criticized the law of 1919 (Montagu, Chelmsford Reforms), while Gandhi not only welcomed it, but also threatened to He would support this constitutional initiative of the British in the dimensions of India. In other words, even in 1919, Gandhiji was so much in favor of the British that he said, “To shake off the hand of friendship extended by the British is against Indian civilization.” Even Ajit Javed said. Now consider that in the very next year, 1920, Mahatma Gandhi started the non-alignment movement against the British. The most striking contrast that Ajit Javed has shown between Gandhi and Jinnah is in relation to Bhagat Singh. When Bhagat Singh and his associates were imprisoned, they went on a hunger strike against the behavior of the prison authorities. Mahatma Gandhi said that “Hunger strikes have become quite an epidemic. Some people go on hunger strikes for the slightest justification,” while Jinnah in the House said, “You know very well that People are determined to die. I request the Hon’ble Law Minister to understand that not everyone can go on a hunger strike. Try it for a while. It will be known. A person who goes on a hunger strike is a possessor of a soul, who listens to his soul and believes in the rightness of his cause.” Sadly, this phase faded from the minds of the Sikhs in 1947. If they had accepted Jinnah Sahib’s offer and cooperated with Pakistan, neither the blood of Sikhs would have flowed in Punjab nor the blood of the Muslims nor would the Sikhs have seen the attack on the “Golden Gurdwara”.

Now look at Jaswant Singh’s book. The name of the book is Jinnah: India-Partition-Independence. Jaswant Singh has also been the Minister of External Affairs and Defense Minister of India. He also belongs to a Hindu nationalist party. After spending his political career, he sat down to think about the partition, whose fault was it? Since he was not associated with the Congress, Jaswant Singh began to consider the responsibility of the Congress and particularly Nehru in this regard. Like Majumdar’s book, it must be emphasized here that Jaswant Singh’s book is not an ode to the Quaid-e-Azam, but a serious attempt to understand the process of history, the result of which, however, goes in favor of the Quaid-e-Azam. Jaswant Singh’s question is: “Was Jinnah’s search for a partial recovery of the glorious past?” Or was it a search for a suitable place in the newly emerging democratic system? Basically, that (his nation) should not drown in the careless sea of ​​the majority?”

Obviously, a realist like Jinnah was not looking for a glorified past. Jaswant Singh has used the correct word ‘enough’. The majority ocean mentioned by Jaswant Singh has also been called indifferent. It is also true that as long as Gopalkrishna Gokhale, Chittaranjan Das and Bal Gangadhartlak ruled the Congress, the Muslims did not face the same threat from the Congress as Sir Syed did and only when leaders like Jinnah and Azad were in the Congress. Be involved. (You must know that just as Muhammad Ali Jinnah was in the Congress from the time he returned to India to 1920, Abul Kalam Azad was in the Muslim League from 1913 to 1929) since Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru. came to dominate the Congress, since then the space for Muslims became narrower and narrower. Jinnah separated from Nagpur meeting in 1920, while Gandhi started demanding from 1942 to leave the presidency of Azad Congress.” Jaswant Singh’s second question is that “when democracy is called representation, then why? And how did it divide the people instead of uniting them?” Although Jaswant Singh, unlike other historians, traces its roots to the Lucknow Pact of 1916, when the Congress recognized the right of separate suffrage for Muslims. had done, but the answer lies in their own question. In 1937, the Muslim voters defeated the Muslim League. Had it not been for the experience of the two-year Congress government, the Muslim League would not have reached the historic position despite the leadership of the Quaid-e-Azam. It has already been argued that experience validates theory, theory does not validate experience. Jaswant Singh has done a very thorough study and it is undoubtedly one of the best books on Muhammad Ali Jinnah.

In the same year BR Nanda’s book Road to Pakistan: The Life & Times of Mohammad Ali Jinnah was published. This was Nanda’s last book. Earlier, he had written books on Gopalkrishna Gokhale, Mahatma Gandhi, Motilal and Jawaharlal Nehru, which gained credibility in the academic world. That is, they came to the side of the Quaid-i-e-Azam, after ignoring the entire history of the freedom movement. The most important feature of this book is that he has done extensive research on the early days of Muhammad Ali Jinnah. His early education, his stay in London and his foray into politics. These matters, with the detail and clarity found in BR Nanda’s book, are not found in any previous book.

Thus, Mahatma Gandhi’s journey of several days from Sabarmati to Danda in 1930 against the imposition of salt tax in the world is significant. However, Nanda tells us that Muhammad Ali Jinnah, in a London speech delivered on 17 February 1896, strongly condemned the imposition of a tax on salt, saying that such an unjust tax could not be imposed in any other country in the world. I don’t think so. Nanda also sheds light on the early harmony between Jinnah and Gandhi. In South Africa, against the persecution of Indians, Gandhi went on strike there, while in India Muhammad Ali Jinnah fell out with Viceroy Lord Chelmsford on the same issue. Such a bold statement made the Viceroy fall to his death. In 1908, Gandhiji suggested in his journal, Indian Opinion, that Jinnah be invited to visit South Africa. This did not happen, but when Mahatma Gandhi returned to India in 1915, the reception was presided over by Muhammad Ali Jinnah. From the initial correspondence between the two, which Nanda transcribes, it is clear that there was an atmosphere of trust between the two. If not, why would Jinnah have nominated Gandhi to preside over the Home Rule League at the end of his term? Now, if history has changed its course, it is not to be blamed on Muhammad Ali Jinnah.

The last and latest book is Sheela Reddy’s Mr and Mrs. Jinnah. Most of this book deals with the married life of Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Sheila Reddy has written that Ratti Jinnah was a spendthrift and had to devote more time to her work to cover the expenses. Ratti Jinnah felt negligent in this, while Ratti herself was negligent on behalf of her daughter and did not even name the girl, who has just died at the age of 98.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.