Neo

A book on Jinnah you can judge by its cover

INDIAN communists supported Jinnah’s demand for Pakistan but later, over a period of time, after falling in line with Nehru’s Fabianism, they quietly distanced themselves from the idea of an exclusive country for South Asia’s Muslims. As their politics evolved with time and they became more narrowly nationalistic, political exigencies landed them in poky patriotic corners where right-wing nationalists would otherwise feel more at home.

Today, as more and more communist leaders from India visit or are allowed to visit Pakistan, old idealism and camaraderie with fellow liberals is beginning to resurface. A standard communist party ‘line’ on any major issue is of course known by its rigidity. Thus any major change in approach to a significant issue can come as an inflection rather than a pronouncement from the pulpit.

It could be tantamount to reading too much into a mere fact, but it’s a fact nevertheless that a favourable book on the Quaid-i-Azam has resurfaced after many years among a large number of agreeable books sold by Sahmat, a cultural trust named after the late playwright Safdar Hashmi, and whose members are either full-time workers for the Communist Party of India (Marxist) or are its sympathizers.

Secular and Nationalist Jinnah by Dr Ajeet Jawed, whose Sikh father was her mentor, makes for riveting reading. It gives all the moral support and logical arguments to those Indians (such as BJP leader Lal Kishan Advani, why not) who are trying to see the founder of Pakistan through an objective prism.

Left to themselves Indian and Pakistani ideologues are masters at doling out spurious history through school curriculum and textbooks. Most Indians are thus told ad nauseum that Jinnah did not have a very high opinion of Nehru and Gandhi because he was communal. But what they are not told always so openly is that he had the highest regard for early nationalists such as Gopal Krishna Gokhale and Bal Gangadhar Tilak, both Chitpavan Brahmins of the highest order.

According to Dr Ajeet Jawed, Gokhale was Jinnah’s mentor and his model. “Together with Gokhale Jinnah worked relentlessly to strengthen the Congress organisation and for Indian reforms.”

He participated in all the political activities of the Congress and spent his own money on political trips. “He used to contribute Rs1,000 a month to the Congress funds.”

When the British government agreed to appoint one Indian member to the Viceroy’s Executive Council, the Congress wanted S. P. Sinha, a flourishing lawyer of Bengal, to be the Indian representative. But S. P. Sinha, in view of his enormous legal practice, was unwilling to accept a far less remunerative post. The task of convincing Sinha was assigned by the Congress to Gokhale and Jinnah. The two set out for Calcutta and argued with S. P. Sinha for a considerable time.

“It would be a pity,” said Gokhale, “if no Indian could be found suitable for the job. The government of India would then be justified in saying that Indians are not fit for highest posts.” When even this cajoling did not work, it was Jinnah’s turn to persuade Sinha. He was typically more direct.

“Do you think we are fools to waste our time like that?”, he tersely told Sinha. “Do you think Gokhale is a fool to draw only seventy-five rupees from the Servants of India Society? Is he not capable of earning more? Do you think I am not losing my practice in Bombay owing to my being absent from work? What are we begging you for? Do you think it is something for our own personal good? We agree that you lose much but you may resume your practice after you have served for some time in the executive council in the interest of the country and your people.” Sinha had no choice but to relent.

Jinnah’s selfless patriotism and an outstanding political contribution won him honour, popularity and the love of his people, says the book. According to Jawed, he was given the titles variously of ‘Apostle of United India’, ‘Uncrowned Prince of Bombay’, ‘Muslim Mazzini’, ‘Zaghlol Pasha of Indian Politics’, ‘Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity’, ‘a great hearted prince of Indian nationalists’, and ‘Modern Akbar’.

Jinnah married Ruttie Dinshaw around 1918. She would often attend Muslim League meetings. Once she went to Kashmir with Jinnah. There she got fed up as she had to fill up a form in which a visitor was supposed to explain the purpose of the visit. At one place Ruttie wrote: “The purpose of the visit is to spread sedition.”

Once she and Jinnah were guests at the dinner at the Viceregal Lodge in Shimla. Instead of following the British system of curtseying to the Viceroy, Ruttie folded her hands in Indian style after shaking hands with the Viceroy.

Kanji Dwarkadas, who knew Jinnah closely, narrates another incident quoted in the book. Mrs Jinnah met Lord Reading at lunch in New Delhi in 1921. He said to her: “Mrs Jinnah how I wish I could go to Germany. I very much want to go there, but I cannot go there.” Mrs Jinnah asked: “Excellency, why can’t you go there?” Reading replied: “The Germans do not like us, the British, so I can’t go.” Ruttie quietly asked: “How then did you come to India?” Reading immediately changed the topic.

Speaking at a conference in Tilak’s honour, Jinnah said forthrightly: “After his release from Mandalay, I came in closer contact with him and Mr Tilak who was known in his earlier days to be communalistic and stood for Maharashtra, developed and showed broader and greater national outlook as he gained experience.”

The book captures a moment in the life of the subcontinent’s Muslims, which seems relevant if forbidding even today. “Jinnah warned Gandhiji against joining hands with the Ali Brothers. He characterised the Khilafat Movement as a pseudo-religious movement likely to lead to reactionary revivalism.” The revivalists saw in the Khilafat Movement an opportunity to recapture the League and to have a hold on the illiterate and ignorant masses.

Tilak also warned Gandhi for introducing religion in politics. He said: “Let us seek Muslim cooperation on the broad national question of Swaraj. In that, by all means, give them special privileges if these will satisfy them and bring them into the Congress fold, but never seek to introduce theology into our politics.”

India’s communist and liberal admirers of Jinnah must be particularly pleased with his upright opposition to obscurantism in public life.

Observes Jawed, in this heavily referenced and footnoted book: “Jinnah criticized Gandhiji for bringing Maulanas, Maulvis, Sadhus and Saints on the political platform.” Interestingly it was the same lot of people that were locked in a huddle with President Bush during his visit to New Delhi, a model of discourse that Jinnah had once opposed unsuccessfully. Read the book.

__________________
Administrator @ Defence.pk