Conversation with Mukul Kesavan

Jinnah: making of a myth

By Mubarak Ali

Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah had all the qualities and characteristics in his personality which go into the making of a myth. He was reticent, reserved, kept his personal matters secret, behaved coolly and proudly and was not warm towards anybody. Thus he created a halo of awe and fear around himself.

Sri Prakash, the first Indian High Commissioner to Karachi, in his book Pakistan: birth and early years gives an account of a reception which was given by the Governor-General of Pakistan, just after Independence to the diplomatic corps. It was also attended by the party leaders and bureaucrats. According to his version, Mr Jinnah was sitting at a distance alone on a sofa and called one by one those he wanted to talk to. He exchanged notes with each one of them just for five minutes. To the High Commissioner, he appeared a lonely man, averse to people. His serious and sombre expression made all those who interacted with him uneasy in his company.

This conveyed the impression that he was the final authority in every matter. The Muslim League and its leaders were merely rubber stamps. His image of being the sole spokesman of his party and people created a number of myths. For instance, the myth about his serious illness which is recounted by Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre in their book Freedom at midnight fascinates everybody and compels readers to take it seriously. The version of their story is:

``If Louis Mountbatten, Jawaharlal Nehru or Mahatma Gandhi had been aware in April 1947 of one extraordinary secret, the division threatening India might have been avoided. The secret was sealed onto the gray surface of a film, a film that could have upset the Indian political equation and would almost certainly have changed the course of Asian history. Yet, so precious was the secret that that film harboured that even the British CID, one of the most effective investigative agencies in the world, was ignorant of its existence.``

These were the X-rays of Jinnah diagnosed as a TB patient. The authors, after creating a suspense, further write that: ``The damage was so extensive that the man whose lungs were on the film had barely two or three years to live. Sealed in an unmarked envelope, those X-rays were locked in the office safe of Dr J.A.L. Patel, a Bombay physician.``

On the basis of the story, Jinnah emerged as the one on whom depended the whole movement of Pakistan. The story further becomes interesting when a Hindu doctor kept the secret at the cost of Indian unity. His professional integrity was more important than his political inclinations.

In 1997, on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of India-Pakistan Independence, Patrick French published a book, Liberty or death. After his own investigation, French refutes the whole story narrated by Collins and Lapierre. According to him: ``The idea that Jinnah`s poor state of health was a closely guarded secret is absurd: it was referred to in the press at that time, and it is obvious from photographs taken in the mid-1940s that Jinnah was unwell.

Moreover, the reduction of the Muslim League`s wide popular backing to the whim of one man`s `rigid and inflexible` attitude is indicative of the way that Pakistan history has been traduced. A second problem with Collins and Lapierre`s story is that it is not correct. Jinnah did not go to Bombay in May or June 1946, since he was busy in negotiating with Cripps in Simla and New Delhi. Nor did he have a doctor by the name of J.A.L. Patel. Although it is possible that Jinnah had tuberculosis in 1946, there is no evidence among his archive papers to support the theory.``

However, Jinnah himself on many occasions expressed the view that he was the sole creator of Pakistan. In one of his famous quotes, he said that he and his typewriter made Pakistan. The statement disregarded the efforts of his colleagues and the other Muslim League leaders in the Pakistan movement. It also downgraded the people`s participation in the struggle for a separate homeland.

There is evidence that he did not think highly of the leaders of the Muslim League. He found them mediocre and not capable of leading the nation. Perhaps, that was the reason that Jinnah, knowing his fatal illness, accepted `the moth eaten and truncated Pakistan`. The later history of Pakistan vindicates Jinnah`s assessment of the Muslim League leaders who miserably failed to solve the problems of a nascent nation.

The failure of these leaders has boosted Jinnah`s image as a superman. He overshadowed everybody. The nation also paid respect to him by naming universities, colleges, airports, roads, hospitals, and institutions of different kinds after him with the result that a citizen of Pakistan feels his presence every where in the country, wherever he goes.

Moreover, his image as a ``Great Leader`` (the Quaid-i-Azam) is presented in the textbooks to mould the mind of the young generation encouraging them to follow in his footstep. Scholars are eulogizing different aspects of his life. A film is screened to counter the film Gandhi in which Attenborough distorts the image of Jinnah. These efforts have made Jinnah sacrosanct. Any criticism of him is regarded a treason. He has become a paragon of super human virtues, beyond all weaknesses normal in human being.

The reverence accorded to him is such that mere association with him catapults a person from a humble position to the rank of freedom fighter. People take pride in their claim to have shaken hands with him (though he avoided shaking hands with people), or having seen him, talked to him, or merely attended his public meeting. The rulers of Pakistan, realizing the impact of his association, create myths of their links with him. Z.A. Bhutto claimed that as a student he wrote a letter to the Quaid - it is not known whether he replied to that letter or not, Zia`s sycophant bureaucrats discovered a diary of Jinnah (that was the time when Hitler`s diaries were discovered and later on proved false) which disappeared along with him.

Nawaz Sharif, assuming to follow in his footsteps, called himself `Quaid-i-Sani` (the second leader). One such similar example is found in the history of France when Napoleon III made an attempt to revive the image of Napoleon I in order to legitimize his authority. Marx jokingly comments in The eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte that ``Hegel remarks somewhere that all facts and personages of great importance in world history occur, as it were, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce.`` Nawaz Sharif`s self-given title proves it.

Jinnah has become such a symbol of wisdom in the Pakistani society that people visualize Pakistan with his reference. His vision, his agenda, his dream and his ideals, all remained unaccomplished because he died soon after Independence. It is commonly believed that had he lived some more years, the history of Pakistan would have been different. There are few nations which rely so heavily on one individual.

No doubt, Jinnah was a great leader of his people. He was a man of integrity and honesty, but to idealize him to such an extent as to preempt the emergence of another rank of leaders out of his shadow is strange. Every generation has its own dreams and vision which it wants to accomplish without interference. Not imitation but freedom is required to build a new world. Therefore, an attempt should not be made to repeat but to make new history. People should be liberated from the shadows and allowed to flourish in a free society. Great leaders should be respected but not worshipped.

http://www.dawn.com/weekly/books/books4.htm

December 25, 2001

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

I do not have first-hand knowledge of Jinnah, but I have some ideas about what his intentions were and what were, in hindsight, his mistakes.

I feel that basically Jinnah was a Muslim gentleman, more of gentleman than Muslim and I do not know if he was, in the beginning of his career, regarding himself as a Muslim at all.

After his systematic rejection by Gandhi and Nehru and the extension of Gandhi of the freedom struggle to the masses, he realised that he was being marginalised. This was an insult to him and he took it personally.

He took full revenge on them after partition. he got his Pakistan. In this he was aided by the British, by events and by the fact that people like Sir Fazl-i-Hussain and Subhas Chandra Bose were not around at Partition time.

He expected Pakistan to be a gentlemanly affair, where there would be no exchange of population. He did not realise that in a multi-ethnic society, showing up religious differences would lead to tensions which will be uncontrollable. The recent events in Bosnia and Serbia have proved it. The partition went out of the hands of intellectuals into the hands of the goondas.

One can argue that he was innocent and could not have foreseen the partition and its aftermath. But when one starts a fire, one is responsible for the destruction caused by it. So was Indira Gandhi, when she caused religious tension between Hindus and Sikhs for political purposes.

http://www.dawn.com/herald/jinnah/jinnah3.htm

Interview with script writer of film ``Jinnah`` Mr. Farrukh Dhondy. He says Jinnah never wanted a separate country. He set out to win a case and ended up winning a country.

By Syed Ali Dayan Hasan

Q. Did you in fact write the script of the film Jinnah?

A. Yes, I did, and no it was not just a revision of earlier drafts. I wrote the entire script. There was an earlier script by Guy Slater but I never saw it. Akbar Ahmed told me I would not get the credit for it and neither could he acknowledge that I wrote it because I am Indian. I understood his viewpoint completely.

I chose to start working afresh because basically I have been brought up to be out of sympathy with Jinnah or at least out of sympathy with the formation of Pakistan. Akbar Ahmed told me I may get a different impression of Jinnah from the one I had carried so far if I read more about him. So I read extensively including Ayesha Jalal’s work and Wolpert’s biography. From these sources, I formed my impressions of Jinnah anew. While, I had categorically told Akbar I was not going to write a crude propaganda film, I knew that in writing the film I had to be sympathetic to Jinnah because it was meant to present Jinnah’s viewpoint and his imperatives.

Q. Were you paid for writing the script?

A. Yes and there was no quarrel about it. I had a good time with the money. I went to India and spent it. I have no complaint on that score. I kept my part of the bargain and kept the secret. I went to the premiere of the film at the London Film Festival and sat through it very happily. At the end, I congratulated Akbar and told him he had a great script and we both laughed.

Q. How did this whole story enter the public domain in that case?

A. Its coming into the public domain has absolutely nothing to do with me. If Akbar Ahmed and Jamil Dehlavi have fought and decided to bring this whole affair out in the public domain, it is hardly my fault. I have no complaint against either of them. The story was initially aired by the Guardian newspaper here in Britain. I do not know who instigated the Guardian. A reporter from the paper came to me and asked if I had signed a piece of paper selling all my rights in Jinnah for one pound. I did not even remember signing any specific paper and said so. So, the reporter said that that means Mr. Ahmed is guilty of forgery. I told him to not get over-excited and that I would get back to him. I called Jamil and he said yes I had signed this document in his presence and he reminded me of the occasion. So, I called the Guardian and said that yes indeed I had signed the paper and Akbar was not guilty of forgery at all. I did this purely to stop the Guardian from alleging that Akbar had forged my signature when I knew it to be untrue. The reporter, not being an idiot, then said that if I had signed the paper it obviously meant that his hunch that I had written the script was correct. I responded by saying that I was not saying that I had written the script, all I was saying was that I had signed the paper. He was unimpressed with my denial. Eventually, I told him to draw his own conclusions because I had said all I had to say. When I asked him how he had procured a copy of the document, he informed me that Akbar Ahmed himself gave him the document. I was flabbergasted.

Q. What do you think the Dehlavi-Ahmed fight is about?

A. There was an initial falling out over money. Jamil insists that both Akbar and his wife, who were the money-keepers so to speak, did not understand how films are produced. Jamil would keep telling me this during the filming.

The other, more important, reason was that Jamil felt that Akbar was hogging all the limelight attached to the film. Akbar constantly refers to Jinnah as his film. He hosts and attends receptions in honour of the film and constantly markets himself as the maker of Jinnah both in Pakistan and abroad. Jamil felt this was totally unacceptable. Akbar may have brought the team together, eased their way, advised and co-produced the film. But after all, a film is a director’s vision. And Jamil is the director. He argues that he is the director-producer so he deserves some credit. This is the principal reason behind Jamil and Akbar falling out.

As for the financial scandal concerning payments made to Akbar’s son and son-in-law, broken by the Guardian here in Britain, I am personally unaware of those details.

Q. How do you respond to allegations that you and Jamil Dehlavi are part of an Indian conspiracy to undermine the film and the military government of Pakistan?

A. Well, the only person who has ever paid me in connection with this film is Akbar Ahmed and I am unaware of his links with the government of India. There is no truth in the allegation that I work for RAW or the ISI or any other intelligence agency for that matter. I am not even an Indian citizen. However, I was born Indian, I love India and would have liked to see India remain undivided. As far as Pakistan is concerned, as the expression goes ``some of my best friends are Pakistanis.`` I hope there is a rapprochement between the two countries and if General Musharraf can bring that about, I wish him the very best of luck. I understand that General Musharraf is a modernist and a progressive. If he stamps out corruption from Pakistan, he will have achieved more than anyone has in the entire subcontinent to date.

And if General Musharraf is handing out high commisionerships and ambassadorships for writing this script, I would also like to put in a request for one. But I would prefer a place where there is little work Tahiti for example. I would make a very good ambassador because, unlike others, I know when to keep my mouth shut and when to open it. I suppose it would also prove that I am not a RAW agent.

Q. Have you been in touch with Akbar Ahmed since the scandal broke?

A. I tried. But a man called Tariq came on the phone and said ``Dhondy, did you ask for a bribe to buy the film for Channel 4?`` And that really was that. When I began working on the film, I was still commissioning editor at Channel 4. Of course, I had made it clear to Akbar that if I was writing the film, Channel 4 would have nothing to do with it. I informed the managing director of Channel 4 that I was writing this script. Akbar was sent a letter saying that Channel 4 would consider his film when it was ready. That, however, is a standard response. It meant nothing and anyone working in Britain knows that.

Q. How do you view Jinnah the man?

A. I understand Jinnah much better now. Of course, he is not the man the RSS or the BJP or even mainstream Indian nationalists make him out to be. I understand that he was a secular man and wanted a secular Pakistan. He was also a constitutional lawyer. The problem with Jinnah, and I think the film alludes to this, was that he set out to win a case and ended up winning a country. I believe that the truth about the Quaid-e-Azam must be understood not just in India but in Pakistan as well.



http://www.dawn.com/herald/jinnah/jinnah1.htm

It appears that Nehru is already being taken apart anyway. And as far as I can tell the aspect of his philosophy that has served us best and we cant afford to do without is under attack from all directions. I disagree with Kesavan in his remark about the family from Faizabad unable to mention Partition, but let that pass for now. I would really say hes talking through his hat when he implies that `leaving things behind` if you were from a UP qasbah (or from a tradl Calcutta Marwari neighbourhood etc.) is necessarily undesirable. I wish that the New Wave would try and recognise the lessons of the past 400 years: namely that progress involves leaving a lot behind, frequently parts of ones heritage. And in the case of admission into the `secular decisionmaking elite` that Kesavan is so abviously talking about without mentioning, the more left behind that was unique to the qasbah or wherever, the better the decisions, not to mention the more secular.

Rehan, it is Sahib, Bibi aur Ghulam and not Naukar...

temporal:

I`ll be posting the review of Looking Through Glass in a week or so... that`ll help...

Re: Rana Ransher

Thanks for your prompt reply.

Since I live in Salt Lake City, I doubt the film will ever make it here, as it is a small market with an interest in popular releases. A film like ``Jinnah`` will find it hard to appeal to a sleeply small backwater town such as this.

I still have hope....if the distributor is a big name company.

FerozK
The film (Jinnah) was supposed to play in NYC at the Asia Society (68/70th and Park,www.asiasociety.org/com) last Sunday. For some reason (I believe unavailability of the print!) it was cancelled.
This weekend it is playing at the theater at Directors Guild. This is an amazing theatre and has a large capacity. But, it is a private showing (?????) and info at the theatre won`t give any information.
regards
RanaRansher

I have heard and read some revues that the film ``Jinnah`` is hard to follow by western audiences, because it does not follow a historic chronology, but rather relies on a flashback format to tell the story. Accordingly, it is really hard to follow the story line unless one has a background in Pakistani history.

Also; does anyone know who will distribute the film in the states and when it will be shown?

Both Jalal and Wolpert are equally correct. Jinnah was a lawyer and a Moses for his people.

Rehan:

The movie Mukul refers to is Sahib, Bibi aur

Ghulam. This is too short an interview. Wish it was longer to get a real bearing on Mukul.

How about a piece on Ghose?

regards

Whatever happenned to that movie. Has it been released. Did it fare well. I am assuming it did not since I did not hear about it quite as much. Does anyone know?