JINNAH'S GHOST

It is quite amusing that Jaswant Singh, castigated by the media all along for having played the role of a villain in the Kandahar hijack episode, suddenly finds an adoring and admiring press for himself. What brought this sudden change in the perception of our media? After he released his last book which referred to a “mole” in the Prime Minister’s Office, everyone was after him including our Prime Minister who pinned him down on the floor of the Rajya Sabha to name the “mole”. Jaswanth did not come out well with a convincing response and he had to concede that it was only his “guess”. For the media, he was only a scotch-drinking feudal in a safari suit and with baritone voice which at times was irritating.

May be, there are reasons for the media to develop love for him in the last couple of days. He took on the mighty RSS calling them “Suvidhabhogis”. He could defy the party higher-ups and release his book, Jinnah: India-Partition Independence which blamed Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel for the partition of India – last century’s worst event in human history which displaced 15 million people and killed atleast 1.5 million Hindus and Muslims, ghosts of whom are still haunting both the nations.

Those who were born after Independence, and therefore, not witness to the freedom movement, were fed with the theory that Mohamad Ali Jinnah was the sole culprit and the demon who was responsible for the vivisection of the country. Such a theory suited Jawaharlal, Gandhi and the Sangh Parivar. For the latter, it was yet another tool to demonise the minorities. For nearly sixty years, Jinnah continued to be a devil in the eyes of Indians.

Countless number of publications must be in the market dealing with the freedom struggle and they are only a repetition of the myth that was created by the vested interests – Gandhi was infallible and it was his struggle alone that won freedom for us burying the fact that there were quite a few leaders in different states who contributed in no less a degree to attain independence. To digress a bit, someone filed a petition in the Supreme Court that there should be a law to prohibit any criticism of Gandhi and the apex court in its wisdom dismissed such a plea.

Similarly, Jawaharlal’s blunders were swept under the carpet and he was projected, to the exclusion of his contemporaries like Patel, Rajaji, Subash Bose, as the jewel of India. While the nation is suffering because of his miscalculations and misjudgements, it is his family that has been cornering all the privileges.

Lal Krishna Advani may now be an uninspiring and failed leader, but it was he who changed the perception of atleast a section of Indians towards Jinnah, much to the chagrin of both the Congress and the Sangh Parivar. And he had to pay a price for it. Regrettably, our mediamen, more so, our noisy anchors seem to have a short memory. They have been harping on the fact that the Bharatiya Janata Party had adopted double standards while dealing with Advani and Jaswanth. After his talk about Jinnah’s secular credentials in Pakistan, Advani had a harrowing time and he was stripped of the Presidentship of the party. Since he was the President of the party at that time no one could have expelled him like Jaswanth was expelled by the party. That was the only difference. Otherwise both had to pay a price.

Having said that, we have to admit that the manner in which Jaswanth was shown the door was undoubtedly bereft of grace and highly undemocratic. A frontline leader of Jaswanth’s stature deserves the decency of a notice and an opportunity to explain his case. Or, as he himself suggested, he could have been asked to quit. It is still a mystery why such a precipitate action was taken against him though the media loves to point out its finger at Jhandewalan.

As if to add fuel to the fire, Narendra Modi’s government has banned the book. By its very nature, interpretation of history is bound to give expression to diverse views, both subjective and objective. Jinnah has gone on record in 1947 in the Pakistan Constituent Assembly that the state will have nothing to do with the religion of its citizens and they are free to follow any religion of their choice with equal rights. Unfortunately for Pakistan and also for India, he succumbed to his terminal illness within a year. But for this quirk of history, things could have been different.

It is no secret that both Nehru and Patel did not want further delay in the declaration of Independence and therefore wanted to concede the demand of the Muslim League for partition. They perhaps wanted to ensure that the British rulers did not use this vexed issue as an excuse to delay the independence. Their decision is, therefore, unquestionable. Even Rajaji was party to the decision of conceding the demand of the Muslim League.

Jaswanth interpreted this fact of history to say that there was no point in demonising Jinnah for partition and Nehru and Patel were also equally responsible. This also destroyed the earlier myths about Nehru, Patel and Jinnah. Everyone need not agree with certain universally accepted perceptions. There are people who criticise Gandhi as being hypocrite, Hindu fundamentalist, dictator etc. though we have accepted him as the Father of the Nation. Similarly, Patel is a national hero and the architect of united India despite the fact that Congress leadership has deliberately failed to commemorate him in a manner that he deserved.

Banning a book because of certain uncomplimentary references is not in keeping with our civilisational and democratic ethos. Why did the BJP criticise the then Rajiv Gandhi government for banning Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses? Why did the party lambast the Left government for throwing Tasleema Nasreen out of West Bengal?

Well, there are “holy cows” in every state. Like Patel in Gujarat, you can’t say anything against Chatrpathi Shivaji in Maharashtra, against Tagore and Subash Chandra Bose in Bengal, against Kamaraj in Tamil Nadu. They are not Gods. In fact, Hindu tradition allows you to find fault with God himself. If we don’t allow interpretation of history, however subjective it may be, we may not only be policing the thoughts of our citizens, but leading the posterity in a blind alley. Jaswant may not belong to the BJP now. But as a citizen of this country, he is entitled to his views. Ban on his book smacks of extreme intolerance and prejudice which have no place in a pluralistic society.