Jinnah and his defence of Bhagat Singh

Jinnah and his defence of Bhagat Singh
19/01/2008 at 3:09 pm (Uncategorized)
Jinnah and his defence of Bhagat Singh
Chaman Lal
Storm created by BJP President L.K. Advani,s comments made about Jinnah, while laying wreath on his mausoleum in Karachi, is being tried to be buried now by making some excuses in the name of resolution. However this controversy has again brought into centre-focus the role of different political personalities during Indian freedom struggle. Though historians of modern India and journalists continuously keep on commenting upon or evaluating the role of political characters of national freedom struggle , yet the need remains that this debate should not be based on sensation created by a statement of a political leader, rather it should be based on facts and events and it should be objectively analyzed in a complete dispassionate manner. It should not take the shape of ‘A storm in a Tea-cup’.
In this context, first and foremost fact is that most leaders of Indian freedom struggle had contradictions in their personality, whether it was Mahatma Gandhi , Netaji Subhash Bose or Mohammad Ali Jinnah or some other leaders.Political leaders of free India are no less free from contradictions including LK Advani, who, at one time , to create communal tension, takes on Rathyatra, expresses joy at his volunteer’s demolition of Babri Mosque on 6th December’ 92 and at another time describes 6th December 92 as ‘the saddest day of my life’.Even the so-called secular Congress has no less contradictions, which has a big vision of Gujrat massacre of Muslims in 2002 as fascist specter, but which conveniently does not look at the thousands of Sikhs crushed under the weight of ‘A Big Tree’s Fall’ in 1984.
Mahatma Gandhi used to say that ‘ Pakistan will be built on my dead body’ Creation of Pakistan did not cause his death, but the extreme form of Hindutva took with life, ironically Gandhi was trying to resolve the caste and religions contradiction of Indian society within the frame work of a ‘tolerant and liberal Hinduism; Neta Ji Subhash Chander Bose got stuck in them whirlwind of world politics, where on one side were British imperialists, from whom he wanted to liberate India, but on the other side were Fascist Hitler/ Mussolini/Tojo, on whom he was depending for help, ultimately leading to his tragic end. Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, who was once ideal of Madan Lal Dhingra like revolutionary nationalists, because of his book in 1857 revolt, turned out to be spokesman of extreme Hindutva and apologizer to British imperialists. He also became an accused in Gandhi murder case, though acquitted by the court, his image did not get acquitted of communal personality. In fact his extreme Hindutva ideology had led to the counter extreme Muslim separatist ideology of Jinnah.
After all what is the root cause of all these contradictions? For any political personality, to gain political power is the ultimate reality and the highest ambition of his life. This reality is not limited to India or Asia, this is true for any country of the world. That is why seeing the occasion of gaining political power in 1947, when British imperialist power has declared its intention to transfer power by June 1948, neither Gandhi-Nehru-Patel nor Jinnah could resist the temptation of gaining early power, whereas the one year period was meant for an orderly and bloodless transition, in view of the high tensions of communal divide among Hindu and Muslim community. Without making any administrative and political preparation, power was transferred in great hurry in Aug. 1947, the worst rainy season for population exchange; resulting in massacre of six lakh innocent lives, displacement of more than one crore people and subjection of lakhs of women to worst crime of rape and maiming of limbs. Had this whole operation been planned in a patient and orderly manner, it would have exposed the incurable disease of Jinnah and may be by the passage of little more time, the division of country could have been avoided. But British imperialism in order to weaken the newly independent nations and for creating a permanent tension in the area, conspired to divide the country through an early operation of power transfer. Under the circumstances, Nehru’s address to Central Assembly on 14th Aug. night-‘ Tryst with Destiny’ became ‘historic’ for India and Jinnah’s address quoted by Advani became ‘historic’ for Pakistan.
Facts have rightly been brought to light about Jinnah’s personal conduct, which was never of a communal of fundamentalist Muslim or Mullah. Coming from a upper middle class family, as a successful Barrister, Jinnah was sufficiently liberal in thought and gentle in behaviour. He was never committed to ‘Namaz’, took ‘drinks’, was sensitive towards literature-culture. That is why poetess Sarojini Naidu called him ‘apostle of Hindu Muslim unity’. Birender Kumar Barnwal in his recently published book in Hindi ‘Jinnah: a Relook’ has narrated in detail, Jinnah’s love for Parsi girl Rattan Bai, who left her family to marry Jinnah and who was truly devoted to him. In fact her death in 1929 and Savarkar’s Hindutva turn made Jinnah a broken and bitter man and in later thirties he took turn towards Muslim separatist politics. But one should be aware of interesting facets of Jinnah’s personality, prior to this turn. Jinnah was close to Bal Ganga Dhar Tilak brand of politics before his turn around.
On 12th and 14th Septeber 1929, in Central Assembly, Jinnah made a long speech in context of Bhagat Singh and his comrade’s hunger strike and British imperialist design to hang these patriots with the sham of a trial ‘in absence of the accused’. It was the time, when even many Congressmen in assembly had condemned Bhagat Singh and B.K. Dutt for throwing bombs in assembly on 8th April 1929, for which they were ‘transported for life’, within one month in May 1929. When they went on hunger strike in jail in protest against misbehavior with them by jail staff and to demand status of political prisoner and human behavior with them in jail, British came with an amendment in criminal procedure code waiving the condition of presence of accused or their pleader in the court, thus by a sham trial convicting them in hurried manner.
The Tribune’s special correspondent for Shimla reported that while participating in the debate in central assembly on British bill, on 12th Sept. 1929, Jinnah said, The man who goes on hunger strike has a soul. He is moved by the soul and he believes in the justice of his cause’. The Tribune report mentioned, ‘Mr. Jinnah created a profound impression by the excellent form in which he argued the case. xxx Mr. Jinnah was proceeding in this strain winning applause after applause from the spellbound house’. (Quoted by A.G. Noorani in his book ‘The Trial of Bhagat Singh’) The Tribune on 14th July 1929, published the full statement of Bhagat Singh and Batukeshwar Dutt as red out by Diwan Chaman Lall in the house.
Jinnah referred to Punjab in his speech by saying that’ the Punjab seems to be a terrible place…..’. He questioned the British Government, while discussing the amendment proposed by Home member James Crerar, ‘Do you wish to prosecute them or persecute them?
Crerar not only damned Bhagat Singh and Dutt, he condemned 1915-17 first Lahore conspiracy case and 1925 Kakori case prisoners as well.
Jinnah challenged law member of the assembly to starve himself a little to know the impact of hunger strike on human body by saying-‘ it is not everybody who can go on starving himself to death. Try it for a little while and you will see’.
To Mr. Crerar, he rebutted by giving an example of Mr. Cosgrave, Prime Minister of Ireland, who was under sentence of death, a fortnight prior to getting invitation to form Government. Jinnah said in so many countries, not only youth, but even grey bearded persons have committed serious offenses, moved by patriotic impulses.
Jinnah asked British Government that after all what these youth were demanding from government, by going on hunger strike-‘Do they want spring mattresses? Do they want dressing tables? Do they want a set of toile requisites? No, Sir, they asked for bare necessities and a little better treatment. I ask you in all decency, why cannot you concede this small thing?’
Jinnah’s speech began on 12 Sept. and was concluded on 14th Sept. He put the British Government on mat by his brilliant exposure of British design-‘ Don’t you think that, instead of trying to proceed with an iron hand and pursuing a policy of repression against your own subjects, It would be better if you realized the root cause of the resentment and of the struggle, that the people are carrying on?’
Jinnah even warned the government in this context-‘ Money of the tax payer will (must) not be wasted in prosecuting men, nay citizens, who are fighting and struggling for the freedom of their country.’ According to A.G. Noorani, Jinnah had high esteem for Bhagat Singh and his comrades. Jinnah also said that if this amendment was passed then the trial would be just ‘ a travesty of justice’.
Jinnah was supported my Moti Lal Nehru, Jaykar, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai etc. Amendment was carried through by 55 votes against 47. Jinnah had voted against. Even in February 1929 speech in assembly, Jinnah had condoled the death of Lala Lajpat Rai, with whom he had cordial relations. Also he pleaded for the release of Sikh leaders gaoled in connection with Sikh Gurdwara Act and opposed the detention of many nationalists like Vallabh Bhai Patel, Anne Besant, Ali Brothers, Hasrat Mohani etc.
Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev were tried under the amended act and after a sham trial, were hanged on 23 March 1931, ‘ A travesty of justice’, in the words of Jinnah.
The question arises after looking through the fiery nationalist role of Jinnah prior to 1930, that having such rational (and national) views, why Jinnah played a fundamentalist communal separatist politics?
To search the answer, look at some examples from modern world politics- Mao- ‘Political power grows out of barrel of a gun’, Deng- ‘It hardly matters whether a cat is black or white, it should catch mice.’ 1967 – United Front Governments in eight states comprising Jansangh, Akalis, Socialists and Communists; 1977- Janta Party Government consisting of Jansangh and Socialists, supported by CPM; 1989- V.P. Singh Government, supported by BJP on one hand and by left on the other.
Few other instances of short cut communal politics in free India- Amrinder Singh resigning from Congress and Parliament in 1984 against Blue Star Operation, then getting readied to lead Akali Government in 1986, courtesy Governor S.S. Ray, just loosing the chance in nick of time, signing Khalistani declaration submitted to U.N. Secretary General Boutres. M. Ghali along with brother in law Simranjit Singh Mann, again joining Congress and leading Punjab Government in 2002, threatening Mann of arrest for raising Khalistani demand now. Same is the case of Savarkar, Advani, Vajpayee. To garner majority Hindu vote bank, the politics of blind prejudices against minorities. By riding the Ram Rath in 1990 to power in Delhi in 1998; allowing Gujrat massacre of Muslims by Modi Government in 2002; now under American pressure, singing the song of Indo-Pak friendship and to gain political power again, to lure Muslim votes- Jinnah drama. Jinnah also did the same, but in reverse order, first liberal then fundamentalist, same was with Savarkar. But Advani, Vajpayee are first fundamentalists, then trying to be ‘liberal’. Is not repeating the history called – A Farce!!
xxx
• Writer is Professor at J.N.U. New Delhi and editor of ‘Bhagat Singh’s Complete Documents’ in Hindi.
Professor Chaman Lal
Centre of Indian Languages (SLL & CS)
J.N.U. New Delhi- 110067
Mobile-98687-74820

Ambedkar on Jinnah and Gandhi

Ambedkar on Jinnah and Gandhi

These days so much talk about Jinnah, that too from different camps. His specter haunts the saffron party. What is the place of Jinnah in Indian politics? Please read the following text taken from a famous speech delivered by B.R.Ambedkar.

Who are the present-day politicians with whom Ranade is to be compared? Ranade was a great politician of his day. He must therefore be compared with the greatest of today. We have on the horizon of India two Great Men, so big that they could be identified without being named—Gandhi and Jinnah. What sort of a history they will make may be a matter for posterity to tell. For us it is enough that they do indisputably make headlines for the Press. They hold leading strings. One leads the Hindus, the other leads the Muslims. They are the idols and heroes of the hour. I propose to compare them with Ranade. How do they compare with Ranade? It is necessary to make some observations upon their temperaments and methods, with which they have now familiarized us. I can give only my impressions of them, for what they are worth.

The first thing that strikes me is that it would be difficult to find two persons who would rival them for their colossal egotism, to whom personal ascendancy is everything and the cause of the country a mere counter on the table. They have made Indian politics a matter of personal feud. Consequences have no terror for them; indeed they do not occur to them until they happen. When they do happen they either forget the cause, or if they remember it, they overlook it with a complacency which saves them from any remorse. They choose to stand on a pedestal of splendid isolation. They wall themselves off from their equals. They prefer to open themselves to their inferiors. They are very unhappy at and impatient of criticism, but are very happy to be fawned upon by flunkeys. Both have developed a wonderful stagecraft, and arrange things in such a way that they are always in the limelight wherever they go.

Each of course claims to be supreme. If supremacy was their only claim, it would be a small wonder. In addition to supremacy each claims infallibility for himself. Pius IX, during whose sacred regime as Pope the issue of infallibility was raging, said— "Before I was Pope I believed in Papal infallibility, now I feel it." This is exactly the attitude of the two leaders whom Providence—may I say, in his unguarded moments—has appointed to lead us. This feeling of supremacy and infallibility is strengthened by the Press. One cannot help saying that. The language used by Gardiner to describe the Northcliffe brand of journalism, in my opinion, quite appropriately describes the present state of journalism in India.

Journalism in India was once a profession. It has now become a trade. It has no more moral function than the manufacture of soap. It does not regard itself as the responsible adviser of the Public. To give the news uncoloured by any motive, to present a certain view of public policy which it believes to be for the good of the community, to correct and chastise without fear all those, no matter how high, who have chosen a wrong or a barren path, is not regarded by journalism in India its first or foremost duty. To accept a hero and worship him has become its principal duty. Under it, news gives place to sensation, reasoned opinion to unreasoning passion, appeal to the minds of responsible people to appeal to the emotions of the irresponsible. Lord Salisbury spoke of the Northcliffe journalism as written by office-boys for office-boys. Indian journalism is all that plus something more. It is written by drum-boys to glorify their heroes. Never has the interest of country been sacrificed so senselessly for the propagation of hero-worship. Never has hero-worship become so blind as we see it in India today. There are, I am glad to say, honourable exceptions. But they are too few, and their voice is never heard.

Entrenched behind the plaudits of the Press, the spirit of domination exhibited by these two Great Men has transgressed all limits. By their domination they have demoralised their followers and demoralized politics. By their domination they have made half their followers fools and the other half hypocrites. In establishing their supremacy they have taken the aid of "big business" and money magnates. For the first time in our country, money is taking the field as an organised power. The questions which President Roosevelt propounded for [the] American Public to consider will arise here, if they have not already arisen: Who shall rule—wealth, or man? Which shall lead, money or intellect? Who shall fill public stations, educated and patriotic free men, or the feudal serfs of corporate Capital? For the present, Indian politics, at any rate the Hindu part of it, instead of being spiritualised has become grossly commercialised, so much so that it has become a byword for corruption. Many men of culture are refusing to concern themselves in this cesspool. Politics has become a kind of sewage system, intolerably unsavoury and unsanitary. To become a politician is like going to work in the drain.

Politics in the hands of these two Great Men have become a competition in extravaganza. If Mr. Gandhi is known as Mahatma, Mr. Jinnah must be known as Qaid-i-Azim. If Gandhi has the Congress, Mr. Jinnah must have the Muslim League. If the Congress has a Working Committee and the All-India Congress Committee, the Muslim League must have its Working Committee and its Council. The session of the Congress must be followed by a session of the League. If the Congress issues a statement, the League must also follow suit. If the Congress passes a Resolution of 17,000 words, the Muslim League's Resolution must exceed it by at least a thousand words. If the Congress President has a Press Conference, the Muslim League President must have his. If the Congress must address an: appeal to the United Nations, the Muslim League must not allow itself to be outbidden.

When is all this to end? When is there to be a settlement? There are no near prospects. They will not meet, except on preposterous conditions. Jinnah insists that Gandhi should admit that he is a Hindu. Gandhi insists that Jinnah should admit that he is one of the leaders of the Muslims. Never has there been such a deplorable state of bankruptcy of statesmanship as one sees in these two leaders of India. They are making long and interminable speeches, like lawyers whose trade it is to contest everything, concede nothing, and talk by the hour. Suggest anything by way of solution for the deadlock to either of them, and it is met by an everlasting "Nay." Neither will consider a solution of the problems which is not eternal. Between them Indian politics has become "frozen," to use a well-known Banking phrase, and no political action is possible.

How does Ranade strike [us], as compared to these two? I have no personal impression to give. But reading what others have said, I think I can say what he must have been like. He had not a tinge of egotism in him. His intellectual attainments could have justified any amount of pride, nay even insolence. But he was the most modest of men. Serious youths were captivated by his learning and geniality. Many, feeling completely under his sway, responded to his ennobling influence, and moulded their whole lives with the passionate reverence for their adored master. He refused to be satisfied with the praises of fools, and was never afraid of moving in the company of equals and of the give and take it involves. He never claimed to be a mystic relying on the inner voice. He was a rationalist, prepared to have his views tested in the light of reason and experience. His greatness was natural. He needed no aid of the stage, nor the technique of an assumed eccentricity, nor the means of a subsidized press.

As I said, Ranade was principally a Social Reformer. He was not a politician in the sense of one who trades in politics. But he has played an important part in the political advancement of India. To some of the politicians he acted as the teacher who secured such signal successes, and who dazzled their critics by their brilliance. To some he acted as the guide, but to all he acted as the philosopher.

What was the political philosophy of Ranade? It may be summed up in three propositions :

(1) We must not set up as our ideal something which is purely imaginary. An ideal must be such that it must carry the assurance that it is a practicable one.

(2) In politics, sentiment and temperament of the people are more important than intellect and theory. This is particularly so in the matter of framing a Constitution. A Constitution is as much a matter of taste as clothes are. Both must fit, both must please.

(3) In political negotiations, the rule must be what is possible. That does not mean that we should be content with what is offered. No. It means that you must not refuse what is offered when you know that your sanctions are inadequate to compel your opponent to concede more.

These are the three main doctrines of Ranade's political philosophy. It would be quite easy to illustrate them by appropriate quotations from his writings and his speeches. There is no time for that, nor is there any necessity, for they must be clear to every student of Ranade's speeches and writings.

Who could quarrel with Ranade on these three propositions, and if there be one, on which? On the first only a visionary will quarrel. We need not take any notice of him. The second proposition is so evident that we could only ignore it at our peril. The third proposition is something on which a difference of opinion is possible. Indeed it is this which divided the Liberals from the Congressmen. I am not a liberal, but I am sure the view Ranade held was the right one. There can be no compromise on principle, and there should not be. But once the principle is agreed upon, there can be no objection to realize it by instalments. Graduation in politics is inevitable, and when the principle is accepted it is not harmful and indeed it may in certain circumstances be quite advantageous.

On this third proposition there was really no difference between him and Tilak, except this: Tilak would have the possible maximised by the application of sanctions; Ranade would look askance at sanctions. This is all. On the rest they were agreed. The absence of sanctions in Ranade's political philosophy need not detract much from its worth. We all know what sanctions are available to us. We have tried all, old as well as new, with what effect I need not stop to describe.

(PART OF THE ADDRESS DELIVERED ON THE 101ST BIRTHDAY CELEBRATION OF MAHADEV GOVIND RANADE HELD ON THE 18TH JANUARY 1943 IN THE GOKHALE MEMORIAL HALL, POONA )
Ravikumar, the dalit theoretician, posted this on facebook.

Courtesy:
Khalid Anis Ansari