Daily Times

It is common for new nation-states to give their founding fathers a larger-than-life image. Jinnah, without whom the creation of Pakistan wouldn’t have taken place, is one such heroic national figure. However, hero-worship of political leader scan hamper an honest appraisal of their record.

Undoubtedly, Jinnah enjoyed unique authority within the Indian Muslim community, despite being an anglicized, secular and non-practicing Muslim. He had the requisite combination of self-confidence, intellectual capability, incorruptibility, and political skill. While the Indian Congress Party had leaders of national stature such as Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, and Azad who suffered during the arduous struggle for freedom, the Muslim League had only Jinnah.

Nevertheless, his detractors saw Jinnah an anti-Hindu demagogue, British pawn, and political shyster. In their view, Jinnah had made a little personal sacrifice in the freedom struggle, unlike his Congress contemporaries. Conversely, the British colonial masters viewed Jinnah as a tough adversary, who respected their political traditions.

Generally speaking, most successful leaders are pragmatic, ruthless, and tenacious in their pursuit of power even to the extent of getting blood on their hands. They take advantage of the prevailing conditions and capitalise on the mistakes of the opposition to reach their objectives. Jinnah was no exception and to say otherwise would be ignoring the facts. For example, the aggressive communalism that Jinnah and the Muslim League pursued, particularly after 1940, significantly contributed to the bloodshed during partition.

It was a stroke of luck that Jinnah was there at the right time and place to shape important events. At the time, Indian Muslims needed a leader well-versed in British constitutional and liberal traditions with an intimate knowledge of his principal adversaries, the British Government, and the Congress Party. Jinnah perfectly fit the bill having practiced law in England and as an influential former leader of the Congress Party. Additionally, if Jinnah hadn’t found his calling in the creation of a homeland for Muslims, he most likely would have ended up a has-been Congress politician in India.

Described by historians as an enigmatic and lonely figure, Jinnah kept his political cards close to his chest. He had made himself the indispensable representative of the Muslims by articulating what he thought was in their best interest. Moreover, he was a worldly man who strongly disapproved of religious fanaticism. He did not like Hindu holy men or Mullahs (religious clerics) because of their small-mindedness.

Jinnah made himself the indispensable representative of Indian Muslims by articulating what he thought was in their best interest. Moreover, he was a worldly man who strongly disapproved of religious fanaticism. He did not like Hindu holy men or Mullahs (religious clerics) because of their small-mindedness

Nonetheless, Jinnah was not averse to using religion for political ends – something not uncommon among politicians – even those who aren’t religious themselves. In fact, Jinnah’s paradoxical shift from a lifelong secular democrat to a champion of Islam screamed political opportunism. In spite of this, Jinnah was a frequent target of Islamist criticism for being too secular and not being a strong proponent of Islamic religious laws.

Jinnah may have wanted Pakistan to be a secular Muslim democratic state. However, his political instincts guided him not to press overly hard for a separate state where the majority happened to be Muslims, but others such as Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, and people with no faith at all, were to be equal citizens according to a secular constitution. This unambiguous demand would have been much more difficult to sell to Indians resisting the division of the country and those Muslims vehemently opposed to the idea of a secular state. As we know, Jinnah’s political tactic of keeping his vision for Pakistan vague, coupled with his early passing, had far-reaching negative consequences for the new country.

Once events had moved beyond just protecting Muslim rights in undivided India, Jinnah and the Muslim League firmed up their desire for partition, but the Congress Party still resisted. When Hindu-Muslim clashes made India ungovernable and partition inevitable, Congress pressed to get the best possible territorial deal for India. At this stage, the British in their rush to leave India were not inclined towards long drawn out and contentious territorial negotiations. In the end, Jinnah was forced to accept a truncated country based on a British ‘take it or leave it’ offer.

Arguably, Jinnah’s biggest success was the creation of a state through his skilful leadership and single-minded tenacity. Possibly, Jinnah’s calculated refusal to define what kind of state he envisioned Pakistan to be until the very end, turned out to be his biggest failure. Furthermore, the debris of Partition and the establishment of Bangladesh permanently divided, in present-day terms, half a billion Muslims into three groups.

After the creation of Pakistan, Jinnah famously stood up and said that it was to be a liberal Muslim democracy that would respect the rights of minorities, including Hindus, Christians, and Sikhs. Sadly, there were few takers for this proposition in a state premised on Muslim exclusiveness. After Jinnah’s passing, undemocratic forces comprising the mostly Punjabi feudal elite, the military and religious forces essentially seized control of the country. The rest as they say is history. Jinnah was a larger-than-life figure but seismic negative changes in the country he founded have rendered him near-irrelevant today. In truth, Jinnah would be very disappointed with Pakistan today for its poverty, intolerance, and lack of progress on the rights of women and minorities.

The writer can be reached at shgcci@gmail.com

Published in Daily Times, January 6^th 2018.