Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the architect of Pakistan, during his political career was described as the ‘‘Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity’’. Was he an ambassador of unity or the divider of the Sub-continent? This point still raises controversies and arguments which are considered for debates. This question poses to ask how a man who once supported the unity became the symbol of a process that led to the division of Indian Continent. Jinnah’s commitment for unity, faith and discipline is applauded absolutely right but it was not so easy for Jinnah to tread on this path full of hassles and ambiguity.
Jinnah’s approach to achieve his goal of Hindu-Muslim unity was ‘constitutionalism’ which he thought was devoid of any religious bias. He saw his dream of India where a Muslim and a Hindu are equal and free to live their life. However, his political strategies reflected almost the unpredictability of the people’s energy, for the welfare of entire Indian population and not merely the Muslims. The efforts resulted into the bond between the All India Muslim League and the Indian National Congress in the historical Lucknow Pact of 1916 at which he was instrumental. For this, he was labeled as the ‘‘Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity’’ by Sarojini Naidu, but the basis of this unity was not very stable and so did not lasted for long.
In his book, Jinnah of Pakistan, the historian, Stanley Wolpert summarizes Jinnah’s massive impact in a single phrase. Wolpert said: “Few individuals significantly alter the course of history. Fewer still modify the map of the world. Hardly anyone can be credited with creating a nation. Muhammad Ali Jinnah did all three.” This sort of praise is both flattering but also raises questions. To what extent was Jinnah’s dream of a united India realistically feasible ever and to assert how much it was just an unattainable dream spawn by the politics of communalism.
Jinnah was not explicit in his mission based on his interaction with Mahatma Gandhi as he had many folds to his carter. Even both were close friends and colleagues but the difference of ideologies, sometimes created a sharp political conflict between them. When Gandhi arrived in India in 1915 Jinnah was glad to see him and wanted a united party to fight for freedom but, in fact there were increasing differences in the perception of race. Jinnah’s integrated and composite nationalism policy got in direct opposition to the increasing animosity in the Congress and this discord further fueled the later divisions among them.
The Lucknow Pact was discarded with the Nehru Report of 1928, which was far from implementing the agreed mechanisms. Jinnah through his Fourteen Points gave his reaction to this approach but was ignored by the Congress and hence the political separation by the Muslim League occurred. The Lahore resolution 1940 by the Muslim league, aimed at bringing about the British Indian partition is usually taken through the prism of intolerance of the Congress towards the Muslims’ demand. However, Jinnah did maintain a smooth working relation with his political opponents as he tried to survive when survival appeared to be progressively impossible.
Contrary to the monolithic narratives often portrayed about Hindu opposition, the reality was different. For example, Jogendra Nath Mandal joined the cabinet of the newly formed Pakistan under Jinnah after the partition showcased a merely new political landscape. In his speech on 11th August 1947, Jinnah categorically declared that the Pakistan he envisioned is not the Pakistan (today specifically intolerant), rather Pakistan would be a tolerant and liberal country, a country where justice would prevail and where the rights of all the citizens of Pakistan would be equal.
At a critical point, Jinnah’s vision of a single Indian entity was tested as never before. The hope for a peaceful sub-continent and the constant transitions in communal riots reflected the hard-hitting truth of political bifurcation. The very thing he had favored as the basis of the political system came into question with more sectarian strife; idealism becomes the playing field for self-interest factions. This period of turmoil reveals the dreadful ironical state of affairs of the father of homeland that a great leader who struggled and fought so hard for oneness could not escape resulting to division.
I looked into the Jinnah’s efforts to unite Hindus and Muslims, an endeavor that while praiseworthy, cannot remain unchallenged. His basic idea advocating democracy and equality, as is revealed when he reformed the objective of the Muslim League in 1912 and when he was successful in the Lucknow Pact. But his efforts for uniting India in the end is again splits into two parts and this created doubt about his motives and his intentions.
Perhaps, the best that can be said about Muhammad Ali Jinnah and his role of the ‘Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity’ is that he showed the brilliance of a true leader and a diplomat. It also reinforces the fact that politics itself is complex and can involve a lot of things that are quite paradoxical. Tailoring Jinnah from the advocate of integration into the founder of Pakistan, it is possible to witness the oscillated processes of colonial India. In this case, great care needs to be taken not to sit back and view the man from the communal lens alone. We need to take time and understand that he was more complex than what we often like to put before our eyes. It will be highly subjective to say that Jinnah’s vision was not realistic but it is the tragedy of the subcontinent that the vision that Jinnah had for a united and progressive subcontinent separated solely on the basis of the two-nation theory was indeed not practical but the idea shines as a light of hope in the dark, what could have been the future of this subcontinent if the leaders of that time could have looked forward towards some future.
Be the first to comment