tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15324170.post5359393979127627111..comments2023-11-05T02:43:12.011-05:00Comments on Qalandar: Jaswant on Jinnah -- IIIQalandarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08822440676942755461noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15324170.post-84559013758179116142009-08-25T15:56:16.686-04:002009-08-25T15:56:16.686-04:00I agree, great posts. I think one positive (but un...I agree, great posts. I think one positive (but underappreciated) element of this "controversy" is the fact that it has allowed the words "blame" and "partition" to fit together in Pakistan. If Jaswant Singh is right, then Jinnah is not the sole villain, but the fact that villainy occurred has been accepted at least subconsciously!<br />I think Jinnah was more responsible than Nehru, but the disaster has many parents, from Islamic fanaticism to Hindu fanaticism to British divide and rule policies to the rise of modern identity politics. By 1946, the genie of Muslim separatism (and its subtext of "islam is the solution") was out of the bottle (Pakistan ka matlab kya, la illa ha illalah; my father says he and his teenage brothers were going around the street shouting this day and night while my grandfather was a committed congressite and follower of Gandhi and Azad and totally opposed to partition) and I doubt if Jinnah could have stopped it even if congress had agreed to some supposed safeguards of "Muslim rights". In addition, I think enough has not been said about Jinnah's lack of intellectual depth. The man may have been a brilliant lawyer (whatever that means) but all his actions and speeches (he wrote no books) make it clear that he had absolutely no conception of how Pakistan would reconcile its various contradictions like secularism and religious state, unity on the basis of religion but without any prior common historical or geographical identity, and so on. More to the point, he seems to have had no idea that he was missing something. He seemed to believe that Pakistan would simply be a continuation of British raj without the British (same AC and DC sahibs, same courts, same laws, same 1935 govt of india act modified slightly to make a constitution). One can argue that India did not end up with too many new ideas either (though I dont think that is correct) but then India had fewer basic contradictions to resolve (secular state, succeeds secular empire, same history and geography with princely states added in).omar alinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15324170.post-11942449157530924292009-08-25T09:56:17.468-04:002009-08-25T09:56:17.468-04:00A very enlightening series of posts, Qalandar. Tha...A very enlightening series of posts, Qalandar. Thanks!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com