Revisiting Creating a

New Medina:
Reflections on Fault-
lines of Partition
Historiography
VENKAT DHULIPALA

RIDA TAIMUR - 21965

 Page |1

Revisiting Creating a New Medina: Reflections on Fault-lines of Partition Historiography is an

article published in 2018 by Venkat Dhulipala in response to the methodological, political, or
historiographical critique on his book, “Creating a New Medina” published in 2014. “Creating a
New Medina” contributes to the field of partition studies and discusses the debates relating to the
partition of British India and the creation of Pakistan. It is a well-established belief that every
generation rewrites and interprets history differently. This belief also reverberates from the
various interpretations regarding the partition of British India and the creation of Pakistan. The
views regarding the partition have varied significantly in different historical interpretations, some
interpreting Jinnah as a non-amicable “Mr No” at the Mountbatten’s table to others viewing
Jinnah as being a secular, liberal Bonafede who bargained the idea of Pakistan to achieve greater
representation of the Muslims in the politics of a United India. Some critics believe in the
“accidental” nature of Pakistan’s formation, which was apparently not based on a religious
ideology and thus was “insufficiently imagined”, compromising the safety and rights of the
Muslim minorities residing in United India. Venkat Dhulipala, however, views the idea of the
formation of Pakistan as definite, clearly defined, and an undeniable fact that grounds in
historical evidence. Hence in this article, Venkat Dhulipala responds to the various critique on
his thesis.

The article begins by establishing the two contrasting views which divide the literature on the
partition of British India: a view which favours Mohammad Ali Jinnah, while another which
regards Saadat Hasan Manto’s eponymous hero, Toba Tek Singh as symbolic figures. Historians
like Ayesha Jalal metaphored the idea of Pakistan with a “bargaining chip”, whereby Jinnah’s
main aim was supposedly the establishment of a weak federal centre, with equal power shared by
Muslims and the Hindus. In her book, The Sole Spokesperson (Jalal, 1994) according to Jalal, “It
was Congress that insisted on partition. It was Jinnah who was against partition”. Dhulipala,
however, rightfully critiques her view by quoting Jinnah’s speech in 1941, “as a self-respecting
people, we in the Muslim minority provinces say boldly that we are prepared to undergo every
suffering and sacrifice for the emancipation and liberation of our brethren in regions of Muslim
majority. By standing in their way and dragging them along with us into a united India we do not
in any way improve our position” (Dhulipala, 2015), thereby, revealing Jinnah’s willingness to
 Page |2

sacrifice the Muslim minority regions for the benefit of six crore Muslims in the Muslim
majority regions.

According to the author, Pakistan was imaged as a sovereign Islamic state, which would emerge
as a leader for the global Muslim community. This is again grounded in the claims of a dream
that Maulana Thanawi had, where Jinnah sat right next to the Prophet (SAW), who was treating
him with great kindness. (Dhulipala, 2015) This indicated that Jinnah’s efforts towards Pakistan
were religiously approved and seen as a means towards the reestablishment of the Muslim force
in the world.

Another success of Dhulipala’s work lies in documenting the contributions of the ulema of that
time towards the ideology of Pakistan and its creation. Dhulipala claims of distinct opposing
views among the ulema body, which is backed with evidence. Maulana Syed Sajjad of the
Muslim independent party was critical of the Muslim leagues ability to establish an Islamic state
and expressed his concerns regarding the inefficiency of the hostage theory in guarding the
Muslim minority rights in India.

On the other hand, Dhulipala also quotes the narrative of the Deobandi ulemas led by Maulana
Shabbir Usmani, who were supportive of Jinnah’s efforts towards the creation of Pakistan, whilst
also remaining independent of the Muslim league. Maulana Usmani became the advocate for the
establishment of Pakistan as the “New Medina”. This also proves Devji’s claim of Ulemas’s so-
called disinterest in the workings of the state as cliché.

Dhulipala believes that the creation of Pakistan was sufficiently imagined, and not a mere
“accident”. He backs his view by providing evidence from the Lahore resolution in 1940, which
consequently infiltrated the idea of a separate homeland for the Muslims amongst the masses and
hence gave rise to various debates regarding Pakistan’s creation. Publications were also issued
by the Muslim League that talked about an independent Muslim state. Further, Ambedkar’s book
“thoughts on Pakistan” was widely criticised and debated upon, which adds credibility to
Dhulipala’s views.

According to Faisal Devji, the creation of Pakistan was based on “de-territorialised nationalism”,
and hence not based on the concepts of territory, geography, and demography. Dhulipala,
 Page |3

however, negates this argument with facts. There are numerous examples of the Muslim league’s
publication of Pakistan’s maps, while parallels were also drawn between India and Europe to
stress on territorial nationalism. Hence, proving Devji’s claims as baseless.

Further, the author rightly criticises Devji for reducing Islam to an irrational concept of “faith”,
based on a modern religious ideology relying on a need for social contract. This view hence
delinked the creation of Pakistan from a religious struggle. Instead, Dhulipala highlighted both
sound reason from multiple perspectives (and not just based on Jinnah unlike Devji) to give a
well-rounded meaning to the concept of Pakistan.

Faisal Devji also accused Dhulipala’s work to be obsessed with Ayesha Jalal’s theories, and
thereby ignoring the modern works of Farzana Sheikh and Jaffrelot. However, Jalal’s work is
highly influential in the domain of partition studies, and thereby Dhulipala’s inclusion of the
theories is well justified.

To counter the ham sandwich theory portraying Jinnah as a liberal Bonafede who disengaged
with the masses, Dhulipala gave evidence from Jinnah’s increased religiousness following 1937.
The author further referred to the subaltern studies, where none of the eleven volumes took
Jinnah down as a secular figure unlike an essay on Gandhi by Shahid Amin.

Regarding Devji’s critique on Dhulipala for making Dr. B. R. Ambedkar’s text “speak for itself”,
Dhulipala rightfully cites evidence where Devji has shown “animal politics” and engaged in
double standards to fit his positive interpretation of Ambedkar’s work. Instead, Dhulipala’s work
on Ambedkar should be praised for the multiple views it highlights regarding the partition.

Dhulipala’s work has provided a well-rounded view of the ideologies regarding the creation of
Pakistan, aggregating the views of the ulema, the lawyers and the Muslim body in general.
However, there are some faultiness in the article. Although Dhulipala gives the viewpoints of the
ulema at the time, there is minimal inclusion of Shia and women ulema. Further, some of the
work included are from dubious sources, and hence reduce the credibility of the article.

In his book, “Muslim Zion”, Faisal Devji has drawn parallels between Pakistan and the Jewish
state of Israel. He claims of Islam being a basis of social contact for Pakistan, and Pakistan
 Page |4

having wildly fluctuating borders like the state of Israel. Although I support Dhulipala’s critique
of Devji’s views, there are some points Devji has made that lay in concrete evidence. Pakistan
has seen frequent changes in its territory since independence. The “moth-eaten” (Jalal, 1994)
Pakistan in 1947 expanded with the inclusion of the princely states, while decreasing in
November 1947 with the Junagadh occupation. Pakistan’s territory faced a significant decrease
following the separation of east Pakistan in 1971. Thereby, Devji’s claims are not baseless.

Further, Devji was of the view that the fear of minority status, more than a religious identity, was
the motivation behind both Pakistan and Israel’s creation. Although Dhulipala provides evidence
from the contribution of the Deobandi Ulema towards the Pakistan movement, Devji’s claims are
backed by Jinnah’s speech whereby he was willing to give up the rights of the Muslim minority
regions for the benefit of Muslim majority regions. Therefore, Jinnah can be said to fear minority
status of the Muslims in the subcontinent, and thereby increased in his struggle for a separate
Muslim state.

Moreover, Devji claims that Jinnah’s idea of nationality was based on legal definition, which had
no connection with the past, and only fixated on the future. This ideology can further be
illustrated by Iqbal’s view that the history of the nation has nothing to do with the past and
should only be understood in the context of a “universal history” of Islam. (Shaikh, 2005)

Devji, in his book “Muslim Zion” also claims that neither in Pakistan nor in the state of Israel
was there any space for pluralism. Therefore, he claims that both states were met with failure on
the imposition of its founding ideas. He further critiques Dhulipala’s idea of an Islamic ideology
as the basis of creation of Pakistan, by mentioning the intolerant nature of the “Islamic” politics,
which formed the basis of political instability. This claim is backed with evidence from military
dictatorships since Pakistan’s creation and the inability of the civilian government to protect
Pakistan from the perceived satanic intentions of the US and India.

Furthermore, in his critique to Dhulipala’s “creating a new Medina”, Devji criticises the author
of only mentioning the contribution of the ulemas, thereby ignoring the fact that the Muslim
leaders are products of a “modern” Islam. Devji, to improve the credibility of his claims, needs
to provide evidence for his claim.
 Page |5

“Thoughts on Pakistan” (Ambedkar, 2021) by Ambedkar was extensively included in

Dhulipala’s article, where he displayed Ambedkar’s narrative regarding the creation of a separate
homeland for the Muslims, Ambedkar advised the Hindus to recognise the rights of self-
determination of the Muslims, and the creation of Pakistan, as the solution to the communal
problems in undivided India. He also produced territorial maps of Pakistan and India, where he
divided the Muslim majority areas of Bengal and Assam. This is evidently a significant blow to
the strength and sovereignty of Pakistan and was against the Muslim interests. In his book,
Ambedkar also criticises the hostage theory and reciprocal treaty and called it a “dreadful idea”.
Ambedkar also proposed the creation of Pakistan for the security of the Indian army which was
dominated by the Muslims. However, the extensive analysis of Ambedkar’s “Thoughts on
Pakistan” and its inclusion in Dhulipala’s article are a bit confusing, since Ambedkar’s work
does not deal directly with the Muslims of UP, who are the main subjects of Dhulipala’s work.
Therefore, this can be deemed as unrequired.

Throughout the article, Dhulipala’s stance supports the view that the ideology of Pakistan was
carefully articulated, well planned and increasingly coherent, subsequently paving the way for
the division of united India and the creation of a separate Muslim state. Metcalf, however,
criticises Dhulipala for failing to provide evidence to prove the idea of Pakistan as “clear” and
“substant”(Dhulipala, 2018). Metcalf reiterates the popular claim that the idea of Pakistan lacked
clarity in the minds of the public regarding the issue of territory, nationalism, and the meaning of
Pakistan as a nation. She claims of Jinnah’s lack of precision regarding the ideology of Pakistan.
Her claim, however, grounds in substantial evidence in the form of two letters by Muslim league
supporters in UP. In the letters, the supporters reflect their perplexed state regarding the state of
Pakistan to Jinnah, which add credibility to her thesis. Therefore, in order to increase the
reliability of his thesis, Dhulipala needs to back his words with substantial counterevidence to
the letters Metcalf provided.

This article is overall a significant contribution to the literature in the field of partition studies,
and successfully responds to the critique faced by the authors publication in 2014, “Creating a
New Medina”. However, there are some facets where I agree with Faisal Devji’s view:
 Page |6

i. regarding the parallels he drew between Pakistan and the Jewish state of Israel on the
basis of their frequently fluctuating borders,
ii. Jinnah’s concept of nationality based on legal grounds with no connection to the past.

Moreover, Dhulipala’s detailed exegeses on Ambedkar’s work was also puzzling, as it did not
deal with the UP Muslims- the focal point of discussion in Dhulipala’s book. However, although
Dhulipala’s work has a few faultiness, my stance regarding the ideology of Pakistan coincides
best with the author’s thesis. Dhulipala has succeeded in persuading the readers that the state of
Pakistan was not “insufficiently imagined”. To improve the credibility of his thesis, the author
has cited credible sources that make it increasingly difficult to expostulate against his viewpoint
regarding the idea of Pakistan. According to Dhulipala, “The idea of Pakistan may have had its
share of ambiguities, but its dismissal as a vague emotive symbol hardly illuminates the reasons
as to why it received such overwhelmingly popular support among Indian Muslims” (Dhulipala,
2015). The author has also successfully identified the polarisation within the subcontinent
regarding the ideological basis for Pakistan’s creation, while consequently highlighting the
capacity of the inhabitants of the undivided India to disagree amongst themselves.

Bibliography:

Ambedkar, B. (2021). Thoughts on Pakistan. Prabhat Prakashan.

Dhulipala, V. (2015). Creating a new Medina. Cambridge University Press.

Dhulipala, V. (2018). Revisiting Creating a New Medina. Islamic Studies, 57(1/2), 45–102.

Jalal, A. (1994). The sole spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League and the demand for Pakistan (Issue 31).

Cambridge University Press.

Shaikh, F. (2005). Millat and mazhab: Re-thinking Iqbal’s political vision’. Living Separately. Cultural India

in History and Politics, New Delhi, 366–388.

Page |7