Between Jinnah and Nehru

It’s my curiosity, that’s leading me to a much debated and controversial topic. So many books, articles and columns have been published on this, but still some questions are hovering over my head. “Who was responsible for the division of India?” ,  “Could it have been avoided?” , “Was Jinnah or Nehru responsible for it?”,  “What was Gandhiji’s stand in this topic?” , “Was it the best solution in the wake up independence?” , “Is India without Pakistan or Pakistan without India better than United India?” etc.

Whenever the topic of Indo-Pak division arises ,the whole spotlight turns towards the legendary leader, Mohammad Ali Jinnah. The reason is while Indian history writers have named him as the villain of saga of partition, but in Pakistan he is deified as the Father of Nation(Quaid-i-Azam).  The next hot spot goes to the visionary man, India’s first PM, Jawaharlal Nehru. Although Nehru’s involvement in this issue was not much highlighted, but after the release of the most controversial book “Jinnah-India, Partition, Independence”  by Mr. Jaswant Singh,  people’s suspicious eye turned towards Nehru. 

Singh’s thesis is based on the argument of Maulana Azad, India’s first Education Minister, who, in his book, “India Wins Freedom”, argued that the partition could have been avoided had Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel shown some flexibility over the Cabinet Mission plan. According to Singh, ‘Nehru believed in a highly centralized polity. That’s what he wanted India to be. Jinnah wanted a federal polity. That even Gandhi accepted. Nehru didn’t. Consistently, he stood in the way of a federal India until 1947 when it became a partitioned India’.

While people argue over two the people Jinnah and Nehru, Who is responsible for division, I see that it’s not the two people but the two visions that divided India. Let’s have a look around at Jinnah’s ideology along with Allama Iqbal’s Idology, whom Jinnah considered as his mentor and guide.

Allama Iqbal’s Ideology on Pakistan:

Allama Iqbal, the poet, philosopher and a great thinker with the help of his poetry tried to awaken the Muslims of the sub-continent. He believed in the separate identity of Muslims as a nation.

In 1930, Allama Iqbal presented his mature political opinion on the political fate of Indian Muslims in his presidential address at Allahabad at the annual session of Muslim League. He said,

“I am fully convinced that the Muslims of India will ultimately have to establish a separate homeland as they could not live with the Hindus in the United States. India is a continent of human beings belonging to different races, speaking different languages and professing different religions….., I, therefore demand the formation of a consolidated Muslim state in the best interest of India and Islam. I would like to see the Punjab, NorthWest Fronties Province, Sindh and Balochistan amalgamated into a single State self-government within the British Empire or without the British Empire, the formation of a consolidated North-West India Muslim state appears to me to be the final destiny of the Muslims at least of North West India.”

Well, I consider it as the seed behind the partition of the Indian subcontinent , one of the major historical events of the twentieth century. Let’s have a look towards Jinnah’s vision.

Jinnah’s Ideology on Pakistan:

Quaid-e-Azam was a firm advocate of Two Nation Theory which became the ideological basis Pakistan. He considered the Muslims as a separate nation. He defined the two nation theory as

“The Muslims are a nation by every right to establish their separate homeland. They can adopt any means to promote and protect their economic social, political and cultural interests.”

At the historic session of the Muslim League at Lahore, known as Pakistan resolution(23^rd March 1940) he said

“The Mussalmans are not a minority. They are a nation by any definition. By all canons of International law we are a nation.”

In his presidential address at the annual session of Muslim League at Lahore in 1940, he said

            “India is not a nation, nor a country. It is a Sub Continent of Nationalities. Hindus and Muslims being the two major nations. The Hindus and Muslims belongs to two different religions, philosophies, social customs and literature. They neither intermarry nor interdine, and they belong to two different civilization which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspects on life and of are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Muslims derive their inspiration from different sources of history.”

While addressing the students of Muslim University on 08^th March 1944, he said 

            “Hindus and Muslims through living in the same town and villages, had never been blended into one nation. They were always two separate entities.”

While addressing at Islamia College, Peshawar in 1946, Quaid-e-Azam declared

            “We do not demand Pakistan simply to have a piece of land but we want a laboratory where we could experiment on Islamic principles.”

In his message to the frontier Muslim Students Federation in 18^th June 1945, he said 

            “Pakistan only means freedom and independence but Muslims ideology, which has to be preserved which has come to us a precious gift and treasure and which we hope, others will share with us.”

So now let’s turn our focus towards Nehru’s vision and why he stood against Jinnah’s two nation theory. When Jinnah was dreaming a Pakistan Nehru was dreaming a Modern India. 

Nehru’s Ideology:

In his opinion, all Indians belonged to one nation. For him a modern India should be a secular state. In this state, politics and economics should not be mixed with religious matters, and political parties and organizations not be formed along religious lines.

In his Discovery of India, he tried to show that there is continuity in his homeland; that India remains India. He stated that, of course there are distinctive features amongst the Indian people, but he was also convinced that they had a common ground due to the same virtues, national heritage and moral as well as mental qualities. Starting from this point of view, Nehru disagreed with Jinnah’s theory that India consisted of two nations.

Nehru rejected both ideas, the theory of two nations within India and the concept of Pakistan. In his opinion, the Indian people belonged to one nation, independently of their religion. He argued that if nationality would be based on religion, there would be more nations within the Indian territory than only the Hindu one and the Muslim one. The distinctive feature that separated one nation from another was, in this view, not religion, but rather "a sense of belonging together and of together facing the rest of mankind". He declared that there was no other difference between a Hindu and a Muslim who, for example, both lived as peasants in the same village than a religious one. Their language, customs and traditions were, in his views, the same.

Because of this perception, Nehru believed that a Muslim nation therefore: 

means that there is no nation at all but a religious bond; it means that no nation in the modern sense must be allowed to grow; it means that modern civilization should be discarded and we should go back to the medieval ways; it means either autocratic government or a foreign government; it means, finally, just nothing at all except an emotional state of mind and a conscious or unconscious desire not to face realities, especially economic realities. 

In regard to economic realities, Nehru argued that the Indian people have the same concerns and problems independent of their religion. He asked: "In what way are the interests of the Muslim peasant different from those of the Hindu peasant? Or those of a Muslim labourer or artisan or merchant or landlord or manufacturer different from those of his Hindu protype?" He added that the "ties that bind people are common interest, and, in the case of a subject country especially, a common national interest." Nehru believed that in a modern state political participation and claims would develop because of common economic interests and problems, not because of belonging to the same religious group.

Nehru rejected the idea that the religion of a person should also define his/her political view and his/her automatically belonging to a certain party, as obsolete. He believed that among Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Parsees, etc., "one may find Congressmen, socialists, anti-socialists, communists, liberals, direct-actionists, revolutionaries, moderates, extremists, believers in different kinds of economy theory … ".He stated in this connection that

            “to appeal to Mussalmans or Hindus as religious groups on politcal matters is obviously the wrong thing. It is the medieval attitude, when politics and economics were in the background, and it cannot possibly fit in with the modern world. It is because of this that I say I find it difficult to think on communal lines.”

Let’s turn towards Gandhiji. What was his stand in Indo-Pak division.

Gandhi-Jinnah talks:

The Gandhi-Jinnah talks began in Bombay on September 19, 1944, and lasted till the 24th of the month. The talks were held directly and via correspondence. Gandhiji told Quaid-i-Azam that he had come in his personal capacity and was representing neither the Hindus nor the Congress. Gandhiji’s real purpose behind these talks was to extract from Jinnah an admission that the whole proposition of Pakistan was absurd.

Quaid-i-Azam explained the basis of the demand of Pakistan. “We maintain”, he wrote to Gandhiji, “that Muslims and Hindus are two major nations by any definition or test of a nation. We are a nation of a 100 million. We have our distinctive outlook on life and of life. By all the cannons of international law, we are a nation”. He added that he was “convinced that the true welfare not only of the Muslims but of the rest of India lies in the division of India as proposed in the Lahore Resolution”.

Gandhiji on the other hand maintained that India was one nation and saw in the Pakistan Resolution “Nothing but ruin for the whole of India”. “If, however, Pakistan had to be conceded, the areas in which the Muslims are in an absolute majority should be demarcated by a commission approved by both the Congress and the Muslim League. The wishes of the people of these areas will be obtained through referendum. These areas shall form a separate state as soon as possible after India is free from foreign domination. There shall be a treaty of separation which should also provide for the efficient and satisfactory administration of foreign affairs, defense, internal communication, custom and the like which must necessarily continue to be the matters of common interest between the contracting countries”.

Gandhiji contended that his offer gave the substance of the Lahore Resolution. Quaid-i-Azam did not agree to the proposal and the talks ended.

Review of above Ideologies in current scenario:

When we take a look at Pakistan today one question arises in my mind “Is this the Pakistan what Jinnah dreamed?”  Honestly I would say no. With a ghost named “Terrorist” has been haunting this country for many decades. Who are these terrorists? What’s the definition of terrorists? Why do they become terrorists? Nobody knows. What we know is terrorists belong to no nation, their objective is to destroy the humanity.  With sophisticated intelligence, undercover operations and drone attacks these terrorists can be killed yet you have to answer nobody what was his conviction. They have no human rights nor they have any media to justify their stand. World is deaf and blind about their story.

When we compare today’s India with Nehru’s dream Modern India, bringing into picture the communal riots like Bombay Riot(1992), Gujarat Riot(2002), Kandhamal Riot(2008), the recent Assam Riot(2012),etc these communities have deliberately failed to prove Nehru’s Ideology. But we can’t deny that the situation is improving.

 In a secular country if one religion’s law clashes with another , then minorities would have to compromise.  In countries like France and Italy face veil ban has proved that man’s law so called Modern law can dominate God’s law. If we consider these aspects, perhaps Alamma Iqbal and Jinnah were right in their perspective.