Communications on Jinnah.
Mr. Sumerendra Vir Singh Chauhan
Jinnah was always interesting, fascinating, hard to understand at times, but definitely someone who is worth studying and has earned his place in history.
My favorite quote of his is this one, I came across it while visiting the personal library of the Thakur of Kotdwar:
"Pakistan started the moment the first non-Muslim was converted to Islam in India long before the Muslims established their rule. As soon as a Hindu was forced to embrace Islam, he was an outcaste, not only religiously, but also socially, culturally, and economically. As for Muslims, it was a duty imposed on him by Islam not to merge his identity and individuality in any alien society . Throughout the ages, Hindus remained Hindus and Muslims remained Muslims, and they had not merged their identities; that was the basis for Pakistan." Source: Mohammed Ali Jinnah, Address to University Students, Islamic Journal, Aligarh Muslim University, March 1944.
My favorite quote of his is this one, I came across it while visiting the personal library of the Thakur of Kotdwar:
"Pakistan started the moment the first non-Muslim was converted to Islam in India long before the Muslims established their rule. As soon as a Hindu was forced to embrace Islam, he was an outcaste, not only religiously, but also socially, culturally, and economically. As for Muslims, it was a duty imposed on him by Islam not to merge his identity and individuality in any alien society . Throughout the ages, Hindus remained Hindus and Muslims remained Muslims, and they had not merged their identities; that was the basis for Pakistan." Source: Mohammed Ali Jinnah, Address to University Students, Islamic Journal, Aligarh Muslim University, March 1944.
Shekhar Sathe wrote:
When was the first non-Muslim was converted to Islam? It is simply not true that Hindus remained Hindus through the ages. The Hindu society was so fragmented because of the caste system and social oppression engendered by it, that sections of Hindus were always amenable to conversion whether to Christianity or to Islam and much later to Buddhism. (Buddhism in fact had challenged the Hindu theology much before the Muslims or the Christians came to India. Gandhi had to struggle against both Jinnah and Ambedkar. Ambedkar yielded, Jinnah did not. Pakistan had no basis other than the trumped up psychosis of separatism. In that sense Jinnah was an interesting character - a person totally westernised in his lifestyle, but claiming to be an Islamist.
Sameer Khan reacted: J
innah lived in a Palatial house in Malabar hill. Cant imagine an indian Muslim living on Malabar hill today.
My reaction Shyam Malick
There are two non-nonsensical streams emerging out of the above: 1. Jinnah's statement itself and 2.Statement on Muslims and Malabar hill.
1.What Jinnah is quoted to have said is possible as there was no one to hold him accountable.A design to truncate a country necessarily requires a lot of rhetoric, rubbish and twisted mound of facts. It is a simple example of that. Mr.Jinnah was indeed a genius turned evil who did not hide either his deceit or his hypocrisy.
Eloping with the daughter of his friend who trusted him with her education was 24 carat deceit.
Selling himself off to Brits and yet claiming to be a nationalist; Enjoying his platter of pork and seeking a nation for Muslims.24 carat hypocrisy!
2. Comment on Muslims and Malabar hill has Jinnah in its inspiration. Nonsense does not cease to be nonsense even if it is put in rhyme!
The country that Jinnah chomped away for Muslims still has isolated 'Mohajirs' who are looked down upon and made to live in ghettos!
Be a proud Indian brother, not just an illogically crying bigoted Muslim.Feel lucky to be born here!!!!!!!!!
1.What Jinnah is quoted to have said is possible as there was no one to hold him accountable.A design to truncate a country necessarily requires a lot of rhetoric, rubbish and twisted mound of facts. It is a simple example of that. Mr.Jinnah was indeed a genius turned evil who did not hide either his deceit or his hypocrisy.
Eloping with the daughter of his friend who trusted him with her education was 24 carat deceit.
Selling himself off to Brits and yet claiming to be a nationalist; Enjoying his platter of pork and seeking a nation for Muslims.24 carat hypocrisy!
2. Comment on Muslims and Malabar hill has Jinnah in its inspiration. Nonsense does not cease to be nonsense even if it is put in rhyme!
The country that Jinnah chomped away for Muslims still has isolated 'Mohajirs' who are looked down upon and made to live in ghettos!
Be a proud Indian brother, not just an illogically crying bigoted Muslim.Feel lucky to be born here!!!!!!!!!
Sumerendra Vir Singh Chauhan
Bravo Mr. Malick, Bravo.
Sonia Randhawa
Well said Mr Shyam Malick!....very explicitly explained!!
Shekhar Sathe
@Sumerendra Vir Singh Chauhan
I was not objecting to you quoting him, I was objecting to the quote itself. As Mr. Malick says, no point in trying to comment on a nonsensical quote. Cheers to you and to Mr. Malick and also Sushil.
I recently read a credible account of how nonsensical and tough it was for Gandhi to communicate with Jinnah in a bookcalled "Gandhi: Naked Ambition" by Jad Adams. The partition was the outcome mainly of intransigence of Jinnah. He was a classic case of "Bites if you hold him, attacks if you let go".
I was not objecting to you quoting him, I was objecting to the quote itself. As Mr. Malick says, no point in trying to comment on a nonsensical quote. Cheers to you and to Mr. Malick and also Sushil.
I recently read a credible account of how nonsensical and tough it was for Gandhi to communicate with Jinnah in a bookcalled "Gandhi: Naked Ambition" by Jad Adams. The partition was the outcome mainly of intransigence of Jinnah. He was a classic case of "Bites if you hold him, attacks if you let go".
Nandini Nair commented :
Let me add my two bit. I agree about the fact that Muslims can't live on Malabar Hill, is nonsensical.
Jinnah being hypocritical, is also true but not for the reasons cited by Mr. Malick.
Who cares if he ran away with a woman and ate pork.If he was a muslim cleric then he could be questioned about all those things. Islam was never as rigid as it is today. It provides broad social rules of living . But at the core is the thought there is one God. It is hypocritical to say he was not a pure Muslim. You don't have to be a cleric to be politician. He shouldn't be compared to the Mahatma who was trying to be both. He could be compared to a Nehru. It cannot be denied he had a stronger will then Nehru.
Having said that. Jinnah's experiment failed.
I am proud that we are probably the only country in the world that is so populated and SECULAR. But just as Muslims have felt insecure, I also resent the fact that i am constantly made to feel guilty that I am a Hindu. These are the legacies we have from the freedom struggle. I hope we can muddle our way through time as we have so far, and still manage to fly
Jinnah being hypocritical, is also true but not for the reasons cited by Mr. Malick.
Who cares if he ran away with a woman and ate pork.If he was a muslim cleric then he could be questioned about all those things. Islam was never as rigid as it is today. It provides broad social rules of living . But at the core is the thought there is one God. It is hypocritical to say he was not a pure Muslim. You don't have to be a cleric to be politician. He shouldn't be compared to the Mahatma who was trying to be both. He could be compared to a Nehru. It cannot be denied he had a stronger will then Nehru.
Having said that. Jinnah's experiment failed.
I am proud that we are probably the only country in the world that is so populated and SECULAR. But just as Muslims have felt insecure, I also resent the fact that i am constantly made to feel guilty that I am a Hindu. These are the legacies we have from the freedom struggle. I hope we can muddle our way through time as we have so far, and still manage to fly
Shyam Malick
@ Ms.Nair.Your erudite comments impress, the contents however are slightly questionable.
My hypocrisy example of Jinnah was in support of the point I had made about the genius barrister whose services were for hire, Brits hired them in the sly. Since we were not discussing his biography, I stop there.
However,there is no comparison between him and our glittering failure Nehru, which you have made. While Jinnah and Brits were constantly scratching each other's back, Nehru was content with Edvina. Jinnah was engineered by Brits, he was a scalpel in their hands, which were dismembering India.
"...Muslims have felt insecure.." What insecurity are you talking about? They are as secure or insecure as all other Indians! I fail to understand this lip service in the name of secularism. Insecurity happens when 12% Hindu population in Pakistan in 1947 is reduced to less that 2% 2007. We can not punish Muslims in India for the misdeeds of Pakistanis, but we also do not need faux sympathies either.
"...feel guilty that I am a Hindu.." What makes you feel guilty? I am proud I am a Hindu, I am proud to be a Hindu of India, and I wear this pride on the epaulets of my shirt and not hide it under the layers of pretensions.
Are you guilty that your co-religionists have been constantly butchered from 1906- first partition of Bengal till early 1980's by Khalistani terrorists, and you could not do anything?
Sardar, Jinnah, Nehru Gandhi, all protagonists played their role amidst rapid torrents of events. None of them could be adjudged in isolation. Jinnah, as I said earlier was an evil who did not hide his deceit.
My hypocrisy example of Jinnah was in support of the point I had made about the genius barrister whose services were for hire, Brits hired them in the sly. Since we were not discussing his biography, I stop there.
However,there is no comparison between him and our glittering failure Nehru, which you have made. While Jinnah and Brits were constantly scratching each other's back, Nehru was content with Edvina. Jinnah was engineered by Brits, he was a scalpel in their hands, which were dismembering India.
"...Muslims have felt insecure.." What insecurity are you talking about? They are as secure or insecure as all other Indians! I fail to understand this lip service in the name of secularism. Insecurity happens when 12% Hindu population in Pakistan in 1947 is reduced to less that 2% 2007. We can not punish Muslims in India for the misdeeds of Pakistanis, but we also do not need faux sympathies either.
"...feel guilty that I am a Hindu.." What makes you feel guilty? I am proud I am a Hindu, I am proud to be a Hindu of India, and I wear this pride on the epaulets of my shirt and not hide it under the layers of pretensions.
Are you guilty that your co-religionists have been constantly butchered from 1906- first partition of Bengal till early 1980's by Khalistani terrorists, and you could not do anything?
Sardar, Jinnah, Nehru Gandhi, all protagonists played their role amidst rapid torrents of events. None of them could be adjudged in isolation. Jinnah, as I said earlier was an evil who did not hide his deceit.
Danish Aleem
well said sir jinnah was not even muslim he was a man who used muslims for his political will......................
Nandini Nair
Mr.Malick, the argument about all the Indian leaders being manipulated by the British has been debated repeatedly. Jinnah and Nehru were both hugely influenced by their British upbringing. So I completely agree with you on that matter. it had it's postives and negatives.
However. The fact is that Muslims at various stages have been insecure in India. That is a fact. Undeniably so. Why they should be so, could lead down various paths of debate and rhetoric .Perhaps that would require another forum.
As to the reducing population of the Hindus in Pakistan, it is a vile statistic. It is as vile as the tamils In Malaysia being treated like second class citizens. We can decry it but we cannot take responsibility for all the hindus in the world.
To return to India, the population of India, yes I feel sympathy for the Muslims and it is not fake . The reason being that we declared ourself a secular nation. If we are one then lets behave like one. I believe that the heroes of our struggle were the ones who were hypocritical.
We should have declared ourselves A HINDU STATE.
I find that the older generation and the next generation of hindus still carry their partition wounds on their sleeves. The younger breed of Indians , Hindus Christians,Muslims, are buoyed with economic success and find things to look forward to, and dont linger looking backwards. They look at Jinnah and wonder for a moment or two, then they move on. Because life is calling and there is no time for a 60 year old bitterness.
That's the problem with Jinnah's Pakistan. they have nothing to look forward to. So they live in the past with old hatreds.
However. The fact is that Muslims at various stages have been insecure in India. That is a fact. Undeniably so. Why they should be so, could lead down various paths of debate and rhetoric .Perhaps that would require another forum.
As to the reducing population of the Hindus in Pakistan, it is a vile statistic. It is as vile as the tamils In Malaysia being treated like second class citizens. We can decry it but we cannot take responsibility for all the hindus in the world.
To return to India, the population of India, yes I feel sympathy for the Muslims and it is not fake . The reason being that we declared ourself a secular nation. If we are one then lets behave like one. I believe that the heroes of our struggle were the ones who were hypocritical.
We should have declared ourselves A HINDU STATE.
I find that the older generation and the next generation of hindus still carry their partition wounds on their sleeves. The younger breed of Indians , Hindus Christians,Muslims, are buoyed with economic success and find things to look forward to, and dont linger looking backwards. They look at Jinnah and wonder for a moment or two, then they move on. Because life is calling and there is no time for a 60 year old bitterness.
That's the problem with Jinnah's Pakistan. they have nothing to look forward to. So they live in the past with old hatreds.
Chandni Dhawan
If it were not for this man with iron will the partitition of India could not have been a possibility ,so many wars could have been avoided ,defense expenditure reduced n we could have been the next Super Power :))
Shyam Malick
Sudha Jagannath
@Mr.Aleem. Indian muslims allowed themselves to be exploited in the name of Islam by a non-practicing muslim Mr. M.A Jinnah then, as they are allowing themselves to be used by the politicians of the day. The device is the same; create a false sense of deprivation and disregard, than provide lip sympathy to mount as their leader.
An Indian Muslim is the best Muslim to be found anywhere in the world. Such a broad minded, non-bigoted specimen is a rarity elsewhere. For God's sake, let him live undisturbed in harmony with others!!
An Indian Muslim is the best Muslim to be found anywhere in the world. Such a broad minded, non-bigoted specimen is a rarity elsewhere. For God's sake, let him live undisturbed in harmony with others!!
Sudha Jagannath
mr. malick, your comments made absorbing reading!
Shyam Malick
@ Ms.Nair. "...As to the reducing... Hindus in Pakistan.. vile statistic. ... tamils In Malaysia.."
Calling an actual fact 'vile' does not reduce its importance. I am wiling to parade my statistics and sources to prove my facts. I also invite you do do so?
The Hindu Tamils in Malaysia no doubt are suffering, but then, we were on Mr.Jinnah, who had nothing to do with Malaysia?
Even if we deny the Pakistani fact, would you also deny that from the time of Mohamad bin Quasim, the first Muslim cut throat to enter India in aprox.710 AD till the present, there have been repeated Muslim aggressions against Hindus in this subcontinent? Do you also want to deny Khalistani aggressions against Hindus(In my last post I started with year 1900 as the starting point, this time I am starting from the time of birth of Islam)?
"We should have declared ourselves A HINDU STATE."
We can not undo the past...but we can manage our present and future. And that management requires us not to be apologetic about inconsequential matters, and also trying to be 'politically correct', especially when it matters Muslims.
History is not forgotten, it is selectively buried by the people who do not want it to be carried. The present day Shia-Sunni conflict has its history dating back 1400 years, and people are still living it, fighting it. And you are desiring a recent 60 year even to be so easily forgotten.
Hindus are inherently secular. It is a matter of pride for me. Name another Culture, Creed or religion in the world that is so? Is it not a matter to feel proud about?
History does not forgive. It will not even forgive those who want it buried for ulterior political reasons.
Calling an actual fact 'vile' does not reduce its importance. I am wiling to parade my statistics and sources to prove my facts. I also invite you do do so?
The Hindu Tamils in Malaysia no doubt are suffering, but then, we were on Mr.Jinnah, who had nothing to do with Malaysia?
Even if we deny the Pakistani fact, would you also deny that from the time of Mohamad bin Quasim, the first Muslim cut throat to enter India in aprox.710 AD till the present, there have been repeated Muslim aggressions against Hindus in this subcontinent? Do you also want to deny Khalistani aggressions against Hindus(In my last post I started with year 1900 as the starting point, this time I am starting from the time of birth of Islam)?
"We should have declared ourselves A HINDU STATE."
We can not undo the past...but we can manage our present and future. And that management requires us not to be apologetic about inconsequential matters, and also trying to be 'politically correct', especially when it matters Muslims.
History is not forgotten, it is selectively buried by the people who do not want it to be carried. The present day Shia-Sunni conflict has its history dating back 1400 years, and people are still living it, fighting it. And you are desiring a recent 60 year even to be so easily forgotten.
Hindus are inherently secular. It is a matter of pride for me. Name another Culture, Creed or religion in the world that is so? Is it not a matter to feel proud about?
History does not forgive. It will not even forgive those who want it buried for ulterior political reasons.
Asad Ahmed comes in with his explanation:
The name "Mr Jinnah" evokes strong emotions in India so that a sensible, dispassionate discussion of the subject is nearly impossible. Much of this is due to misinformation, misunderstanding, and plain bazaar talk. So I bring to your attention some relevant statements made by great Indian leaders whom we should respect. Gopal Krishna Gokhale wrote that "Jinnah is an ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity". Ms Sarojini Naidu, the first Governor of U.P. after independence, seconded this viewpoint by compiling a book " Mohammad Ali Jinnah - An ambassador of unity. His speeches and writings, 1912 -1917". Now both of them were highly respected, credible personalities who could not have been making false assessments. Still a cynical argument can be made that this was in early 20th century but that somehow he changed afterwards. If so, I bring to your attention a book that was published as recently as within the last two years by Jaswant Singh entitled "Jinnah: India - Pakistan - Independence". To those who do not know - or do not want to know - I may remind that Raja Jaswant Singh is a founder-member of the Bharatiya Janata Party and was a highly-respected Foreign Minister of India in the BJP-led Vajpayee government. At the very least, it should convince every skeptic that this comprehensive work was not written by a 'pro-Pakistani' agent'. My view of Mr Jinnah and Mr Singh changed completely after reading this book and I came to respect both of them highly. Mr Jinnah comes out as a brilliant (though egotistical) lawyer who was strongly secular (not only in early 20th century but even after the creation of Pakistan). I must emphasize that this is the first work on the subject I have seen that is based on extensive (and I repeat extensive) research on all historical, political, and legislative documents of the period. This is a true scholarly work which deserved praise in the ancient Indian tradition of recognizing scholarship. Instead, the day after this book was released, Jaswant Singh was ignominiously thrown out of the Bharatiya Janata Party! This simply shows that the Party - that includes many extremists - is prejudiced and not interested in knowing the facts. Even Mr L. K. Advani, after praising Mr Jinnah during a visit to Karachi, was strongly reprimanded by the Party. All this means that we should be careful in making hasty judgements about Mr Jinnah.
Now the question is: If Mr Jinnah was truly secular, why did he insist on partition of India (which, in my opinion, was a historical tragedy for the minorities and should never have taken place)? From this book, I gather that the main points of contention were: a loose federation (of undivided India) giving considerable autonomy to the constituent provinces vs. an undivided India with a strong central government. In view of the great diversity that existed (and exists even today), it made sense to have a loose federation rather than a strong central government (that would inevitably be dominated by the majority). The former position was supported by Mr Jinnah and the latter position was liked by Pandit Nehru.The Congress Party would not agree to a loose federation and that led to mistrust and hence Mr Jinnah insisted on partition. It had nothing to do with any anti-Hindu or anti-Muslim bias by either side. Since the bazaar-folks are unable to comprehend such complex issues, it became a source of Hindu-Muslim friction with the horrible consequences that ensued. The mistaken perception was (and still is) that Pakistan was made for the Muslims and India was reserved for Hindus. Nothing could be farther from the truth and this misconception led to horrifying consequences. The British administration could have done something about it but they failed to do so. I wish both sides had shown greater flexibility in their respective positions since the unity of India should have been the paramount consideration. They did not.
Now coming to the statement about the present state of chaos and corruption in Pakistan as the "legacy of Mr Jinnah", I must stress that Mr Jinnah envisioned his new creation to be a modern, secular, and democratic state. This is obvious from his speeches. That today Pakistan is dominated by Mullahs playing in the name of their religion, and thugs in the name of democracy, is unfortunate - but this is not Mr Jinnah's responsibility. I do believe that, sooner or later, Pakistanis will see through this illusion of democracy and get rid of these maladies. In this respect, India was fortunate to have a leader like Pandit Nehru in that he knew the importance of democracy for a great country like India.
The tragedy of partition seems irreversible. Hence all sensible Indians and Pakistanis should try to develop better relations, perhaps on the line of Canada and the United States. There should be mutual trust and there should be no fear of expansionism; after all, they are the same people closely tied by cultural and historical links. The madness of partition could have been reversed immediately afterwards. And Gandhiji was the only person who could have accomplished it since he commanded the respect, affection, gratitude, and trust of both communities. But a fanatic got rid of him too! Thus provocative statements like comparing the "height of the gate of Atala Masjid to the gate of the Babari Masjid" are not going to be helpful either. (Babari Masjid had a small door that had been locked on an order by Pandit G.B. Pant, the Chief Minister. In retrospect, that was a wise decision.)
Now the question is: If Mr Jinnah was truly secular, why did he insist on partition of India (which, in my opinion, was a historical tragedy for the minorities and should never have taken place)? From this book, I gather that the main points of contention were: a loose federation (of undivided India) giving considerable autonomy to the constituent provinces vs. an undivided India with a strong central government. In view of the great diversity that existed (and exists even today), it made sense to have a loose federation rather than a strong central government (that would inevitably be dominated by the majority). The former position was supported by Mr Jinnah and the latter position was liked by Pandit Nehru.The Congress Party would not agree to a loose federation and that led to mistrust and hence Mr Jinnah insisted on partition. It had nothing to do with any anti-Hindu or anti-Muslim bias by either side. Since the bazaar-folks are unable to comprehend such complex issues, it became a source of Hindu-Muslim friction with the horrible consequences that ensued. The mistaken perception was (and still is) that Pakistan was made for the Muslims and India was reserved for Hindus. Nothing could be farther from the truth and this misconception led to horrifying consequences. The British administration could have done something about it but they failed to do so. I wish both sides had shown greater flexibility in their respective positions since the unity of India should have been the paramount consideration. They did not.
Now coming to the statement about the present state of chaos and corruption in Pakistan as the "legacy of Mr Jinnah", I must stress that Mr Jinnah envisioned his new creation to be a modern, secular, and democratic state. This is obvious from his speeches. That today Pakistan is dominated by Mullahs playing in the name of their religion, and thugs in the name of democracy, is unfortunate - but this is not Mr Jinnah's responsibility. I do believe that, sooner or later, Pakistanis will see through this illusion of democracy and get rid of these maladies. In this respect, India was fortunate to have a leader like Pandit Nehru in that he knew the importance of democracy for a great country like India.
The tragedy of partition seems irreversible. Hence all sensible Indians and Pakistanis should try to develop better relations, perhaps on the line of Canada and the United States. There should be mutual trust and there should be no fear of expansionism; after all, they are the same people closely tied by cultural and historical links. The madness of partition could have been reversed immediately afterwards. And Gandhiji was the only person who could have accomplished it since he commanded the respect, affection, gratitude, and trust of both communities. But a fanatic got rid of him too! Thus provocative statements like comparing the "height of the gate of Atala Masjid to the gate of the Babari Masjid" are not going to be helpful either. (Babari Masjid had a small door that had been locked on an order by Pandit G.B. Pant, the Chief Minister. In retrospect, that was a wise decision.)
Shyam Malick
@ Mr.Asad Ahmed. Sir, a sum is judged by its result, and not by the method of attempt. What ever Thakur Jasvant Singh (not Raja as you mentioned ) has written, as well as others have said about the Mr.Jinnah's secular credentials as much as his personal ambitions, the results are in front of all of us!
Mr. Jinnah was not a juvenile who did not understand the inherent tendencies of narrow mindedness and bigotry in the Muslim societies, especially those with little exposure of the outside world as well as to the letters and words. He was very much in know of the Gennie he was about to release from the fabled bottle, and also that he had a very little life available to him; too little to even attempt a taming of the wild merciless animal that is ever wanting to reclaim the whole land of India which the Mughals ruled and thus giving it a divine right to regain and rule.
Let us not white wash the villains by quoting statements that were made in different times, circumstances,contexts and also, at times, just to appease.
The bloody truncation of India was caused not only by Mr.Jinnah. The Congress party as a whole as well as the Brits were equally responsible. But that does not absolve Mr. Jinnah of the sin of gaining a land that has become the most dangerous place on the face of the world, for the world. And he knew this were to be the fate of Pakistan. He sinned!
Mr. Jinnah was not a juvenile who did not understand the inherent tendencies of narrow mindedness and bigotry in the Muslim societies, especially those with little exposure of the outside world as well as to the letters and words. He was very much in know of the Gennie he was about to release from the fabled bottle, and also that he had a very little life available to him; too little to even attempt a taming of the wild merciless animal that is ever wanting to reclaim the whole land of India which the Mughals ruled and thus giving it a divine right to regain and rule.
Let us not white wash the villains by quoting statements that were made in different times, circumstances,contexts and also, at times, just to appease.
The bloody truncation of India was caused not only by Mr.Jinnah. The Congress party as a whole as well as the Brits were equally responsible. But that does not absolve Mr. Jinnah of the sin of gaining a land that has become the most dangerous place on the face of the world, for the world. And he knew this were to be the fate of Pakistan. He sinned!
Asad Ahmed
I have no further comments to make except that Mr Jaswant Singh is apparently descended from some Raja family. Even if he is not, he is a true scholar and an intellectual. We could use more of such unbending Indians who have the courage to tell the truth.
Shyam Malick
@Mr.Ahmad. Mr. Jaswant Singh DOES NOT belong to any erstwhile ruling families, though it hardly matters.
His book has given a fresh breath of air to Jinnah apologists, who earlier got similar reprieves from H. M. Seervai and even Raj Mohan Gandhi.
But in none of the above works, and no where else do we get to know Jinnah as a naive person who was unaware of the consequences of his deed.
No work of literature can justify the blunder, called Pakistan, of Jinnah, Congress and the Brits.
His book has given a fresh breath of air to Jinnah apologists, who earlier got similar reprieves from H. M. Seervai and even Raj Mohan Gandhi.
But in none of the above works, and no where else do we get to know Jinnah as a naive person who was unaware of the consequences of his deed.
No work of literature can justify the blunder, called Pakistan, of Jinnah, Congress and the Brits.
posted by Shyam | 1:11 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home