All renowned historians, right from Gibbon to Toynbee, agree on one focal point, that nations fall when they stop thinking as a nation– when they loose confidence in their pride and they fail to self respect. With sall in their thinking, the very first symptom that afflicts such people, such communities is the indifference, the apathywhich they have over their nation’s resilience. Doubts are caste on Leader’s vision and they start eulogising the opponents of their founding father /s.
THE PSEUDOS AND THE QUAID
by Nayyar Hashmey
All renowned historians, right from Gibbon to Toynbee, agree on one point, that nations fall when they stop thinking as a nation. Or when they loose confidence and pride as a nation or they fail to self respect. The very first symptom of such fall is the affliction that befalls such people, such nations, such communities is the indifference, the apathy which they have over their nation’s resilience. Doubts are cast on their leader’s vision and they start eulogising the opponents of their founding father / s.
Let’s have a look over the events that were taking shape before creation of Pakistan, an event declared a miracle then, and a great miracle indeed it was. It has had no parallel in history.
Our great Quaid who became colossal instrument of this great change has been paid tribute as follows:
” Few individuals significantly alter the course of history, fewer still modify the map of the world; and hardly anyone can be credited with creating a nation state. Mohammad Ali Jinnah DID ALL THREE.
Hailed as great leader [Quaid-e-Azam] of Pakistan and its first Governor General, Jinnah virtually conjured up the country into statehood by the force of his indomitable will”. [Stanley Wolpert in Jinnah of Pakistan].
One might here ask, could the Quaid succeed in his endeavour without the support and confidence of his people? The answer is a definite No. The Quaid proved in his 50 years career this point and, therefore, in him, his people had unflinching faith. They were so convinced of his veracity, his vision, his steadfast character and his style, that they had firm conviction of Jinnah’s incorruptiblity, that he has no match either in the Congress or in any other party whatsoever and of whosoever. So Muslims of Hindostan were convinced that he, Jinnah is the redeemer of their national spirations. No wonder that Muslims from Ras Kumari to Khyber chanted in one voice, “Millat ka paasban hae Mohammad Ali Jinnah”.
The confidence that Jinnah had of his people was reflected in the 1945-46 elections which were contested on the issue of Pakistan or no Pakistan; when Muslim League, the party Jinnah was leading had all the Muslim seats of the Legislative Assembly. Even such provinces that had Muslim minority populations, overwhelmingly voted for Jinnah’s Pakistan.
History has termed this achievement by India’s Muslim as a great miracle but regrettably, NOW after 65 years, some of our thinkers and pseudo intellectuals try to cast doubts on this great achievement. Some time they doubt the vision of the Quaid, another time they accuse him of dividing the Muslims of the subcontinet and then again some even cast their doubted aspersions on the very raison d’etre of Pakistan as a nation state.
These pseudo intellectuals not only try to downplay the monumental task completed by the Quaid, but also endeavour to smear the towering persona of the father of the nation. In so doing not only do they demonstarte their ignorance of historical facts but also give air to their disappointment over their favourite leader/s’ rejection by Muslim masses, who to their frustration believed in Jinnah and Jinnah alone.
The pseudos have an objective: Our youth who haven’t seen the ways the Muslims were stung by the All India Congress, didn’t see Pakistan emerge on the world map, nor they had chance to watch the greatness of the Quaid and his vision through which he steered the course of his nation from the clutches of the Hindu led Congress, that they, our youth, get disgusted with the concept of a nation of Pakistan. To achiev their nefarious approach, their vey first target is the Quaid, a leader whom the whole world pays tributes, including his arch enemies. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I was once watching a programme telecast by the BBC. Titled as ‘End of the Empire’ there was a clip where Lord Mountbatten was being interviewed. And so said Mountbatten, “I persuaded Jinnah to accept a united India and used all my tricks, all my intellect, all my persuasive power but to no avail”. So continued the last Viceroy of India, “Jinnah was a cold man, once he was convinced of something, no power on earth could make him change his stance”.
As we all know, in the very first phase of his political life, the Quaid was acclaimed as an apostle of Hindu Muslim unity. He was one of the leading figures of the All India Congress. But when he recognised the true motives, the true designs of the AIC, which by then had almost become a party of the Hindus, he parted his ways. After this juncture, he devoted his programme wholely and solely, his political ideals and his career in the service of his people.
Here we cannot overlook the fact that the Quaid had spent almost quarter of a century struggling in the AICC to secure rights for his community, but once he concluded that the Hindu leadership in the AICC would never agree to give rights to his people, he left the Congress and started advocating for a separate homeland for India’s Muslims.
Those who cast doubts on Quaid’s vision, need to have a look on the plight of Muslims in the present day Bharat, where even after 65 years of independence, even though they are one fourth of India’s population, have a meagre 4 percent share in India’s civil service, a miniscule 2 perecent in the police and slightly above 1 percen in the finance and banking sector. Let’s not speak of the education sector which on its own is a highly dismal story altogether.
Though there are Muslims who reach the higher echelons of managment or power in India, but they are mostly such who have imbibed themselves in India’s Hindu culture, and copy their approach as far as possible.
Those amongst us who day and night sing Shining India mantra merely to convince our masses that were there no partition, no Pakistan, we too would have been part of this “shining” process in India, just should look how the present day Muslims are faring in the shine and glitter of Bharat.
The majority of Muslims in India even today are dirt poor, they are uneducated and are a text book definition of ignorant masses. As cited above their share in the Indian political life, in social, economic, and military sectors is a dismal low. Those who still believe that in an undivided India we too as Muslims would have enjoyed the same standard of living as the majority Hindu populace is enjoying there in India, need to read some of the brilliant articles Shobhan Saxina of the Times of India has put up in his newspaper.
By writing this, I do not mean to say that India should be taken as our enemy. Instead of playing ‘the enemy, enemy game’ both of us need to work in close collaboration. This objective stands in full understanding of the Quaid’s mission too, who wanted same relation to exist between India and Pakistan as one that exists between the USA and Canada. Both have the same geographical location, both have same culture, same language [barring the French speaking province of Quebec], same history, yet both are sovereign independent states and still they are highly fiendly. Instead of going into the whimsical if and buts, yun hota tau wun na hota, wun hota ta yun nah hota, we better shoud face the realities of today. Both are independent sovereign nations. Why not they act just as good neighbours and good friends as the USA and Canada are!
I do not doubt the intellect and sincerity of all those in Pakistan who go into these semantics of ifs and buts, yet they cannot demonstrate the wisdom to match that of the Quaid. As said, the Quaid struggled for many decades within the ambit of a United India to secure the rights for his community. But in spite of all his effort, all his endeavours, all his struggles, the Hindu leadership of the AICC did not agree for Muslims’ rights within the framework of a United India. Then and only then did he conclude that the only way to come out of this impasse was Pakistan.
And as I said in my earlier comment, Quaid was not the only one to steer the course of India’s Muslims towards a separate homeland, the fact is that right from 1857 till 1947 lot of other Muslims had experienced similar indifference from the leaders of the All India Congress. These included amongst others, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, Allama Iqbal and finally the Quaid-e-Azam himself.
If the cognizance of Muslims in undivided India did not dawn on somebody, it was Maulana Abul Kalam Azad. I have a deep repsect for Maulana, he indeed was an ocean of knowledge. Without any iota of doubt he was Abul Kalam, but as far as the demand for Pakistan is concerned his stand did never satnd in sync with what Muslims in that turbulent days of our history wanted. A man as staunch an Indian nationalist as Sheikh Abdullah of Kashmir admits in his autobiography “Aatish-e-Chinar” that when he was removed from Kashmir’s premiership, he apprached Maulana for help but Maulana said he too was helpless because the decison making was in the hands of people like Sardar Walabh Bhai Patel. At another occasion he also cites Maulana as saying that of course he opposed the creation of Pakistan, but once it has come into being, we should accept it as a fait accompli.
Our present plight, our predicaments and our crisis apart, what the great Quaid had envisioned in pre-partition days, even today when we see the events unfolding right before us, events that confirm what Quaid had foreseen years years ago. Maulana like some other Muslim scholars opposed the idea of Pakistan. These included leaders like Maulana Maudoodi and Allama Inayatullah Khan Mashriqi. However, the later two were not against the creation of Pakistan per se, but they opposed the Quaid and his Muslim League, so they cannot be equated with Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, who under the spell of Indian nationalism staunchly opposed Pakistan.
A question props again in my mind. How do we rank Jinnah or Iqbal in history and where does Maulana and such similar lot stand. It then dawns to every body that whereas Jinnah and Iqbal stand tall in the history of nations, Maulana on the other hand is hardly known perhaps not beyond the borders of present day India. So when I see some pseudos comparing Jinnah and Iqbal to such minions I just smile on such comparisons. Maulana A.K. Azad, Allama Inayat ullah Khan Mashriqi or even Maulana Abul Aala Maudoodi were great scholars but you cannot compare their vision, their genius, their foresight with that of Jinnah. Once again I quote Stanley Wolpert:
” Few individuals significantly alter the course of history, fewer still modify the map of the world; and hardly anyone can be credited with creating a nation state. Mohammad Ali Jinnah DID ALL THREE.”
You might also like:
YOUR COMMENT IS IMPORTANT
DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF YOUR COMMENT