Work On Jinnah by Vishu

Jinnah – India Partition Independence: A book Review
TABLE OF INDEX
Chapter - 1..................................................................................................................1
Introduction.............................................................................................................. 1
History of that Period...............................................................................................5
Social Background....................................................................................................7
Work for the Muslim Community...........................................................................8
Personality of Jinnah..............................................................................................13
Chapter - 6................................................................................................................15
Conclusion.............................................................................................................. 15
Bibliography: -...........................................................................................................17
CHAPTER - 1
INTRODUCTION
The partition of India, 1947, some call it as vivisection as Gandhi had, has without doubt has
been the most wounding trauma of the twentieth century. It has seared the psyche of more than
four generations of this subcontinent. Why did the partition take place at all? Who was/is
responsible – Jinnah, the Congress Party or the British? Jaswant Singh attempts to find an
answer, his answer, for there can perhaps not be a definite answer, yet the author searches.
Jinnah’s political journey began as ‘an ambassador of Hindu – Muslim Unity’ (Gopal Krishna
May 6, 2010
Project submitted by Vishu Agrawal and Reema Chand
2
Gokhle), yet ended with his becoming the ‘sole spokesman’ of Muslims in India; the creator of
Pakistan, the Quid-e-Azam: How and why this transformation takes place?1
Writing about the politics of Partition in the right register seems impossible. Entrenched
ideological commitments, the desire for explanations, the need to apportion blame, and a
preoccupation with subtexts make the history almost impossible to write. Writing on Partition
also suffers from a peculiarly unimaginative take on human agency. How could anyone in the
1930s and ’40s have imagined what the Indian subcontinent would be like? How do such a
complicated and brilliant cast of political characters engage in complex political negotiations?
How easy is it to read intentions? What is the relationship between the negotiations of these
characters and the complex movements of self and identity brewing on the ground? How do we
think of possible counterfactuals: if only Nehru had done “X” or Mountbatten had done “Y”?
There has always been a false confidence with which so many historians approach these difficult
questions. There is also the wishing away of uncomfortable thoughts. Men acting in good faith
can produce unintended consequences; and often two incompatible lines of argument seem to
have their own internal integrity. It is easy to argue that Hindus and Muslims were not two
nations. It is far more difficult to suggest what framework would have accommodated all possible
aspirations. It is far too easy to take a position on should India have been a strong, central state or
a weak federation. But it is more difficult to make a knockdown argument for one position or the
other. Yet, we write and argue as if all these judgments are so easy. Certainly, none of the
characters central to this drama — Jawaharlal Nehru, Mahatma Gandhi, Vallabhbhai Patel or
Mohammed Ali Jinnah — ever thought there were easy answers. Their moments of self doubt,
hesitation and frustration are a tribute to their seriousness, as much as our encrusted certainties
are a reminder of the laziness of our condescension. 2
This is the backdrop against which a serious book (Jaswant Singh’s Jinnah) must be approached.
It is a prodigious work of scholarship, wide-ranging in its references and well documented. It has
its own historical judgments to make and sometimes they are too swift. But there is no doubt that
the book opens up serious and interesting questions. It has a narrative of its own. Partition was
not the result of an irrevocable religious cleavage between Hindus and Muslims. It was squarely a
1
Jaswant Singh, Jinnah-India Partition Independence, 1st edition, 2009, Rupa Co. new Delhi, page no. i
2
ibid
May 6, 2010
3
product of politics. The Congress was unable to handle its own success, as it were. The issue is
not whether the Congress was right in its ideological commitments or not. The issue is whether it
had the political capacity and sense of judgment to deal with those who might challenge it. The
issue is not which theory of nationhood was right. The real political question is how you handle
deep disagreement. In this crucial respect, Singh argues, the Congress spectacularly misjudged
Jinnah at many levels: his political tenacity, his tactical adaptability, his single-mindedness, his
sense of mission. The roots of these misjudgments are deep. Partly it was overconfidence. After
the UP election results, the Congress came to the erroneous conclusion that it did not need to
share power with the voices Jinnah represented. Partly it was a question of historical judgment.
Ironically, in Singh’s account, it is the Congress’s commitment to a strong Centre and impatience
about taking power that stood in the way of a workable compromise. We can all blame Jinnah for
the communalization that rapidly took over politics in 30 years, but that would be too easy. We
have to also ask: what was it about prevailing discourses, including that of the Congress, which
allowed this to happen?
The book has many layers and nuances. It places Partition in the context of the history of Islam in
India; it acknowledges the burdens that Partition has psychologically placed on the Muslims of
India. It builds on earlier work that the central paradox of Pakistan and the emergence of
religious politics in India is that they were born in the crucible of representative politics. Its
central conclusion that Partition was a mistake may seem too swift in hindsight. It is often too
easy to focus on the costs of division, but the problem of unity was a genuinely difficult one. If
this learned work has a failing, it is this. It sometimes violates its own deeply generous spirit,
particularly in its assessment of Nehru. Nehru’s problem, even on the evidence in the book, was
not that his positions were not defensible. His problem, in this instance, seems to have been more
his ability to handle people who did not think like him. The subtle message of the book is that
nations are made, not only by ideology or virtue, but also by an ability to negotiate with radical
difference.
No Indian or any Pakistani politician/Member of Parliament has ventured an analytical, political

biography of Quid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, about whom views necessarily get divided as
being either hagiographical or additional demonology. The book attempts an objective evolution.
Jaswant Singh’s experience as a Minister responsible for the conduct of India’s foreign policies,
May 6, 2010
4
managing the country’s defense (concurrently), has been uniformly challenging (Lahore Peace
process; betrayed at Kargil; Kandhar; at Agra Pease Summit; the attack on Jammu and Kashmir
assembly and the Indian Parliament; coercive diplomacy of 2002; the peace overtures reinitiated
in April 2003)
He asks where and when did this questionable thesis of ‘Muslim as separate nation’ first originate
and lead the Indian sub continent to? Why then a Bangladesh? Also what now of Pakistan?
Where is it headed? This book is special; it stands apart, for it is authored by a practitioner of
policy, an innovator of politics in search of definite answers. Those burning ‘whys’ of the last
sixty – two years, which bedevil us still. Jaswant Singh believes that for the return of the lasting
peace in South Asia, there is no alternative but first to understand what made it ‘abandon’ us in
the first place. Until we do that, a minimum, a must, we will never be able to persuade peace to
return.3
3
ibid
May 6, 2010
5
CHAPTER - 2
HISTORY OF THAT PERIOD
India and Islam carries Jaswant Singh’s confused ideas of the Introduction with some details
again questioning his basic point whether or not Muslims were a nation. How could people who
came to invade India and settled here thereafter, could become Indian nationals: He is forgetting
that those who claimed to be a nation in their own merit, were large number of Muslim converts
from Hindu religion to Islam over the centuries, which many Hindu scholars did take notice of,
and explained them, with a number of reformatory movements in the Hindu religious, social and
cultural system. Islam or Islamic spirit and culture are difficult for non-Muslims to understand
and all the more unintelligible to realize its importance and impact.
Islam is what the Holy Prophet did or some of his selected followers and the progeny practiced
following his footsteps and not what the Muslim generally does. Muslim political culture and
practices have occasionally been wrongly attributed to the religion. It is therefore, Jaswant Singh
feels all what is wrong is Islamic.
Jaswant Singh rightly suggests that “the Muslims of India’s medieval cultures never thought of
themselves as a unit and certainly never acted as one”4. This was so because nationalist concepts
were born only in the nineteenth century. Hindus, too, did not presume themselves from a similar
national outlook except after the birth of the Indian National Congress. And even then the
nationalism of India was restricted only to the feelings of the educated classes of Bengal or other
Presidency towns. If then Indian Nationalism was a product of an encouragement from A.O.
Hume, rather than being indigenous, then, why should there be a question mark against Muslim
nationalism? What, there was the basis of the Lucknow Pact of 1916 between the All Indian
National Congress and All India Muslim League? How could the Indian National Congress agree
to negotiate which did not have an equal status? Any logical mind will be convinced that the
Congress had recognized the Muslims as a nation, while conceding to them the separate
electorate; their status as a nation was so predetermined. In fact, the language controversy was
also a movement in the direction of nationalistic approach. The extremists from amongst the non-
Muslims considered Urdu a hindrance in the progressive development of their national religio-
cultural outlook, where it mothered the indigenous cultural roots. The Muslims were shocked and
4
Supra 1, Page 37
May 6, 2010
6
even Muslim leaders like Syed Ahmad Khan who frequently professed his concern for non-
Muslims, had to yield to the Two Nation Theory, in consequence. It may not be an exaggeration
to submit that the Congress leader like Gopal Krishna Gokhle also considered Indian Muslims a
separate nation. It was he to suggest communal representation to Minto before 1909 as confessed
by Marry, the Lady Minto. (p. 53).
This was the historical background of the period in short, because if we dare to deal with the
history in detail, it will take hundreds of pages. So, at the end of the day, we came to conclusion
that the main reason to propose the ‘Two Nation Theory’ was the absolute disassociation of
Muslim community from the political and social scenario by the Congress leaders.
May 6, 2010
7
CHAPTER - 3
SOCIAL BACKGROUND
Great Britain was at the height of its imperial glory, Queen Victoria reined majestically supreme,
the lords, the ladies, and the sahibs who ruled on her behalf of the Queen in India saw not a very
small dot of cloud obstructing their imperial vision; not one troublesome dot existed then on the
horizon of their future. How, in such a scenario, a rather poor Khoja5 socially very far from the
ashraf6 of India, not the inheritor family wealth, standing or name, did this young entrant to the
cosmopolitan world of Bombay, etch his name so boldly and so indelibly on the social and
political firmament of India? That was Mohammad Ali Jinnah, from Kathiwar. Kathiwar, a fertile
part of Saurashtra (literally meaning – a land of hundred kingdoms); inhabited by fine Kathiwari
horses; beautiful women; sharp traders and rich business families, both Hindu and Muslim 7. One
of such family was of Poonjabhai lived in the district of Paneli. His youngest son, Jennabhai,
risked leaving Paneli and moved to Gondal for business. Then, he never looked back. This was
the first step which resulted in a giant leap to his future. After Gondal, he kept on moving for
business, port to port, for e.g. Karachi, Mumbai etc.
On 25th October 1876, Jennabhai and Mithibai were bestowed a son, whose name was a mere
modification of his father’s, Mohammad Ali Jinnah. His primary education was not formal. A
teacher was hired for his studies who taught him in his mother tongue, Gujarati. He then kept on
changing his school as his father shifted his business. He completed his higher education from
Christ Mission School, Karachi. He then left for England primarily to learn intricacies in shipping
in which his father was engaged.
In England, he was very much influenced by Dada Bhai Naoroji. When he saw the statue of
Prophet Mohammad among world’s 10 greatest law givers, he decided to choose law as his
career. He completed his studies with great difficulties and finally returned back to India in the
year 1896 and in the same year, he joined Indian National Congress. In the year 1896 itself, he
enrolled in the High Court of Bombay as an advocate. His early political career was as usual as
any new lawyer without a strong family background. He had to face great difficulties. The
5
The word Khoja derives from Khawaja, an Arabic/Persian title
6
An Arabic, plural of Sharif, ‘nobleman’. Term usually used for Muslim Perso-Arab-Turkish immigrants to India.
7
Supra 1, Page 60
May 6, 2010
8
turning point in his career was the case of his father himself. As he has nothing much to do, he
took it upon himself to conduct the cross – examinations and prepare their defense. He won the
case and then his political career boosted upon.
Work for the Muslim Community

Along with his staunch interest in law, he was also interested in religious activities. He had seen
the degradation of Muslim Community after the Mughal era. So, he had to work for the welfare
of Islam. For this he also joined Anjuman-i-Islam.8 There he came in contact with Sayyid Ahmed
Khan and Pheroz Shah Mehta. Later, these relations helped him and affected his ideology in rest
of his life. As mentioned earlier, he was an active member of National Congress. But when he
joined Muslim League he was subjected to suspicions and was blamed for disloyalty in the
Congress. The author recalls a very interesting incident from the unseen depth of history which
proves that Jinnah was a true patriot, nationalist and was an ‘Ambassador of Hindu – Muslim
unity’ as Gopal Krishna Gokhle said.
“In October of 1906, he took a more serious and assertive political step. He went on to
question the very representative status of the delegation led by Agha Khan to the viceroy.
He was of the view that the Congress represented the Muslims no less, in fact, was the
only ‘true political voice in the country.’ He also opposed this whole pursuit of separate
electorates through a memorandum to Lord Minto by the Bombay Presidency
Association”.9
This incident clearly indicates that theory of ‘separate electorates’ was of Aga Khan’s not of
Jinnah’s. In fact, initially, he was against it. But suddenly there came a change.
“In a letter to the editor of The Times of India, dated 20 February 1909, Jinnah took a
markedly different stand, he (for the first time?) accepted that the Muslims were ‘entitled
to a real and a substantial representation in the new reforms, but the real question was
how this ought to be done; ‘whether to have separate electorate at all stages, from rural
Boards to the Viceregal Councils? Or something less or if so, then what level?’ on the
basis of populations, Muslims would become entitled to representation of about 25 %.
8
Basically, this institution was working for the education and social development of Muslims, established in the
year 1874 by a group of Muslim visionaries under the leadership of late Justice Badaruddin Tayabji.
9
Supra 1, Page 81
May 6, 2010
9
‘But if this share could be enhanced to a weightage equivalent to a third then this whole
business of communal representation could be dispensed with,’ Jinnah reasoned,
‘otherwise, there was no alternative but to retaining the reservation system’. In addition,
at a meeting of a Muslim representation in the Bombay Legislative Council were
elections by separate electorates, or selection by nominations, preference should be given
to the former – election.”10
This indicates that he had only the last option to go for separate electorates for Muslims. As also
mentioned by Sayyid Ali Abbas, in his blog about the book, Jaswant Singh has narrated all this in
an ambiguous manner, not letting the reader to obtain a clear picture. So, we could not exactly
infer what Jaswant Singh actually wants to say, whether Jinnah supported separate electorates or
not? Whether he was compelled to agree with the decision or it was deliberate sudden change of
mind.
Another thing which we would like to highlight is that Jinnah never had any friends. He never
expressed his feelings to anyone. It was difficult for people, even his closest, to predict about his
thinking and feelings. The failure of M.R.A. Baig (his secretary), despite his association with
Jinnah in understanding his statements on Islamic State, is no surprise. 11 If we search the
literature, we will be ending up with only the official papers, documents and letters of Jinnah, not
the one to his dear ones which could reveal his mental and psychological conditions.
10
Supra 1,Page no. 82
11
Supra 1, Page no 275
May 6, 2010
10
CHAPTER - 4
POLITICAL CAREER
Three years later, in January 1910, Jinnah was elected to the newly-constituted Imperial
Legislative Council. All through his parliamentary career, which spanned some four decades, he
was probably the most powerful voice in the cause of Indian freedom and Indian rights. Jinnah,
who was also the first Indian to pilot a private member's Bill through the Council, soon became a
leader of a group inside the legislature.
Mr. Montagu (1879-1924), Secretary of State for India, at the close of the First World War,
considered Jinnah "perfect mannered, impressive-looking, armed to the teeth with
dialectics..."Jinnah, he felt, "is a very clever man, and it is, of course, an outrage that such a man
should have no chance of running the affairs of his own country."12
For about three decades since his entry into politics in 1906, Jinnah passionately believed in and
assiduously worked for Hindu-Muslim unity. Gokhale, the foremost Hindu leader before Gandhi,
had once said of him,
He has the true stuff in him and that freedom from all sectarian prejudice which will
make him the best ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity: And, to be sure, he did become
the architect of Hindu-Muslim Unity: he was responsible for the Congress-League Pact
of 1916, known popularly as Lucknow Pact- the only pact ever signed between the two
political organisations, the Congress and the All-India Muslim League, representing, as
they did, the two major communities in the subcontinent. 13
The Congress-League scheme embodied in this pact was to become the basis for the Montagu-
Chemlsford Reforms, also known as the Act of 1919. In retrospect, the Lucknow Pact
represented a milestone in the evolution of Indian politics. For one thing, it conceded Muslims
the right to separate electorate, reservation of seats in the legislatures and weightage in
12
http://www.telepk.com/personalities/quaideazam.asp, visited on 23/3/2010, 3:20pm IST
13
Ibid 12
May 6, 2010
11
representation both at the Centre and the minority provinces. Thus, their retention was ensured in
the next phase of reforms14.
For another, it represented a tacit recognition of the All-India Muslim League as the
representative organization of the Muslims, thus strengthening the trend towards Muslim
individuality in Indian politics. And to Jinnah goes the credit for all this. Thus, by 1917, Jinnah
came to be recognized among both Hindus and Muslims as one of India's most outstanding
political leaders. Not only was he prominent in the Congress and the Imperial Legislative
Council, he was also the President of the All-India Muslim and that of the Bombay Branch of the
Home Rule League. More important, because of his key-role in the Congress-League entente at
Lucknow, he was hailed as the ambassador, as well as the embodiment, of Hindu-Muslim unity.
Struggle for existence

In subsequent years, however he felt that political terrorism was not the pathway to national
liberation but, the dark alley to disaster and destruction. Hence, the constitutionalist Jinnah could
not possibly, allows Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi's novel methods of Satyagrah (civil
disobedience) and the triple boycott of government-aided schools and colleges, courts and
councils and British textiles. Earlier, in October 1920, when Gandhi, having been elected
President of the Home Rule League, sought to change its constitution as well as its nomenclature,
Jinnah had resigned from the Home Rule League, saying: "Your extreme programme has for the
moment struck the imagination mostly of the inexperienced youth and the ignorant and the
illiterate. All this means disorganization and chaos". Jinnah did not believe that ends justified the
means.
He opposed tooth and nail the tactics adopted by Gandhi to exploit the Khilafat and wrongful
tactics in the Punjab in the early twenties. On the eve of its adoption of the Gandhian programme,
Jinnah warned the Nagpur Congress Session (1920): "you are making a declaration (of Swaraj
within a year) and committing the Indian National Congress to a programme, which you will not
be able to carry out”.15 He felt that there was no short-cut to independence and that Gandhi's
extra-constitutional methods could only lead to political terrorism, lawlessness and chaos,
without bringing India nearer to the threshold of freedom.
14
Ibid 12
15
Ibid 12
May 6, 2010
12
The future course of events was not only to confirm Jinnah's worst fears, but also to prove him
right. Although Jinnah left the Congress soon thereafter, he continued his efforts towards
bringing about a Hindu-Muslim entente, which he rightly considered "the most vital condition of
Swaraj".
Jinnah's disillusionment at the course of politics in the subcontinent prompted him to migrate and
settle down in London in the early thirties. He was, however, to return to India in 1934, at the
pleadings of his co-religionists, and assume their leadership. But, the Muslims presented a sad
spectacle at that time. They were a mass of disgruntled and demoralized men and women,
politically disorganized and destitute of a clear-cut political programme.16
He continued his struggle for Pakistan and at the end achieved the title for which he was born. In
recognition of his singular contribution, Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah was nominated by
the Muslim League as the Governor-General of Pakistan, while the Congress appointed C.
Rajgopalachari as Free India's first Governor-General. Pakistan, it has been truly said, was born
in virtual chaos.
16
Ibid 12
May 6, 2010
13
CHAPTER - 5
PERSONALITY OF JINNAH
Jinnah was, no doubt a great personality, who cannot be found anywhere in the world. It was
Jinnah who created something out of nothing. There was an interesting incident with the author,
which inflated the idea of working on this personality. It was during Prime Minster Atal Bihar
Vajpayee’s historical bus journey to Lahore in 1999. Jaswant Singh accompanied PM to Minar –
e – Pakistan,17 returning from where he was struck by the thought that there existed no biography
of Jinnah written by any political figure from India. It was then that he decided to fill the gap.18
As mentioned in the book, the trait which influenced the author the most was him as an exception
to all those generalizations of family background and hereditary. He had no trader’s instincts of
conciliation, accommodation or pursuit of profit, not at all. His nature was determined and
combative. His nationalism was not born of any self interest; it was by-product of his free spirited
nature, his exposure to England, his thriving legal practice, which he had earned on his own
merit. He was largely a self-educated, a self-made person, anxious as a youth that his merit
should gain recognition and be duly rewarded. He had not the assets of birth, lineage or social
status that most other barristers of his time came equipped with. Having being exposed to English
mores he resented greatly the double standards practiced by them, one set in their own country
and another, a markedly different one for, and in, India. Like so many others who had been
through the Inns of Court, Jinnah upon return became committed to ‘the eradication of British
insolence on one hand, and of a feeling of inferiority and mortification by Indian, on the other’.
Zealous for reform, his enthusiasm was always marked by his sense of constitutional propriety,
for which characteristic his great legal practice was to account. He was typical of those who
earned influence through their efforts, on merit and by remaining committed to their principles.
Possessing no other he employed these very attributes and his principles to combat India’s
imperial overlords.19
If we draw a comparison between two great Indians i.e. Mahatma Gandhi and M.A. Jinnah, we
will find that Jinnah is much, more realistic and practical, whereas, Gandhi was highly spiritual
17
It is a 60 m. high tower to mark the place where All India Muslim League adopted a resolution for creating
Pakistan on March 23, 140
18
Supra 1,Page no. xiii
19
Supra 1,Page 72
May 6, 2010
14
and charity and social work were his main notions. Even Jaswant Singh felt that it is really damn
complex exercise to compare both because of their perfectness in their means to achieve goal.
“Comparing Jinnah and Gandhi is as extremely complex exercise but important for they
were, or rather became, the two foci of the freedom movement. Gandhi was doubtless of a
very different mould, but he too, like Jinnah, had gained eminence and successfully
transited from his Kathiwari origins to become a London barrister before acquiring a
political personality. Yet there existed an essential difference here. Gandhi’s birth in a
prominent family, his father was, after all, a diwan (prime minister) of an Indian state
helped immeasurably. No such advantage of birth gave Jinnah a leg – up, it was entirely
through his endeavours. Gandhi, most remarkably became a master practitioner of the
politics of protest. This he did not do by altering his own nature, or language of
discourse, but by transforming the very nature of politics in India. He transformed a
people, who on account of prolonged foreign rule had acquired a style of subservience.
He shook them out of this long, moral servitude. Gandhi took politics out of the genteel
salons, the debating halls and societies to the soil of India, for he , Gandhi – was rooted
to that soil, he was of it, he lived the idiom, the dialogue and discourse of that soil: its
sweat; its smells and its great beauty and fragrances ,too.20
It was also mentioned by Jaswant Singh about a very interesting comparison of Jinnah and
Gandhi’s personality by Hector Bolitho in In Quest of Jinnah.
“Jinnah was a source of power. Gandhi… an instrument of it…Jinnah was a cold

rationalist in politics – he had a one track mind, with great force behind it. Then: Jinnah
was potentially kind, but in behavior, extremely cold and distant. Gandhi embodied
compassion – Jinnah did not wish to touch the poor, but the Gandhi’s instincts were
rooted in India and lifelong he soiled his hands in helping the squalid poor.”21
20
Supra 1,Page no.77
21
Supra 1,Page no. 78
May 6, 2010
15
CHAPTER - 6
CONCLUSION
"We are a nation with our own distinctive culture and civilization, language and
literature, art and architecture, names and nomenclature, sense of values and proportion,
legal laws and moral code, customs and calendar, history and tradition, aptitudes and
ambitions; in short, we have our own distinctive outlook on life and of life. By all canons
of international law, we are a nation".
These were the famous words of Quid-e-Azam when he demanded for separate nation for
Pakistan.
In his speech, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, at All India Muslim League Presidential Address delivered
in Lahore, on March 22–23, 1940 said,
“It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real
nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but
are, in fact, different and distinct social orders, and it is a dream that the Hindus and
Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality, and this misconception of one Indian
nation has troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in
time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social
customs, and litterateurs. They neither intermarry nor interdine together and, indeed,
they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and
conceptions. Their aspects on life and of life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus
and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have
different epics, different heroes, and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe
of the other hand, likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such
nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority,
must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built
for the government of such a state.”22
22
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Nation_Theory, accessed on 25/4/09, 4:00 pm IST
May 6, 2010
16
This was the basic notion of ‘Two Nation Theory’ for which Jinnah is often blamed. People have
a mentality that it is only this theory and its propagator, i.e. Jinnah is responsible for the partition
of India. But in the book, Jaswant Singh clearly blamed Vallabh Bhai Patel and Nehru for the
partition. The partition was not the result of Hindu – Muslim diversity, but was only the outcome
of ‘lust of power’ of Nehru and Patel. Not only Jinnah knew this thing but also Abul Kalam Azad
in his work ‘India Wins Freedom’ confessed the fact that Nehru was in demand of centralized
politics in India but Gandhi and Jinnah were against it.23 In order to satisfy his lust for power, he
and the First Home Minister of free India, Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel, inflated the issue of India’s
partition and separate nation for Muslims. Nehru was aware of the fact that if India remains
undivided, even with separate province for Muslims, Jinnah will suppress the status of Nehru.
Gandhi too was in the opinion to make Jinnah the PM of India. So, in order to clear his obstacle
of the way, he improved his terms with Lady Mountbatten and convinced India for partition.
Jinnah was a mere an escape goat.
23
http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/study_res/azad/azad_statement1.html, accessed on 25/4/2010, 4:47 pm
May 6, 2010
17
BIBLIOGRAPHY: -
Books referred
Jaswant Singh, Jinnah-India Partition Independence, 1st edition, 2009, Rupa Co. New Delhi
Internet Sources: -
• http://www.mindef.gov.sg/safti/pointer/back/journals/2002/Vol28_3/10.htm
• http://www.telepk.com/personalities/quaideazam.asp
• http://www.infibeam.com/Books/info/jaswant-singh/jinnah-india-partition-
independence/9788129113788.html
• http://www.nbcindia.com/MoreReview.asp?title_id=1886779
May 6, 2010

Work On Jinnah by Vishu

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Work On Jinnah by Vishu

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jinnah – India Partition Independence: A book Review

No Indian or any Pakistani politician/Member of Parliament has ventured an analytical, political

HISTORY OF THAT PERIOD

Work for the Muslim Community

Struggle for existence

“Jinnah was a source of power. Gandhi… an instrument of it…Jinnah was a cold

You might also like