Jaswant Singh: Mohammed Ali Jinnah did not win Pakistan

[Al-zakir]

Nehru, Patel 'conceded' Pakistan to Jinnah: Jaswant Singh

PTI 14 August 2009, 05:47pm IST

NEW DELHI: Mohammed Ali Jinnah did not win Pakistan
as Congress leaders Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel "conceded" Pakistan to the
Quaid-e-Azam with the British acting as an ever helpful midwife, says senior BJP leader Jaswant Singh.

In his new book "Jinnah - India, Partition, Independence", which will hit the stands on August 17, he recalls the events leading to Partition as well as the "epic journey of Jinnah from being the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity, the liberal constitutionalist and Indian nationalist to the Quaid-e-Azam of Pakistan".

Singh raises several questions on partition. "...How did you divide a geographic (also geo-political) unity? Through a 'surgical operation', Mountbatten (the last British viceroy) had said, and tragically Nehru and Patel and the Congress party had assented, Jinnah, in any event having demanded adopting to just a recourse," he writes in the book, excerpts from which have been reproduced by a magazine.

"...Jinnah did not win Pakistan, as the Congress leaders - Nehru and Patel finally conceded Pakistan to Jinnah, with the British acting as an ever helpful midwife," Singh says in his 669-page book.

"The cruel truth is that this partitioning of India has actually resulted in achieving the very reverse of the originally intended purpose; partition, instead of settling contention between communities has left us a legacy of markedly enhanced Hindu, Muslim, Sikh or other such denominational identities, hence differences...," the book says.

Singh describes the partition of India as the "defining event of the 20th century for this entire subcontinent.

"The searing agony of it torments still, the whys and what-fors of it, too. We relieve the partition because we persist without attempts to find answers to the great errors of those years so that we may never, ever repeat them. Also, perhaps by recounting them we attempt to assuage some of our pain," the former external affairs minister writes.

According to Singh both Jinnah and Nehru wanted special status for Muslims.

"It is ironical that among the great constitutionalists of those times, Jinnah and Nehru became the principal promoters of 'special status for Muslims'; Jinnah directly and Nehru indirectly.

"...The irony of it is galling when sadly, we observe that both of them, these two great5 Indians of their times were either actually or in effect competing to become the 'spokesman of Muslims' in India."

Nehru, Patel 'conceded' Pakistan to Jinnah: Jaswant Singh - India - NEWS - The Times of India

 

[Durran3]

I would like to check this book out to see what Mr. Jaswant Singh's criticisms are. Surely being there in the 1940's and going through that phase is much different than stating what your opinion/criticisms are 60 years later especially considering its coming from a Right Wing BJP candidate

 

[humblehobbes]

there s another thread on the same subject in hand i supppse!

 

[muse]

BJP’s Jaswant revises Jinnah
Karan Thapar



There’s a book published tomorrow that deserves to be widely read and I want to be the first to draw your attention to it. It’s Jaswant Singh’s biography of Jinnah. Read on and you’ll discover why.

Jaswant Singh’s view of Jinnah is markedly different to the accepted Indian image. He sees him as a nationalist. In fact, the author accepts that Jinnah was a great Indian. I’ll even add he admires Jinnah and I’m confident he won’t disagree.

The critical question this biography raises is how did the man they called the Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity in 1916 end up as the Quaid-e-Azam of Pakistan in 1947?

The answer: he was pushed by Congress’ repeated inability to accept that Muslims feared domination by Hindus and wanted “space” in “a re-assuring system”. Jaswant Singh’s account of how Congress refused to form a government with the Muslim League in UP in 1937, after fighting the election in alliance, except on terms that would have amounted to it’s dissolution, suggests Jinnah’s fears were real and substantial.

The biography does not depict Jinnah as the only or even the principal force behind Partition. Nehru and Mountbatten share equal responsibility. While the book reveals that Gandhi, Rajagopalachari and Azad understood the Muslim fear of Congress majoritarianism, Nehru could not. If there is a conclusion, it is that had Congress accepted a decentralised, federal India, a united India “was clearly ours to attain”. The problem: “this was an anathema to Nehru’s centralising approach and policies”.

Jaswant Singh’s assessment of Partition is striking. After asserting that it “multiplied our problems without solving any communal issue”, he asks: “if the communal, the principal issue, remains...in an even more exacerbated form than before...then why did we divide at all?” The hinted answer is that no real purpose was served.

Jaswant Singh, however, goes further. He accepts that because of Partition the Muslims who stayed on in India are “abandoned”, “bereft of a sense of real kinship” and “not...one in their entirety with the rest.” And he concludes: “this robs them of the essence of psychological security”.

But that’s not all. He does not rule out further partitions: “In India...having once accepted this principal of reservation (1909)...then of partition, how can we now deny it to others, even such Muslims as have had to or chosen to live in India?”

Where the book compares the early Jinnah and Gandhi, the language and the analysis tilt in the former’s favour. At their first meeting in 1915, Gandhi’s response to Jinnah’s “warm welcome” was “ungracious”. Gandhi insisted on seeing Jinnah in Muslim terms and the implication is that he was narrow-minded. Of their leadership, the book says Gandhi’s “had almost an entirely religious provincial flavour” while Jinnah’s was “doubtless imbued by a non-sectarian nationalistic zeal”.

Finally, in terms of their impact: “Jinnah...successfully kept the Indian political forces together, simultaneously exerting pressure on the government.” In Gandhi’s case “that pressure dissipated and the British Raj remained for three more decades.”

Unfortunately, I can’t assess the reliability of Jaswant Singh’s viewpoint. I’m a journalist not an historian. But I can assert that it’s courageous and probably a valuable corrective. We need to see Jinnah without the hate or prejudice of the past. It may be uncomfortable to accept suppressed truths but we can’t keep denying them.

This book will stir a storm of protest, perhaps most from Jaswant Singh’s own party. He realises that. But it did not deter him. Let it not put you off.

The writer is a leading Indian television commentator and interviewer

 

[afriend]

Jinnah was 'demonised' by India: Jaswant
PTI 16 August 2009, 10:35am IST
Print Email Discuss Bookmark/Share Save Comment Text Size: |
NEW DELHI: Senior BJP leader Jaswant Singh has said Pakistan's founder Mohammad Ali Jinnah was "demonised" by India even though it was Jawaharlal

Nehru whose belief in a centralized system had led to the Partition.

Jaswant, whose book "Jinnah - India, Partition, Independence", will be released on Monday, also said Indian Muslims are treated as aliens.

"Oh yes, because he created something out of nothing and single-handedly he stood against the might of the Congress party and against the British who didn't really like him... Gandhi himself called Jinnah a great Indian. Why don't we recognise that? Why don't we see (and try to understand) why he called him that," Singh said, when asked by Karan Thapar in an interview whether he viewed Jinnah as a great man.

He said he did not subscribe to the popular "demonisation" of Jinnah.

Singh, a former external affairs minister, feels India had misunderstood Jinnah and made a demon out of him.

Contrary to popular perception, Singh feels it was not Jinnah but Nehru's "highly centralised polity" that led to the Partition of India.

Asked if he was concerned that Nehru's heirs and the Congress party would be critical of the responsibility he was attributing to Nehru for Partition, Singh said, "I am not blaming anybody. I am not assigning blame. I am simply recalling what I have found as the development of issues and events of that period."

Singh contested the popular Indian view that Jinnah was the villain of Partition or the man principally responsible for it. Maintaining that this view was wrong, he said, "It is. It is not borne out of the facts...we need to correct it."

He feels Jinnah's call for Pakistan was "a negotiating tactic" to obtain "space" for Muslims "in a reassuring system" where they would not be dominated by the Hindu majority.

He said if the final decisions had been taken by Mahatma Gandhi, Rajaji or Maulana Azad -- rather than Nehru -- a united India would have been attained, he said, "Yes, I believe so. We could have (attained an united India)."

Singh said the widespread opinion that Jinnah was against Hindus is mistaken.

When told that his views on Jinnah may not be to the liking of his party, he replied, "I did not write this book as a BJP parliamentarian. I wrote this book as an Indian...this is not a party document. My party knows I have been working on this."

Singh also spoke about Indian Muslims who, he said, "have paid the price of Partition". In a particularly outspoken answer, he said India treats them as "aliens".

"Look into the eyes of the Muslims who live in India and if you truly see the pain with which they live, to which land do they belong? We treat them as aliens...without doubt Muslims have paid the price of Partition. They could have been significantly stronger in a united India...of course Pakistan and Bangladesh won't like what I am saying."

The veteran BJP leader feels Pakistan has remained a conceptual orphan, the result of somewhat barren attainment; 'barren' because Pakistan itself, as both the progenitor and as the first born of the idea, has demonstrated that this notion of "Muslims being a separate nation does not work".

"However, sadly, even this land for Muslims has not been the end of the journey. Pakistan went further along the path of Islamic exclusiveness, it opted to become an Islamic state, and this after having already separated on grounds of Islam..."

He says it is a compendium of many accumulated grievances, a deep sense in the minds and hearts of the citizens of Pakistan that they have been repeatedly betrayed, wronged continuously, decade after decade since 1947 by the West, also often by India, and it is this that has made Pakistan not a strategic outpost of Western interests but in reality a great threat to the West.

The book describes as "epic journey of Jinnah from being the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity to the Quaid-e-Azam of Pakistan".

Jinnah was 'demonised' by India: Jaswant - India - NEWS - The Times of India

 

[muse]

BY demonizing Jinnah, Indian shot himself in the foot - but the Indian under Nehru demonized Jinnah because to not do so would highlight Nehru's vision and shed even more light on why Pakistan had to be created.


Time ripe for peace with India: Sethi

Daily Times Monitor

LAHORE: The time is right to make peace with India as all the major players, including President Asif Ali Zardari, Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) chief Nawaz Sharif and the US want this to happen, Daily Times Editor-in-chief Najam Sethi said on Sunday.

Speaking in the television programme, Tonight with Najam Sethi, he said Pakistan would never have such a “golden opportunity” for peaceful relations with India. According to Sethi, the government should accord priority to the country’s internal affairs, adding an independent judiciary was a requirement and the media had a very important role to play in strengthening the country. Sethi said the media would help parliament become strong and independent. He said the PML-N chief wanted to try former president Pervez Musharraf for high treason, adding this could lead to a very dangerous situation. He said Nawaz should not push the government for Musharraf’s trial, as it could invite a military intervention.

According to Sethi, the ruling coalition is not as popular as the opposition. He said it was unfortunate the US and the army had to step in to resolve the sacked judges’ issue. He said President Zardari should not have all the power, adding the Punjab government should be allowed to run its affairs independently.

 

[r3alist]

This Jinnah talk is HINDU propaganda.

They are laying the groundwork to assimilate pakistan into india via proxy, the way they do this is a "quid pro quo".

In this instance it is to give a so called ideological or historical concession with the hope of softening the pakistani populace to be more sympathetic, basically they are trying to appropriate our "god" into THEIR culture with the aim of conquering US.


PLEASE IGNORE THIS NEWS STORY.

 

[Peshwa]

This Jinnah talk is HINDU propaganda.

They are laying the groundwork to assimilate pakistan into india via proxy, the way they do this is a "quid pro quo".

In this instance it is to give a so called ideological or historical concession with the hope of softening the pakistani populace to be more sympathetic, basically they are trying to appropriate our "god" into THEIR culture with the aim of conquering US.


PLEASE IGNORE THIS NEWS STORY.

From your post here Im going to guess that you're a 60 year old housewife with too much time on her hands....LOL

How insecure can one be??

You can't even bear admiration and respect for your own "Father of the nation" without spinning some sort of conspiracy theory within it........I thought Pakistani's would be proud to hear this??

The Mayans were right.....for some of us the world is coming to an end in 2012.......

 

[sob]

Mr.Jaswant Singh is known not to mince his words and he shoots straight.

The book has been written with loads of research and I am certainly going to read it to get a different perspective on Mr.Jinnah, to what I have been brought up with.

We have seen in India the way the successive Congress Govts. have distorted the History texts to highlight the roles of their own leaders in the Independence movement, and ignoring the role of other leaders.

 

[Patriot]

Indoos dream of akhand bhaRAT and will continue till the cows come home... In other words you can say "rasi jaal gai per bal nahin gaea" The destruction of akhand bhaRAT after having their *** ruled for 1000 years is something that will continue to haunt them till eternity...In other words folks, who gives a sh!t what bannia thinks what matters is what we are and where we are heading.

 

[glomex]

^^^

Same old..Akhand bharat Crap...not by any Indian but ....by a Pakistani......who does not understand the meaning of what he says....


No Indian on any forum speaks of this Akhand Bharat...apart from Pakistani folks....

 

[arihant]

I would like to check this book out to see what Mr. Jaswant Singh's criticisms are. Surely being there in the 1940's and going through that phase is much different than stating what your opinion/criticisms are 60 years later especially considering its coming from a Right Wing BJP candidate

Don't do the mistake. He wants Pakistanis to read the book and increase the legal profit.

 

[r3alist]

From your post here Im going to guess that you're a 60 year old housewife with too much time on her hands....LOL

How insecure can one be??

You can't even bear admiration and respect for your own "Father of the nation" without spinning some sort of conspiracy theory within it........I thought Pakistani's would be proud to hear this??

The Mayans were right.....for some of us the world is coming to an end in 2012.......

i hold respect "for my own father" on my own terms, to attempt to change these terms is in fact disrespect, moreso from the party that sponsors hate, violence and rape against muslims.

you really expect people to swallow this up from the hinduvata muslim hating extremists?

lol

 

[paritosh]

Indoos dream of akhand bhaRAT and will continue till the cows come home... In other words you can say "rasi jaal gai per bal nahin gaea" The destruction of akhand bhaRAT after having their *** ruled for 1000 years is something that will continue to haunt them till eternity...In other words folks, who gives a sh!t what bannia thinks what matters is what we are and where we are heading.

well I am sure no one from this forum ruled over and enslaved anyone.
no one was alive during those glorious 1000 years...now you can either jerk-off dreaming or try to wake up to the sad reality that is today.
Your post is insulting,tasteless and pointless.
M.A Jinnah is responsible for Pakistan..I don't think Mr. Jaswant Singh is trying to take the credit away from him.he might know a thing or two more...but he is actually shifting the 'blame' for the formation of Pakistan on Nehru and the congress...the junta back in '47-50 would have been very gullible to accept whadeva was beign thrown at them by the glorious 'swtantrata sainanis'

 

[muse]

Paritosh

Why so defensive brother man? Jaswant's book does allow Indians to revisit myths they have taken for granted - The truth will set you free.

There is no need of being defensive, you and I and all those here had nothing to do with it, but lets not allow eventsof the past to hold us hostage today and in the future.