Advani, Jinnah and the question of secularity

LK Advani has again indicated that Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the Father of Pakistan, had wanted a secular state with Muslim majority. He did this at the launch of the veteran journalist MJ Akbar’s book ''Tinderbox - The Past and Future of Pakistan'' on Jan.12 at New Delhi.

Advani had made a similar statement in 2005, in Pakistan. He was the BJP President then. The comment that Jinnah was a secularist upset his party colleagues and the RSS which he had joined at the tender age of 14. As a result Advani had to step down from the top spot in the BJP. It was only by December 2007 that his party condoned him.

How will the BJP and the RSS react this time?

Perhaps Advani is right. There is enough evidence in Jinnah’s speeches over the years to indicate that he was not against other communities. One cannot say that he was a prejudiced man. His paternal grandfather was a Rajput who converted to Islam. He had a Parsi wife, again converted to Islam. He dressed like a Britt. He drank whiskey, ate ham sandwiches and smoked heavily. At one time he was hailed as the icon of Hindu Muslim unity.

Three days before Independence Jinnah said in a public speech, ‘You are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques…. You may belong to any religion, caste or creed – that has nothing to do with the fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State.’

That doesn’t sound non-secular at all.

But what about us? Mahatma Gandhi’s Ramrajya can be explained away as a concept of a perfect state where all are well and happy. But Advani’s Ramjanmabhoomi certainly added a particular hue to the picture.

There is an argument that Jinnah did not really want Pakistan. Those with this view claim that he had brought up the question of a Muslim State only as a bargaining point and was surprised when Britain agreed to it.

Kanji Dwarkadas in his book Ruttie Jinnah: The story of a great friendship says that Jinnah cried only twice in public all his life. First was at the burial of his beautiful wife Miriam (Rattanbai "Ruttie" Petit), “the flower of Bombay”. The second time was at Miriam’s grave, in August 1947 just before leaving for Karachi. It was the final goodbye to his wife and to India. Whether he liked it or not, he had to go.

Perhaps Jinnah would have set Pakistan on the right path if he had the time and the health. There are claims that he was upset with the great tragedy which followed the partition and was depressed after that. All the while, tuberculosis was gaining on him.

Muhammad Ali Jinnah died in Karachi on 11 September, 1948, officially of a heart attack. And the country of which he was the Governor General for a little over a year steadily slipped away from the concept of secularism to the ignominy of being a failed/failing State.

The sad story has gone to the extent that Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States said on Jan. 13 that Pakistan was the epicentre of global terrorism.

I wonder if the Admiral is aware of the role of his country in Pakistan’s tragic journey into the wilderness.  

Please also see:

The Benazir tragedy: is Pakistan a failed State?

But for Jinnah, would ‘Pakistan’ have been named ‘Industan”?

Obama Visit: Sense and Nonsense

Obama is the guest and India the host. Traditionally, we give great importance to hospitality. Adhithi Devo Bhava.

Let us listen to what the President of America has to say. The rethink of the Communists on boycotting Obama’s address to the MPs is a sensible decision. Prakash Karat’s Cambridge speech about breaking away from the shackles of the past seems to have had some effect. The 1940s which was mentioned in that speech reminds one of Quit India movement. The Leftists stayed away from that massive uprising by the people of India. At that point of time Brittan and Soviet Union were on the same side, in World War II.

The Chief Minister of Maharashtra, who received the US President into India yesterday, was invited to a meeting hosted by the Americans. There was a condition that he should submit identification papers for entry to the venue. He refused to attend the function.

The US officials did apologise saying that it was a clerical error. There have been quite a few ‘clerical errors’ by the US in the past. They did not care then. Now the apology mode is on. India has grown into a big boy.

The BJP spokesman criticised Obama for not blaming Pakistan at the memorial function at the Taj Mahal Hotel. It was a poignant occasion. Talk about Pakistan would come later, and it did. Here we must understand that Obama is in a difficult position. The naïve US policy, starting from the time of John Foster Dulles (Secretary of State 1953-1959) of ‘Brinkmanship’ fame, has placed that country in a peculiar situation. The American funding ($ 2billion even recently) is used by the Pakistan Army to fight effectively or not the extremists on the Afghan side and at the same time carry out terrorism against India.

The Indian National Congress was not far behind the BJP. Some of the Party people felt that Obama should have mentioned Nehru when he was in Mumbai. How many Indian Presidents and Prime Ministers visiting the US have talked there about Benjamin Franklin and Abraham Lincoln?

Why are we so sensitive of what other countries say about us? It indicates a lack of self-confidence. We are what we are. And the world is recognizing our position.

Yesterday (Saturday) evening in a discussion programme about Obama’s visit on a major national TV channel there was a young fellow. What I understood was that he is a research chap from the CPM. He was critical about India spending money to create jobs in the US and the business contracts that were signed.

The people who concluded the agreements are well-known for their business acumen. They are not going spend money just because some Americans would get jobs. It is all business. For instance, Spicejet could have gone to Boeing or Airbus for the 33 passenger jet aircrafts they need. They took a business decision to place the order worth $ 2.7b with Boeing.

This order creates thousands of jobs at Boeing which otherwise would have gone elsewhere. But what happens when those jets come to India? We need more pilots, cabin crew, ground handling staff, people to organize transport arrangements etc to handle the increased traffic. More jobs are generated. Every genuine import either sustains or creates new jobs. When we imported heavily from Russia, the Left leaning pundits did not raise any objections.

Obama has conceded some of our demands, but there is much more to be obtained. Let us be confident that our Prime Minister and Government are capable of handling India’s interests.