No announcement yet.

Jinnah Seems To Have Indian Fans, After All These Years!!!!

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Jinnah Seems To Have Indian Fans, After All These Years!!!!

    Interesting artcile by Karan Thapar.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
    If you suffer from high blood pressure, don't read on. If you're prejudiced against Muslims or Pakistan, skip to the next article. And if you lost property at Partition or, worse, your family was rent asunder, throw this page away. I don't think you'll like what I'm about to write.
    My subject is Mohammad Ali Jinnah and I've come to the conclusion that regardless of his impact on Indian unity, in personal terms he was an appealing character. He's a more natural icon for today's modern, materialist, image-conscious generation than Nehru or Gandhi. And the surprising thing is – if you overlook his responsibility for Pakistan – he was equally secular.

    First, some of the facts. Jinnah opposed the partition of Bengal.

    In 1906 he refused to join the Muslim League. He called its demand for separate electorates poisonous. In 1920, when Gandhi launched the Khilafat movement, Jinnah warned of the danger of mixing politics with religion. He was the only Muslim to vote against Gandhi's resolution.

    Now jump to 1947. I know that between 1920, when he walked out of the Congress, unhappy over Gandhi's deliberate

    intertwining of religion with politics, and 1947, when he created Pakistan, Jinnah did much the same but to far worse effect. However, I want to draw your attention to his presidential speech to the Pakistan Constituent Assembly on August 11, 1947. Speaking to the new citizens of Pakistan, he said: "You are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State... We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State... Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State."

    It's no secret that today's Pakistan would embarrass Jinnah. He might not even own up to it. But politics is only half my point and very much the lesser half. It's his personality that I really want to recall. 'Jin', as his wife called him, was a remarkable man.

    Again, the facts first. He was a self-made millionaire. He did not inherit his wealth. In the 1930s he was one of London's leading lawyers. No other Indian has achieved this distinction before or after. He was a natty dresser. His double-breasted suits and co-respondent shoes were the height of fashion. His Bombay home on Napean Sea Road was one of the finest. The one in Delhi – which he bought – is still the most striking.

    And now, a few different facts. Jinnah spoke no Urdu. English was the only language he knew. I'm not sure about Kutchi. Perhaps he forgot it – but then, wouldn't you? He smoked, he drank and he ate pork. He married a young Parsi girl and even though they separated no one ever questioned his love for Ruttie. He was never more proud than when she visited his chambers, her décolletage plunging to eye-popping levels, and perched herself playfully on his table bearing ham sandwiches for lunch.

    It was this individualism, this defiance of convention, this determination to be himself that I admire. Even the little distortions Jinnah engineered to enhance himself seem endearing. He was born Jinnahbhai. He disliked the name so much he abbreviated it to Jinnah. He was born on the October 20, 1875. When he discovered Christmas was a better birthday he switched to that.

    Was he vain? Of course. Had he reason to be? Undoubtedly. But Jinnah also had a modern outlook, an open mind, a secular way of thinking and, most importantly, he practised it. Many of us who claim to be free thinkers live lives best hidden behind closed doors.

    Am I wrong in believing Jinnah seems better suited to lead the modern, materialist, economically liberal, ambitious and thrusting country we have today become than, say, Nehru or Vajpayee? Perhaps. But let me end with my friend M.J. Akbar's question from his new book The Shade of Swords: "How did a non-practising, chain-smoking Muslim lawyer, who liked a drink, barely knew the basics of Islam, could speak no language other than English, preferred to dress in an immaculate suit, almost settled down in England, snubbed mullahs for dreaming of an Islamic state, abhorred Gandhi for his hymn-chanting politics, and dreamt of becoming an Indian Ataturk, single-handedly create Pakistan?"

    The answer could be troubling.

    <<<<<<<<<<<<&l t;<<<<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<<<<&l t;<<<<<<<

    It is my belief that if Jinah lived longer, India and Pakistan would be a lot more closr.
    Or maybe not!!!

    The article contains some false facts too... He may have been a smoker, but he never ate pork... It is not true that he didnt know Urdu one bit, he did make some speeches in Urdu... You are forgetting that this person's life was based on rules. He never went to jail, he believed in doing everything in a rational and constituitional manner. He never resorted to blackmail or instigation unlike many other leaders of that time, from all communities. I am sure everyone would be a fan of this great personality (if you dont hate the existence of Pakistan).


      Oh, I think Jinnah was quite a modern man.
      I think his ego made him create Pakistan.
      He didn't accept Mahatma Gandhi, the way Congress People did.
      I think he was quite correct in opposing mixing Religion with Politics.
      See where the sub-continent is today because of that!!!
      Bottomline though is he is not a mass leader.


        Originally posted by Andhra:
        Bottomline though is he is not a mass leader.
        How sure are you about that?

        Play Your Game - Gues My Motto


          I have a japnese fan from Hitachi. Are indian fans better? Shouldn't his be in techtalk?


            Poor andhra why you like to live in dark?you wanna talk about someone who died 50 some years know whats the problem with indo-pak peoples they like to live in the Past.and one great example is You.


              Jinnahs ego did not create Pakistan, it was Nehrus Hard headed response to any type of compramise that did it. Had he atleast tried to come to some agreement, we may still be a single nation. i blame Nehru for most of the problems, first the creation of Pakistan and second the problem of Kashmir...


                >>we may still be a single nation<<

                How come I always find Ahmedis think like I do?


                  Well, had Nehru accepted some of Jinnahs proposals, then we would still all be Indians, however I doubt we would be able to get along. Anyways, you can thank your lunk head prime minister Nehru for most of our problems... Either way, im proud to be Pakistani, I would never consider thinking of myself as anything else, especially "Indian."

                  [This message has been edited by Adnan Ahmed (edited May 16, 2002).]


                    Don't get me wrong Adnan. I have no objection to Muslims seeking their own country even separating if it is a fair deal for all involved.
                    The problem with PArtition and creation of Pakistan is

                    1.It is a Half-As* solution. More Muslims were left behind than went over !!

                    2.It was unjust to Hindus and SIkhs in Punjab and SIndh and rest of the tribal areas!!!
                    The land Pakistan is composed was as much theirs as Muslims of that Region.

                    3.It was done without necessary care and planning and naturally left a lot of bitterness.

                    4.There was no debate particularly among Muslims, if this is the kinda country they wanted.
                    True they may not like to be dominated by Non-Muslims, but I don't think they bargained for a country that is a puppet to US, crawls with sectarian violence and 'Blasphemy Laws' etc.,

                    The way sub-continental History shaped out, Hindus,Muslims,Sikhs have no option but to live with each other and respect each other's Religion and Culture.

                    And THEY WERE LIVING LIKE THAT!!

                    And THAT is the Worst part about partition!!!


                      Well as much as i HATE to agree with you.. You do have a point...Still, Pakistan is all we have take it or leave it..


                        Andhra, you say that you have no problems with the creation of Pakistan at one place and then go on about your Hindu dreams to annex Pakistan back into Hindustan. Your shai'taan intentions will not come true, and Pakistan will remain intact.

                        Let me give you a basic history lesson, it was the intention of the founder of this nation to only make the Muslim dominated area of the sub continent into Pakistan. So leaving so many Muslims was not the part of the deal. However, those that chose to came back, did indeed come back (thanks to the irregularities of the border interpolition , courtesy of the nehru/mountbatter love angle)