Home :: Sunday Sentiments

Sunday Sentiments

  • An interesting man

    Posted On May 6, 2002

    By Karan Thapar

    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 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 11th August 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 20th of October 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?”


Share this Video:

Description
  
There are no comments on this sunday sentiments yet.

Characters remaining (3000)


Will be displayedWill not be displayed


Will be displayed

Please answer this simple math question.

1 + 6