See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/303067163

Jinnah and Indians: An analysis of Indian Views about Jinnah

Research · May 2016

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2278.2321

CITATIONS READS
0 770

1 author:

Sidra Jabeen Khan

University of the Punjab
4 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Orientalist construction of Indian Muslim Women: Colonial Era View project

The History of Religions View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sidra Jabeen Khan on 14 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY AND PAKISTAN STUDIE, UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE

Jinnah and Indians: an

analysis of Indian views
about Jinnah
Submitted to: Dr Iqbal Chawla
Sidra Jabeen, Roll no 2, M.Phil, 1st semester
1/25/2016

.
Table of Contents
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 3
Politically ...................................................................................................................................................... 3
Religiously .................................................................................................................................................... 6
Personally...................................................................................................................................................... 7
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 10
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................... 10

2
 Jinnah and Indians: an analysis of Indian Views about Jinnah

Abstract
This paper intends to analyze Indian scholars’ views about creator of Pakistan-Jinnah. How they
look him in partition scenario and what is their judgment about Jinnah. It will also state that is it
hypocrisy of Indians, an eternal jealousy or continuous dogma that they criticize Jinnah in every
possible way. Apart from the fact that there are some other scholars too who praise Jinnah but
they are criticized by their people too because of their positivism. At last it will analyze that what
is the actual reason behind hate of Indians towards Jinnah.

Key words: Jinnah, Indians, Partition

Introduction
Muhammad Ali Jinnah is creator of Pakistan. Like all other great personalities he has also been
analyzed by many scholars from all over the world. Some have seen him in a true patriotic and
charismatic way others have judged him like he is insane and of no intellectual. He was of great
caliber and strong stamina, a person who speaks with action, not with words. His greatest
achievement is to provide Indian Muslims a homeland. Just because of this reason he is always
seen as a villain of the history in Indian’s scholarly writings and interpretations. On the Indian
grounds, he has always been seen behind the partition curtain. In Indian historiography it is
clearly seemed agenda to make Pakistan meaningless, to prove two nation theory wrong and to
blame Jinnah of his false decisions regarding creation of Pakistan. It is even trend in India that
whoever writes against Jinnah becomes highly intellectual and immensely popular. We will here
see Jinnah from Indian’s intellectual views in three different dimensions: Politically, religiously
and personally.

Politically
Jinnah’s main contribution for Muslims of Subcontinent was basically political and it is also root
of Indian hatred towards this man. He has been judged in his every political decision in every
possible way. In a research paper V.N. Datta state that it was Iqbal who blazed a trail that Jinnah
followed. Iqbal conceived an idea of Pakistan, Jinnah realized it. Jinnah used ideology as an

3
instrument of political action. Iqbal, goes down in history as the herald of Pakistan and a political
mentor of Jinnah: Jinnah, of course, acknowledged his debt to his mentor in 1947.1 According to
N.G. Rajurkar partition came out because Jinnah’s feelings were hurt.2 It would be revealing to
the people that Jinnah stated what about congress leaders during his talks with Mountbatten,
“Frankly, your Excellency, the Hindus are impossible. They always want seventeen annas for the
rupee”.3Bhimrao Ramji has critically analyzed both Gandhi and Jinnah in his address that Mr.
Gandhi and Mr. Jinnah both have brought India’s political progress to a standstill.4 According to
Jaswant Singh Jinnah saw congress as his adversary and nemesis.5 It was Jinnah who endeavored
and succeeded in creating an ideational unity between the league and the congress. 6 The Jinnah
that emerged on the political scene of India in 1934 was Jinnah the master tactician.7 Kanji
Dwarkadas has defended Jinnah well in his book. According to him Jinnah was infuriated by two
happenings in 1937, these were
1) Refusal of Nehru to include two Muslim League representatives in the U.P Ministry; and
2) The chief minister designate of Bombay-B.G Kher, being taken to task by the Congress high
demand, particularly by Sardar Patel, for having requested Jinnah to suggest the names of two
Muslim Leaguers, who could be included in the Bombay ministry.
This actually led Jinnah to change his plans due to Congress leaders’ actions, it wasn’t Jinnah’s
fault.8
Well on this scenario other scholars state that Mr. Jinnah took full advantage and started an
offensive which led to Pakistan.9According to Maulana Azad it was wittiness of Jinnah that he
demanded Pakistan and that Jinnah was furious.10 Jinnah by his permanently negative attitude
(especially after 1934) not only exasperated the congress leaders, but also succeeded in creating

1
Datta, V. N.. “Iqbal, Jinnah and India's Partition: An Intimate Relationship”. Economic and Political Weekly 37.50
(2002): 5033–5038
2
Rajurkar, N. G.. “the partition of India in perspective”. The Indian Journal of Political Science 43.2 (1982): 34–53
3
Alan Compbell-Johnson, “Mission with Mountbatten”, Robert Hale limited, London, 1951, P.70
4
Ramji, Bhimrao. “Ranade-Gandhi-Jinnah”, 1943
5
Singh, Jaswant. Jinnah: India, partition, independence. Rupa & Company, 2009. p 80
6
Ibid p 94
7
Rajurkar, N. G.. “the partition of India in perspective”. The Indian Journal of Political Science 43.2 (1982): 34–53
8
Dwarkadas, Kanji. India's Fight for Freedom, 1913-1937: An Eyewitness Story. Popular Prakashan, 1966. p 466-
467
9
Alan Compbell-Johnson, “Mission with Mountbatten”, Robert Hale limited, London, 1951 p.44
10
Āzād, Abūlkalām. "India wins freedom: an autobiographical narrative/Maulana Abul Kalam Azad." (1959). p
160-161

4
an essentially false impression that they were antagonizing the Muslims by their unfair attitudes
towards them.11

According to Jaswant Singh, an intransigent Jinnah had always been difficult to deal with.
However, in Muslim League it was all one man show, Jinnah alone counted. 12 After
independence when it was decided that Mountbatten would remain as Governor-General for both
dominions until Indian Army’s division complete, Jinnah refused to accept a common Governor-
Generalship with the rest of India. Jinnah highlighted his strategic aims and then by imperatives
of both British and Indians, he left with no choice but to be the first Governor General of
Pakistan.13 From first to last, the main concern of Jinnah had been that arrangements by which
power at the centre was to be shared after the British quit India. By keeping the demand for
Pakistan vague, and its territories undefined, Jinnah had made possible for its followers to exploit
the League’s communal demands without to having face implications: the partition of the Punjab
and the Bengal.14 Concessions to Jinnah even along the lines of the Mission’s proposals seemed
too high a price to pay for Indian unity. Jinnah was also eager to keep Pakistan in
commonwealth. Jinnah’s apparent dithering on the issue of a common Governor General was a
consequence of his resolve to prevent a reconstitution of the interim government before the
actual transfer of power.15 What Jinnah wanted was the supreme arbitrator, a representative of
the crown, who could assist both dominions. Lacking a real political party organization, he
needed a strong Pakistan centre to discipline the particularisms of the Muslim-majority
provinces. Jinnah’s hold over frontier provinces was so precarious. As governor General of
Pakistan, Jinnah could have reality of power which had always eluded him as the president of the
All India Muslim League.16 Even Mountbatten couldn’t deny that Jinnah had played a poor hand
of cards superbly. Mountbatten blackmail Jinnah that refusing common generalship could cost
you whole of your assets and the future of Pakistan. Jinnah replied: “In my position it is I who

11
Rajurkar, N. G.. “the partition of India in perspective”. The Indian Journal of Political Science 43.2 (1982): 34–
53
12
Singh, Jaswant. Jinnah: India, partition, independence. Rupa & Company, 2009. p 394
13
Jalal, Ayesha, Inheriting the Raj: Jinnah and the governor-generalship issue Modern Asian studies, 19, I (1985),
pp 29-53
14
Ibid
15
Ibid
16
Jalal, Ayesha, Inheriting the Raj: Jinnah and the governor-generalship issue Modern Asian studies, 19, I (1985),
pp 29-53

5
will give advice and others will act on it”.17 Since army divided on 31 March, 1948, seven and a
half months after power had been transferred, the government of Pakistan might not had survived
the storms of partition if not for the powers which Jinnah exercised as its Governor general to
take a fluid sovereignty. But that he intended such concentration of power in the hand of a single
individual as temporary measure and not as a norm for the future is suggested by the fact that
Jinnah was also the man who gave Pakistan its first constituent assembly.18

Ayesha Jalal has written in her book that the last thirteen months of British rule saw the tragic
collapse of Jinnah's strategy - tragic, because the Quaid-i-Azam had always tried to keep himself
above communalism in its cruder forms and had cherished his own vision of Indian unity. 19
According to Ayesha Jalal, one clue to Jinnah's remarkable resilience in the face of grave
political setbacks, overwhelming odds, and unremitting squeeze play, was his extraordinary
capacity to fight when all would have appeared lost to lesser men.20 By contrast Jinnah, that
monster in the demonology of not very perceptive Indian and British chroniclers, that triumphant
hero in Pakistani hagiography, was found by Wavell to be 'very quiet and reasonable, and . . .
anxious for a settlement if it can be done without loss of prestige'21.22

Religiously
Religiously, scholars of India have screened Jinnah in very harsh way which is even non-
justifiable; in them Indian Muslims scholars are included too. For instance, Ajeet Jawed state that
Jinnah, who ate pork, drank whiskey, seldom entered a mosque, was ignorant of Islamic
teachings, did not observe Islamic rituals, could not speak Urdu, wore high-class western suits
and had come from Hindu Bhatia family..." But, a change occurred in Jinnah when he found that

17
Viceroy’s report no 11, 4 July, 1947, p. 899
18
Jalal, Ayesha, Inheriting the Raj: Jinnah and the governor-generalship issue Modern Asian studies, 19, I (1985),
pp 29-53
19
Jalal, Ayesha. The sole spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League and the demand for Pakistan. Vol. 31. Cambridge
University Press, 1994. p 208
20
Ibid p 220-221
21
Wavell to Pethick-Lawrence, 26 September 1946, T.P., vm, 588.
22
Jalal, Ayesha. The sole spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League and the demand for Pakistan. Vol. 31. Cambridge
University Press, 1994. p 221

6
India would be partitioned on communal basis and to adapt himself to the changed situation, he
adopted achkan, pyjama and cap.23

According to Rafiq Zakaria, Jinnah could neither read the Quran, neither did he say his prayers
nor fast in Ramadan. Even in the heyday of his communal leadership he said his prayers only on
the occasion of Eid, and that too, merely as a demonstrative gesture. He did not perform the Hajj
either which is one of the cardinal articles of the Islamic faith.24 He was a Muslim only in name,
having neither practiced the tenets of Islam nor studied the Quran or the traditions of the Prophet,
he was fully aware of the significance of the religious label in those days of avant-garde politics.
He used it not only in dealing with the British hut also with the Hindus.25
He has also given an example that Jinnah’s ignorance of Islamic teachings can best be illustrated
by an incident that took place during Eid prayers in Karachi. A close associate of Jinnah, Qazi
Isa suggested to him that while addressing the Eid congregation he should recite a Quranic verse.
Jinnah readily agreed and learnt one by heart. As soon as he finished his address he turned to the
·Qazi and asked him whether he had recited the verse correctly. Excitedly the Qazi exclaimed,
''Alhamdo Lillah." ''What does that mean?" Jinnah asked. Isa said, "It means Allah be praised."
"Damn you," Jinnah shouted, "I did not ask you about Allah but about me." The Qazi coolly
assured him, "You, my Quaid, are always right."26

Personally
In personal means, many intellectuals of Jinnah have attacked him too. Jaswant singh has risen
this question very well that what happened which make very “liberal, electic and secular to the
core” man turned as sole spokesman from the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity.27 Jaswant
singh said that Jinnah wasn’t by birth blessed with status and political background but Gandhi

23
Javed, Ajeet. Secular and nationalist Jinnah. Kitab Pub. House, 1998.
24
Zakaria, Rafiq. The Man who Divided India: An Insight Into Jinnah's Leadership and Its Aftermath, with a New
Chapter on Musharraf's Do Or Die Leadership. Popular Prakashan, 2002 p 2
25
Ibid p 15
26
Ibid p 164-165
27
Singh, Jaswant. Jinnah: India, partition, independence. Rupa & Company, 2009 p 6

7
was actually, that his father was Diwan (Prime Minister) of Indian state.28 Hector Bolitho has
said in his book that Jinnah was source of power, Gandhi was an instrument to it. Jinnah was a
cold rationalist in politics – he had a one track mind, with great force behind it. Jinnah was
potentially kind, but in behavior extremely cold and distant.29 Jaswant Singh has illustrated
Jinnah in well mannered way that Jinnah remained committed to his three-piece suits, his
lorgnette, his cigarette holder and the King's English. No Gujarati for him, and no political
language that invoked religion. Jinnah excelled in parliamentary politics, the kind of politics that
the moderate Gokhale was good at and that the extremist Tilak scorned.30 According to M.C.
Chagla, the reasons for change in Jinnah went much deeper than his disapproval of Gandhian
political techniques or his personal allergy for the Mahatma. Jinnah’s besetting fault was his
obsessive egoism. He had to be a leader and the prime mover in whatever cause he worked. With
Gandhi’s emergence, Jinnah felt that his importance would be diminished. He was complete anti-
thesis of Gandhi. While Gandhi believes in religion, in abstract moral values, in non-violence,
Jinnah only believed in practical politics.31

N.G Rajurkar has stated in his research paper that neither was Jinnah enamored of Gandhi as a
person, nor could he approve of the techniques that were adopted by the Congress, such as those
of civil disobedience, non-cooperation, etc., because of Gandhi’s leadership. He was then an
ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity like Sarojini Naidu had said.32 While Ajeet Jawed has
defended Jinnah saying that as a nationalist he was often uncompromising, as a secularist he
shunned lacing politics with religion, he therefore opposed Khilafat movement. As a
constitutionalist, he opposed Gandhi’s civil disobedience and as an ardent nationalist, at every
turn he pleaded the case for national unity. Jinnah also stood for freedom like Gandhi but his way
was different.33
Rafiq Zakaria has critically analyzed Jinnah in his very hatred way that Jinnah looked forward to
his legal career and equipped himself in every way to succeed at the bar. In his two-year stay in

28
Ibid p 77
29
Bolitho, Hector. “In quest of Jinnah”. OUP
30
Singh, Jaswant. Jinnah: India, partition, independence. Rupa & Company, 2009. p 79
31
Chagla, Mahomedali Currim. Roses in December: An Autobiography. Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 2000.
32
Rajurkar, N. G.. “the partition of India in perspective”. The Indian Journal of Political Science 43.2 (1982): 34–
53
33
Javed, Ajeet. Secular and nationalist Jinnah. Kitab Pub. House, 1998.

8
London, he sat at the ·feet of some leading British lawyers and familiarized himself with various
legal norms and procedures. He practiced the art of oratory and specialized in cross-examination.
He loved to argue and score points.34 Another trait in his character which was noticed especially
at the bar was the manner in which he asserted himself. He was oversensitive and had his own
notion of self-respect, regardless of the price he might have to pay; _this often awed his
opponents. He would not tolerate the slightest insult or humiliation and was quick to retaliate. 35
Rafiq zakaria has also called Jinnah as March Hare of Alice in wonderland.36
N.G. Rajurkar said that there are also quite few who hold the opinion that the change in the
attitude of one person vis-à-vis political objectives led to India’s division – the person being
Muhammad Ali Jinnah. They say that the riddle of India’s partition could be solved if we could
decipher the reasons – temperamental, political or otherwise that converted Jinnah the
Nationalist into Jinnah the Communalist.37Mountbatten had said that Jinnah was an advocate of
the first order, and he could and did use “sharp points of constitutional law to back his case but
also knew superbly well how to win a case on a weak brief by tactical procedures. 38 Jaswant
Singh said in his book that with Jinnah and Gandhi’s death, an era of distinctive kind of politics
in India came to an end. With Jinnah’s death Pakistan lost its moorings. In India there will not
easily arrive Gandhi, nor in Pakistan another Jinnah.39jaswant Singh state on another occasion
that Muhammad Ali Jinnah was, to my mind, fundamentally in error proposing ‘Muslims as a
separate nation’, which is why he was so profoundly wrong when he simultaneously spoke of
‘lasting peace, amity and accord with India after the emergence of Pakistan; that simply could
not be.40 That’s how Indian intellectual minds have judged Jinnah on his personal and mind
games, some criticizing his sharpness, others admiring his strategies.

34
Zakaria, Rafiq. The Man who Divided India: An Insight Into Jinnah's Leadership and Its Aftermath, with a New
Chapter on Musharraf's Do Or Die Leadership. Popular Prakashan, 2002. p 5
35
Ibid p 14
36
Ibid p 133
37
Rajurkar, N. G.. “the partition of India in perspective”. The Indian Journal of Political Science 43.2 (1982): 34–
53
38
The Role of Lord Mountbatten by H.V. Hodson published in The Partition of India Policies and Perspectives
1935-1947, ed. by C.H. Philips & Mary Doreen Wainwright, p. 121, George Allen and Unwin Ltd, London, 1970.
39
Singh, Jaswant. Jinnah: India, partition, independence. Rupa & Company, 2009. p 474
40
Ibid p 498

9
Conclusion
Apart from all the hatred of Indian’s scholars and intellectuals towards Jinnah, hatred should also
be done on fair basis that the concerned person deserve it or not. Any person who writes
something is also responsible of his own words and he actually reflects his mentality and
thinking level. We are never being able to judge someone in their personal means and life. But
after reading views of Indians, it is quite assured that what are their mental capability and
thinking level. Jinnah is a person who journeyed from being an ambassador of Hindu-Muslim
unity to the sole spokesman of Pakistan. Why he did that and what actually changed his plan was
actually his ability to see Muslim’s future. Like in present day what is happening to Muslims
residing in India, they are suffering on the hands of Hindu extremists, shame for humanity. That
was the reason Jinnah created a separate homeland for Muslims of subcontinent. Scholars like
Rafiq Zakaria, Ayesha Jalal and M.C Chagla can judge him in too many attributes and in very
harsh words but just if they change the scenario of partition, what would be the status of Indian
Muslims then? Still under slavery? First of British Raj and then of Hindus. What Quaid did was
selfless act and a proof that he was loyal and a true Nationalist because Muslims of India are a
separate nation indeed. Roots of hatred of Indians are very deep that they are even blind to see
the truth, if someone by chance writes actual history; they simply became his enemy too who are
also few drops in vast ocean.

Bibliography
Alan Compbell-Johnson, “Mission with Mountbatten”, Robert Hale limited, London, 1951
Āzād, Abūlkalām. "India wins freedom: an autobiographical narrative/Maulana Abul Kalam
Azad." (1959).
Bolitho, Hector. “In quest of Jinnah”. OUP
Chagla, Mahomedali Currim. Roses in December: An Autobiography. Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan,
2000.
Datta, V. N.. “Iqbal, Jinnah and India's Partition: An Intimate Relationship”. Economic and
Political Weekly 37.50 (2002): 5033–5038
Dwarkadas, Kanji. India's Fight for Freedom, 1913-1937: An Eyewitness Story. Popular
Prakashan, 1966.

10
 Jalal, Ayesha. “Inheriting the Raj: Jinnah and the Governor-generalship Issue”. Modern Asian
Studies 19.1 (1985): 29–53
Jalal, Ayesha. The sole spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League and the demand for Pakistan.
Vol. 31. Cambridge University Press, 1994.

Javed, Ajeet. Secular and nationalist Jinnah. Kitab Pub. House, 1998.

Rajurkar, N. G.. “The partition of India in perspective”. The Indian Journal of Political Science
43.2 (1982): 34–53
Ramji, Bhimrao. “Ranade-Gandhi-Jinnah”, 1943
Singh, Jaswant. Jinnah: India, partition, independence. Rupa & Company, 2009.

Viceroy’s report no 11, 4 July, 1947

Wavell to Pethick-Lawrence, 26 September 1946, T.P., vm, 588.
Zakaria, Rafiq. The Man who Divided India: An Insight Into Jinnah's Leadership and Its
Aftermath, with a New Chapter on Musharraf's Do Or Die Leadership. Popular Prakashan, 2002.

11

View publication stats