1947 British India was partitioned. This is common knowledge. Many in the then undivided India did not want partition. But what do you do if a sizable number of your own brethren feel insecure and demand a seperate homeland for themselves. You could advice them and try to make them see reason but in the end if they dont relant you cannot do much.
The 2-nation theory has not been accepted by India till today. Moreover, India stood vindicated when the 2-nation theory came crashing down when Bangladesh was created out of what was then E.Pakistan. Nevertheless, Pak continues to exist as a seperate sovereign republic.
Leader of the opposition and BJP president goes to Pak. He is well received. His every move is watched and every word he utters is listened to and analysed. He then visits the mausoleum of Quaid-E-Azam Jinnah. Goes round the place for almost 2 hours. He then comments and signs in the guest book.
"There are many people who leave an inerasable stamp on history. But there are a few who actually create history. Quaid-E-Azam Jinnah was one such rare individual." wrote Advani.
No problems with that. As the hardline leader of BJP and a leading hindu nationalist, he was telling everyone in India, hawks and doves alike, that its time we moved on. Its time we come to terms with partition. Its time we recognize that a strong democratic and prosperous Pakistan is, in the long run, good for India. Its time we realize that we cannot change geographic reality, that we cannot and should not undo partition. What has happened, has happened and we ought to make the best use of what we have.
The message according to me is more louder and clearer that his "saddest day in my life" message that he has been harping ever since Dec 6 of that fateful year.
For this Mr. Advani has to be congratulated for being bold and realistic.
Unfortunately he did not stop with that. If he had, then my title would have been different. Writing on, he described Jinnah as secular.
Jinnah's "...address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on August 11, 1947 is really a classic, a forceful espousal of a secular state in which, while every citizen would be free to practise his own religion, the state shall make no distinction between one individual and another on grounds of faith. My respectful homage to the great man."
After that, all hell broke loose.
Headlines scream....
Sify : "Jinnah favoured secular Pakistan:Advani"
Hindu : "RSS questions Advani's remarks"
Parvin Tagodia VHP internationl general secretary : "If Jinnah's secular, why did Advani flee Sindh"
Whether Jinnah was secular or not is an academic debate. We would never know what was going on in his mind when he demanded a seperate Pak. We would never know if he had a change of heart post-partition. We would never know if he regreted partition during his last days.
We would always be guessing, second guessing and double guessing his true intentions which he carried to his grave, never to be revealed.
To come from a person like Advani, who understands and has gone through the pains of partition, was the unkindest cut of all. Unkind to the families who suffered due to partition, including his. How could he use the word secular for a man who was responsible for creating the Islamic republic. Even the name suggests a theocratic state.
Advani either bungled his carefully orchestrated hawk to dove roadmap or he has shown unimaginable insenstivity to the many Indian's who still have deep unhealed residual scares created due to partition.
Mr Advani, you just crossed the rubicon.
3 comments:
I was planning to write on this topic too..Its absolutely ridiculous abt how ppl are concerned whether Jinnah,was secular or not or whether it was his speech which was secular!!I guess ppl are really jobless!!To debat n fight over something thats abt a half a century old..i find it nothing but a big time waste!!There is so much to worry about in the country and all our so called leaders are concerned are whether a speech or the speaker was secular or not!
We could agree to disagree and move on.
"Unkind to the families who suffered due to partition, including his."
Probably he was trying to heal the sufferings of the Pakistani families that suffered during partition? [Both sides did suffer in their own ways].
Post a Comment