Jinnah, My Hero

re: Syed Ahmed
I agree with most of what you say about `history` in terms of the politics of India from 1900 - 1947. I even agree with your conclusion about Jinnah`s so called Solution. I elaborated in detail in my other reply. However, I don`t see how it necessarily contradicts what Rishi and Truth are saying regarding the confusion of vision for Pakistan and Jinnah`s FAILURE to achieve what he supposedly set out to do ie protect the Muslims where they were a minority.
India (Gandhi, Nehru prevailed over the others) countered the same right wing arguments with other more consistent ideologies which appeal to me as a SECULARIST. And the 40 years after independance attest to it. To me Jinnah`s ideology (in terms of what he pusehd for as a SOLUTION) holds about the same appeal as Savarkar derivatives in the form of Sangh parivar today.
I don`t think you should dismiss this debate as Indo-Pak BS. Afterall, Jinnah`s relevance as a politician/statesman is only in Indo-Pak BS. And it still holds relevance to current Indo-Pak affairs. If you are talking about Jinnah as a person (what he ate/drank, who he married, divorced, converted, personal beliefs, etc.) I have no interest in that. Also if you don`t believe in Secularism, then again we don`t have much to debate about.
Would love to hear any sort of replies.

As an aside
A recent book by Sunil Khilnani (The idea of India) has a very comprehensive analysis of all this. In particular, there is a chapter called `Who is an Indian ?` which is extremely relevant to this debate. If anything it answers all the vague and confused references and inferences this article by Godot makes about Jinnah (Why the U-Turn, He must have had a satori - give me a break!!)

Ferozk:

I think Rishi has spoken most of the main points.

First of all, please keep open the possibility that the criticism of Jinnah and Pakistan is not necessarily driven by ANY of the following:

1. An irrational love for the map of United India

2. A desire to suppress Muslim identity

3. A desire to suppress Afghan, Pakhtoon, Sindhi, Kashmiri or Punjabi identity

4. A desire to have Hindu Raj

Some people may rely on the above but I criticize Jinnah based on different criterion.

Here is a somewhat absurd hypothetical: ``We have different names. We wear different clothes. We look different. We react differently to many issues. We are in all respects a nation. There are two nations in India. We shall have Memistan or we shall have civil war``. Wouldnt a demand of this sort by the women of India sound absurd? After all, regardless of their differences with men, they share the same houses and beds as the men. Now it is true the fault lines of religion do not intrude into the houses and beds of India like the fault lines of gender. But they sure did intrude beyond the provincial levels into towns, villages and communities.

So at a very basic level, I find the two nation theory ludicrous and abhorent. I find it racist in the religious sense.

The second reason why Indians keep harping on it is for two reasons and these are somewhat reflective of what we see in Pakistan namely

a) the two nation theory has not been repudiated in Pakistan. instead it is exalted. it is almost like asking us to accept nazism. we can and must accept germany today but we cannot and must not EVER accept nazism. so we will always accept the state and citizens of Pakistan but we will never accept the founding ideology behind Pakistan. If Pakistan repudiates it, I will shut up.

b) Lot of Pakistanis even today confuse identity with country (Syed Ahmed). Jinnah was trying to preserve Muslim IDENTITY. Right. And so how does this become the need for a separate country?

c) The Pakistani ideology is not just a question of how the CURRENT citizens of Pakistan are dealing with their own issues of Government. It is a very personal thing for all the former residents who had to leave (including my mother).

I saw a program on TV where this Pakistani politican recounting Aug 1947 recalled how this aged Muslim woman crossed the border and asked him: ``Have I reached Pakistan?`` and he replied ``Yes``, at which she just collapsed and died. And this politican just choked up at the memory of this old woman wanting to reach Pakistan while she was alive. And I wanted to scream to this politician ``You hoodwinker. Your ideology caused the migrations of 12 million people and deaths of 500,000 and you are seeking validation from one the people who your ideology caused pain and suffering.``

Can you imagine a similar scene in the other direction: ``Where have I reached?``. ``You are in India`` ``But I thought I grew up in India`` ``No that was your delusion. That is now Pakistan``. Welcome home, refugee.

So my hostility is political and personal. But it remains targetted at the ideology behind Jinnah`s two nation theory and it does not extend to the state of Pakistan or the people of Pakistan if those views are repudiated.

re: Rishi

- your premises are incorrect.

- Sarvarkar & The Hindu Mahabasha was always the swing vote in pre-partition Congress. Hindu revivalism is not a new Bal Thackery phenomenon.
EVen in COngress the lower class Hindus were consistently denied fair or adequate representation ie the Ambedkar was only a nominal figurehead -later supporte by Jawaharlal. It is interesting to note that Ambedkar seriously considered joing the league in the 30`s.



- The Muslim league was inherentlty a reactionary party - it was formed as a direct consequence of the the Hindu right wing. The formation of a new
language ie HIndi from Sanskrit roots ( circa 1870s) to counter the prevailing Urdu/Farsi.


- Hindu symbolism creeped into COngress enmasse after the Lucknow Pact circa 1921. By 1927 Muslim
leadership in Congress was completely alienated - ie Ali Brothers, Jinnah, MOhani, Suhrawardy, Fazlul Haq with the rare exception of Azad.


- Tilak, malviya etc .. were early Hindu right wingers who yielded considerable influence over the COngress agenda. Hence earlier moderates like Pherozeshah Mehta, Jinnah, C.R Das were all shunted aside in favor of right wing zealots.
Even the ultra- Nationalist Bose was a reaction to the HIndu right wing in the late 30`s.

- Ghandhi a protege of Gokhlae - used right wing symbolism and in certain circumstances rhetoric to consolidate his position within the Congress.
Actually it Was Gandhi who initially differentiated between the Musalmaan and Hindu leaders of COngress circa 1918. Eventually ofcourse Ghandi moved towards the left, much as Jinnah moved towards the right. Neither Gandhi nor Jinnah were strong ideologues like Jawarhalal and consequently their stances were in keeping with the times. Ghandhi espouses the secularist mantle in the late 30`s - after his position was consolidated. Remember that Motilal always aspired t the COngress leadership but was denied - partially due to his patrician roots and partially to his secularist ideals. Jawarharlal pushed most of hs secularist agenda by sheer will and shrude politics. Patel and party were always there to counter his political acumen.

As for Jinnah solutions,

- They were inherently circumstantial
- The were often autocratic, since most of the Leagues other leaders wer bafoons much like they are today.
- Jinnah did not let his personal ideology get inthe way of Pakistan because he was too busy courting the idiotic Muslim factions. HIs personal preference was of course a Western Style democracy in Pakistan based on secular principles.

Me thinks the dialogue is again moving away from Jinnah to INdo-Pak BS.

Re: Syed Ahmed

Your references are accurate. But i wonder how that makes my premises incorrect. For i have not made any premises on the India of the partition times. My references are only to the current India (heck, i wasn`t even born during or immediately after partition). If by my premises you are referring to my suggestions on Jinnah, then even there i am talking only about the current mindset in India regarding Jinnah. In current times, even Gandhi and Nehru are not spared in India for their glaring mistakes. Present day Indians (not politicians -- here i refer to the common people particularly the youth) are far from idolising Gandhi or Nehru.

Wonder how Jinnah fares with present day pakistanis?

Re: Ferozk

Your question :

`` Why have the Indians still not accepted the reality of Pakistan fifty years after the fact and when they castigate Jinnah, what are the reasons behind that critism? ``

-- Actually, au contraire, the majority of the Indians do not really care about the reality of Pakistan. India south of the vindyas does not even bother about the existence of Pakistan. None of the Indo-Pak wars affected them to any extent at all. And to the East, except the bangladesh war, the situation is the same. Elsewhere in these columns i have commented upon this in a better fashion. It is only the geographically contiguous areas in India with pakistan where cultural similarities and religious animosity play their partition-pre partition cards. Even here, Indians in general have accepted the reality of Pakistan . However , among Indians the common belief is that the reason d`etre of Pakistan is India-baiting. They believe that here is a country which owes its existence just to embarrass and compete with India. Given the Influence Pakistan weilds within a small section of India`s large muslim populace, the fear of Pakistan is well founded among Indians.

Another reason is that most secular Indians fear that a muslim Pakistan`s interference in a muslim majority kashmir would result in a hindu India with the likes of the moronic Bal thackeray in the helm. They fear the hindu lunatic fringe more than the muslim fundamentalists because Indians (especially hindus ) have gotten used to having a secular, un-authoritative religion based lifestyle which he/she loathes to lose. Look at Gujarat and Maharashtra where the hindu fundamentalist governments have banned (or atleast trying to ) garba dances, kissing and hugging in public places, pop and rock musics in the name of preserving hindu culture and tradition. The western influence in India (or atleast the major cities ) is tremendous and Indians are addicted (or getting addicted to ) the western culture and in the process evolving a new socio-economic dynamics which would alter if any religious fundamentalism takes precedence in the realm of things. A quick visit to cuffe parade in bombay or brigade/commercial road in bangalore or Egmore/Adyar in Madras would be a pointer to the western influence in India. Freedom of choice is what Indians value the most and this freedom can be affected by the rise of Hindu fundamentalism which directly has a bearing in the perceived interference of Pakistan in India. This is what Indians fear the most about Pakistan not its existence.

Indians question not the existence of Pakistan, but the existence of india-baiting in Pakistan. Indians question not the creation of Pakistan but the rational behind this creation. (do remember that Indians do not question the creation of bangladesh or even nepal).

the sangh parivar`s akand bharat logic is just crap and Indians want no part of it. the lunatic fringe needs to be put in place.

p.s: how i wish that some geographical movement would displace these two countries and place them at some considerable distance from each other so that they both prosper and provide a decent livelihood to their citizens....how i wish.....

You say

`` Is their critism of Jinnah directed at what he accomplished or in a more specific sense is a manifestion of what they lost; a united India? ``

--No , atleast not anymore. Their criticism of Jinnah is just that when he could not become the head of Independant India (thanks to Gandhi and his affection for Nehru ) he created his own country to lead. Their criticism is that he did not care for the welfare of the people he was supposed to care for.

you say ``Soon after 1947, many in India believed, including Nehru, that Pakistan would collaspe under its own contradictions and eventually re-join with India. ``

-- true, but not any more. Most indians are now sceptic as to how the future would or with the nukes whether there would be a future at all with the anti-india bashing from pakistan and the anti-pakistan bashing from the sangh parivar.

I think that the Indians detest Jinnah, because he denied to them what they thought was rightfully due to them from the British

-- nope, atleast not anymore. Few Indians care about Jinnah and fewer Indians detest him. The few who discredit him do so because they see him as the reason for the current mess that India and Pakistan are in. We are the laughing stock of the entire world.

you say ``I am asking my Indian friends these questions, because I geninuely want to undertand where does the resentment of Jinnah and Pakistan comes from in India? ``

hope this reply clarifies the Indian point of view. I cannot substantiate my replies since they are what i have distilled in my n number of years of existence. The anti pakistan feeling in India is resurging in India due to the communal passion that gets whipped up. There is also a fact of the ISI`s involvement in India which is detested by the Indians. I don`t have the answers for any of the problems plaguing India and Pakistan. The best solution that i can think of is the one given by the chinese premier. Lets maintain the current status quo, forget about each other`s existence for the next 50 years or so and hope that a generation wiser than ours would decide their future. Otherwise, we would only get fed up with all the rhetoric spewed on us and a few self-aggrandising politicians on either sides of the border would be the ones to gain from the passions that they whip up.

I would love to hear a reply.

re: Ferozk
You have asked some very interesting questions and I would like to take a stab at some of them. As a disclaimer I would say that these are just my opinions and do not represent Indians or an Indian ideology. Also these are based on what I have read of Jinnah (more the politician/statesman rather than his personal life).
What I disagree with is the ideology of a separate identity based on religion. Especially, when that identity is used to lay claims to certain lands where other religions exist. This business of placing people on different parts of the globe based on their religion is today called ETHNIC CLEANSING. It is still happening in various parts of the globe and that is what we all call it.
Now Jinnah obviously had some serious concerns. Let me elaborate on my view of things.
THe British , in their trainspotting way darted across the subcontinent mapping, classifying the territory that gradually came into their possessions. THey had every body divided up into majorities/minorities within certain pockets which bore mostly linguistic and ethnic similarities. They argued that the SECULAR DANDA keeps everybody sane, otherwise the whole region would erupt in war. Now while any secualrist may agree with that last statement,I quote from a book by Sunil Khilnani about the other arguments. ``There is no doubt that the dissimilar agragrian regions of pre-colonial India did share intelligble, common cultural forms, derived from both Brahmanic and non-Brahmanic sources( like Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Sikhism, etc.). THe storehouse of shared narrative structures embodied in epics, myths, and folk stories, and the family resemblence in styles of art, architecture and religious motifs - if not ritual practices - testify to a civilizational bond, that in fact extended well beyond the territorial borders of contemporary India: to Persia in the West and Indonesia in the East.`` Now most of the `Nationalists` of the time felt this too and yearned for Swaraj or self rule, but the differences arose in the `histories` that one came up with to counter the British arguments. To testify as a people who wanted the `foreign` British out each one had to come up with a vision of the free DES. Nehru had his, Gandhi had his and every other COngressi, Muslim Leaguer had his. People still have their own. But that is a different debate. Ironically, even these Nationalists (and us now !!) still could only rely on what the British had written. So `histories` had to be `invented` based on what and often to counter what British Historians like James Mills (History of British India) and other bad-mannered Orientalists had written. Another interesting factor ``was India`s archive of images of political community, which related culture to polity. The comparatively brief episodes of subcontinental empire suggested a political community - based not on a common culture but encompassing different religious groups, which imperial patterns of power allowed to live in insulated adjacency, requiring simply that they acknowledge the paramountacy of political authority and punctually yield revenue, religious and social habits were left unmolested.`` Well, with this backdrop the 1920`s saw the nationalist intellectual imagination of scholars, politicians, would-be terrorists, all turn their hand dutifully to history writing. THings were divided into Hindu, Muslim and British periods although the culture of the people of the Indian sub-continent showed something a lot more discontinuos and amorphous. In any case, some of the popular theories worht mentioning are:
1) V D Savarkar from whose works the BJP would later get their mantra Hindutva. Hindutva, to Savarkar, was a history of a people (spiritual, religious, political). In Savarkars genealogical equation between the Hindu and the Indian, members of the Indian political community were united by geographical origin, racial connection (very ambigiously defined) and a shared culture on based on Sanskritic (North Indian) languages. Those who shared these traits formed the core, `majority` community. While the status of the `minority` (Muslims - a quarter of the pre-partition population, CHristians, tribals was not known.
Now ideologies based on this can be seen as threatening to Muslims who did not form a monolithic community with a single `communal` identity or interest any more than the Hindus did. Class/caste and region divided as much as religion might unite, and beliefs about community and interest varied between provinces where Muslims were in a majority and where they a minority. Amongst the Muslim politicians I won`t go into Islamists, etc. But Jinnah`s voice can be seen as being distinctly secular. I believe the core of his disagreement with the COngress was the structure of the future state. Jinnah did not want a unilateral central state with procedures of political representation that threatened to put it in the hands of the numerically dominant RELIGIOUS community. As such, this was a perfectly secular ambition. In fact, the politics of India (BJP, ShivSena, RSS, BSP, SP, AIADMK) in the last decade can attest to this. However, to counter other arguments (British, Hindu nationalists adhering to Savarkar derivatives of identity) he conveniently pushed the social lines of differences and `imposed` an artificial cohesion on the diverse Muslims populations of the subcontinent. (the politcs of Pakistan/Punjabi elite, Mohajirs, Sindhudesh, Bangladesh can attest to that). Jinnah spoke of a real problem but he had no solution. 12 - 15 million migrations, 1 million deaths, constant war at the LOCs (we still don`t call them borders..sigh), draining defense budgets, Nuclear bombs IS NO SOLUTION. I personally don`t like the way he changed his argument to seek a political ally as long as he got what he wanted in the end. Re: his relationship with other Muslim Leagers who were hard core Islamists. His ideology lacked consistency and can evidently be seen as contradictory at times. It thrived on religious politics based on DIFFERENCES, something that is still going on and is a pain in the neck for every Secularists (Indian or Pakistani
This consistency in ideology is something which was very different in the way Gandhi and Nehru put forth their case. Now I don`t want this to become a Nehru/Gandhi/Jinnah penis contest. That`s a different debate. And to calm the jingoist in me I have to remind myself that we know what happened to Gandhi and is still happening (character assasination, Mahatma vs Gandhi, etc.) and how Nehru was absolutely isolated in what he did. All the centralised power structure of the pre-Raj days were promptly put back in place by Indira Gandhi undoing everything he ever stood for.
As far as Pakistan being a reality. There is no question about the reality of it. And these re-unification theories are nothing but the creations of a paranoid mind. However, the politics of its creation has left a legacy of religious politics that carries on today in Pakistan and India (not bangladesh apparently)
Godot dismisses it as deep seated religious bigotry between two main religious groups. OUCH!!! Pakistans Sufi Soul just collectively shuddered in its grave). That can be ones `historical` view but it is flimsy and definitely moth eaten and extremely selective.

Re Jay post # 20

Jinnah never advocated religion in Pakistan and his vision of Pakistan was one of democracy and never one of a theocracy. Read his speeches, they do not preach religion.

I have to run now, but I will follow up on this ASAP!

Thefact that we find inherent contradictions in Jinnah phiosophy has less to do with Muslim ideology and more to do with the circumstances in pre-partition India. IN essence the Muslim League was a fractitious and dis-organised institution in the pre-partion Pakistan and the only glue that held it together was JInnah. Whether you agree with him ideologically is irreleveant - the fact remains that JInnah had mission to preserve an Islamic identity and inorder to appease the various factions within the Muslim electorate - he used religion, secularism etc etc .. to create a constituency for Pakistan. - Now whether Pakistan is a success or failure has little to do with Jinnah - his successors and the public at large are to blame.

To All:

This discussion seems to heading towards an impassè based on a national interpretation of an historic event; the partition.

Before I ask my Indian friends a question, I would like to put a disclaimer here first. This is a question purely in the interests of history itself and is not inteneded to espouse any ideological rhetoric.

I have been reading some of the posts and they have raised the question of Pakistan`s ideology and have questioned the intentions of Jinnah in creating Pakistan. Granted, Pakistan is not perfect and there is a state of confusion and a struggle in Pakistan, between seculurism and theology. What ever the arguments to the contary, it still does not deny the historic reality of Pakistan.

My question is this:

Why have the Indians still not accepted the reality of Pakistan fifty years after the fact and when they castigate Jinnah, what are the reasons behind that critism?

Is their critism of Jinnah directed at what he accomplished or in a more specific sense is a manifestion of what they lost; a united India?

Personally, I think it is the latter. Soon after 1947, many in India believed, including Nehru, that Pakistan would collaspe under its own contradictions and eventually re-join with India. I can only imagine how disheartening it must be for the Indians to watch Pakistan stumble from one crisis to another without fulfilling their much cherished prophecy. I think that the Indians detest Jinnah, because he denied to them what they thought was rightfully due to them from the British; to rule a united India as a successor state to the British Raj.

I am interested in pursuing these questions, but without the traditional rhetorical baggage. I am asking my Indian friends these questions, because I geninuely want to undertand where does the resentment of Jinnah and Pakistan comes from in India?

I would love to hear a reply.

The article`s author and several of the inter-actors constitute the biggest bunch of `great man` theory believers on the chowk. They are standing around, wondering what would have happened to pakistan if only jinnah were to live a few years longer, if only jinnah were to frame a constitution, if only..., if only.

They fail to recognise that a leader emerges in response to the dreams and hopes of the people, they materialise at a historic juncture of conflict and confusion and the leader is the essence of their people. Jinnah was a leader.

What ever the condition of pakistan today, i dont have any particular view, is the out come of the vision of jinnah, to the extend that it is also the vision of the people of pakistan.

A secular islamic republic in a country attempting to trace its culture and history to saudi arabia is an absurdity.

A country created on the basis of a holy book that contains specific instructions on crime and punishment and political system, a book that declares itself as complete and eternal, which prohibits interpretations will, no doubt remain static. What ever progress that has taken plaace in pakistan in the last 50 years is the out come of the momentum of a common cuture with india ( imagine a female PM in saudi arabia), now at last the essence of the vision of jinnah of an islamic coutry is taking shape, the sharia law hopefully will be made the supreme. Pl dont confuse the vision of jinnah with his decadent behaviour of drinking and pork eating.

Ferozk,

This is an excellent point you have raised. Why is it so hard for the Indians to accept that Pakistan has survived against all odds. I think, as a nation, we have accepted that Bangladesh is a seperate nation although it was a part of Paksitan once.

There was a very interesting survey done by the India Times in 1997 at the culmination of half a century after independance where more students (I don`t know why they polled students only) blamed Nehru and Patel as opposed to Jinnah for the creation of Paksitan. You can find this poll in India Times, somewhere in the month of August 1997.

Re: Kumar`s post # 9

Yes; Jinnah said that, but you have to take that quote in the context it was meant.

The creation of Pakistan was basically one of a choice, because given the nationalistic rhetoric of the Congress, many Muslims were considering life, in a Hindu India, as untenable.

Pakistan was to be their choice in case they did not opt for India. Jinnah`s remark was meant for those Muslims who had, of their own free will, chosen India. Jinnah`s implication was that, having decided, they should not agiate against India, but should contribute to building a better India; their new home land. In other words, they made their choices and now they should live with it.

Hence, he was not being hypocritical.


Re: afrasiyab`s post #8

In the cricket parlance, I am stumped...

That reference was made out of Wolport`s ``Jinnah of Pakistan`` and presently I do not have that volume with me. Please bear in mind that this is all from memory. I believe that the doctor`s last name was Patel, as Temporal suggested, but I am not sure what his first name was. I know that he was a Hindu, because my father had said the same thing to me once. My only regret is that I did not ask this question to Admiral Ashan, who was Jinnah`s aide d`camp and a real close friend of my father, when he was still alive. If that doctor had been Parsi, being a half Parsi myself, I would have known about it.

As to Jinnah`s physicans; There was Dr. Patel in India and I know he was treated by a Col. Elihi Bux of Pakistan Army during his last year and the colonel was with Jinnah the night he died. We know this, because the colonel wrote a book about his times with Jinnah. As to the British doctor, I do not know. I have my doubts on that, but that means nothing. Jinnah did live in England during the 1930s and maybe he had an English doctor there.

This is that question that puzzles me. Why would a lawyer change professions in mid stream and become a doctor or vice versa. Most of the British army medical doctors came from the Royal Army Medical Corps. Hence that would imply a career in that field. Why would a doctor become a lawyer? Besides, if he was lawyer, he could not become a docter since medicine is highly specialized field.

I am sorry, but I am really confused on this question.

Sincerely

There is a view among Pakistani secularists that the secular ideology was hijacked in the 1970s.

In fact, the secular Pakistani ideology was born dead.

There were far too many influential people who had views other than a secular state. And what of the rank and file of the average Muslim Leaguer or the poor Muslim refugees streaming into Pakistan? How many were making distinctions between Islamic States and pre-dominantly Muslim secular states. This was a subtlety lost to most - for the average man, Pakistan was a Muslim state and the rest was legal hair-splitting.

I know of no other state with as confused an identity as Pakistan and this started from day one.

India may be going through an identity crisis right now but for the better part of 50 years the vision (not the reality) has been clear: a secular state. Even the average man on the road in India knows that India is secular or dharam-nirpeksh (religion neutral). Some dont like it and they are busy intimidating minorities burning churches, demolishing mosques but even they know they live in a secular country.

Jinnah gets the credit for his country`s confusion and Nehru/Gandhi get the credit for their country`s relative clarity.

re: afrasiyab

You make a good point about SCHOLARLY works. But within the context of this article I am not sure why it even matters. This article itself is far from anything scholarly.
THe article is nothing but references to some supposed historical FACTS followed by some pretty far fetched inferences. The author assumes his audience knows about all the references he makes and assumes you agree with ALL of the inferences he draws from them.
I would love to read a real SCHOLARLY piece on Jinnah. Any suggestions ?
Whatever happened to the movie by Akbar S. Ahmed ?

Jinnah was all bunk.

Here are four different interpretations of the Pakistan movement:

1. A secular state where the Muslims could be in the majority.

2. An Islamic state

3. The statement that Muslims are a nation - tied to the concept of Ummah

4. The statement that there are two nations in India - the Hindus and the Muslims. Hence the two-nation theory.

Each of these statements have very different implications for politics, partition and most importantly the ability to gather minority support (specifically Hindu and Sikh support) in the would-be Pakistan.

Conversely, the Congress demand was simple, one-man one-vote with certain fundamental rights and let the chips fall where they may.

Without making sure that all his followers had the same interpretation of Pakistan, Jinnah became the leader of a hoax.

Re: godot

Can`t make any sense of what you are trying to say. The article is poorly composed.

you say ``The more I understood the petty South Asians, the more I understood Jinnah. ``

does this mean that Jinnah is petty or what ?

you also say ``The more I understood the deep-seated religious enmity and bigotry between the two main religious groups, the more I understood Jinnah. ``

and elsewhere you also quote that Jinnah was the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity. Duh, does it make any sense within and without the context of the article.

God alone knows what you understood about Jinnah. Almost makes me wonder if you had written it as a satire.

and the footnote .... what is it there for ? and as if that mattered ?

note 1 :

And you have not answered the most important question. Why did a secular minded, anglophilic, pork eating, ismaili, non practising muslim change into an ardent supporter of a seperate homeland for the muslims of the subcontinent ? Can we write off this change as an egoistic streak faced by an immensely talented man when facing another intelligent adversary in Nehru ?

note 2 : seeing the title i thought there might be some good analyses of an important person in South Asian (nay World) history and i found only absolute bunkum.

iconoclast