Jaswant Affairs - Partition Debate (Updated)

Previous post 

Politics aside, the book by Jaswant Singh besides getting him kicked out of BJP also provoked a spirited debate on Jinnah and the Partition itself. In this the occasion is eerily similar to the earlier one where a debate of similar nature was provoked by Advani's remarks during his Pakistan visit.

Now as someone who believes that history plays an extremely important in a nation's destiny and one who rues the neglect shown by Indians to their history, I can only welcome the debate.

Before stating my own views it is helpful to summarize various arguments in this debate, almost all of them implicitly assuming that partition was a unmitigated disaster in theory and also in implementation. Most widely held notion of them all is that Jinnah was the villain and architect of the partition. In addition to that extremist politics of Hindu organization (viz. Hindu Mahasabha and Sangh) are blamed for the communal polarization which led to partition.Yet another opinion holds ego clash between Nehru and Jinnah responsible for the partition.

There is some truth in all of these notions. Jinnah was the visible face of Muslim league since the 1930's and was responsible for its revival after the debacle post 1937. It was he who demanded partition. Similarly  any attempt to arrive at compromise failed due to the the differences between Nehru and Jinnah. Yet it is my opinion that as visible and pronounced these reasons may seem, they are just proximate causes hiding a much more profound reality and one which pertains to Hindu-Muslim relations.

Coming to the subject of controversy, ie Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the reason there is so much consternation and confusion about his role is that by any assessment there seem to be two and diameterically opposite Jinnah. One is a secular, whiskey swilling, pork eating liberal with a western world view and minimal familiarity with Islam who wanted a undivided India. Other is a rabid demagogue, stoking communal passion by evoking  before Muslim masses specter of living in a Hindu India. It is hard to reconcile these two attitudes, which is why some people (including Jaswant Singh) while admitting his culpability in partition, have taken recourse to explain it away as a result of his being outmaneuvered by the Congress and blinded by his own ego.

Now there is truth to this. It is true that early in his political carrier Jinnah was a Nationalist and later turned into a demagogue. It is also true to a certain extent this transformation can be attributed to Nehru. However a true patriot wouldn't have turned against his motherland just because of his ego.Which is why I don't think that Jinnah was ever in heart a true patriot, and judging by his methods even truly liberal.

Further as it turns out Nehru was hardly the main cause behind his transformation from Dr Jekyll to Mr Hide.  The reason which transformed Jinnah was also the reason that transformed Indian freedom movement, Mahatma Gandhi.

Prior to arrival of Mahatma Gandhi at scene Indian freedom movement was primarily an elitist concern, comprising of either landed gentry, nouveau rich industrialist and middle class professionals. The prevailing consensus was that it was possible to secure independence working from within Colonial framework. It was believed that as Indians demonstrated capability to self govern in accordance with British interests, the British masters will gradually grant more and more autonomy to their subjects eventually setting them free. The main difference which existed between different factions was about the extent to which the demand for more autonomy should be pushed with one group not in favor of rocking the boat too much while the other group even though more aggressive in its demands, grudgingly accepted the existing framework .

Whatever their differences in politics, it is important to realize their wold view was informed by their elite background and  in general it was disconnected from mass politics. Mohammed Ali Jinnah belonged to this school.

Arrival of Mahatma Gandhi changed all that. While he was a firm advocate of non violence, he engaged the masses on the scale that was hitherto not witnessed in Indian freedom movement. Mass of public, burdened with exploitative policies of the Raj, responded passionately to Mahatma's call of non violent agitations. This enthusiastic participation expanded the project of Indian freedom as never imagined possible earlier.

However this expansion upset existing elite consensus. The modus operandi shifted from "freedom through petition" to "freedom through peaceful disobedience". Existing actors who were not accustomed to mass mobilization disapproved of the tenor of the movement and they responded in different way. Some like Rabindra Nath Tagore just went into background, others like Motilal Nehru accepted Mahatma's leadership. Jinnah was no different in his disapproval of mass politics.

However with him there was an additional factor. Jinnah was irked by the overt infusion of spiritual message by Mahatma Gandhi to (what Jinnah considered) a non-religious endeavor. Even more infuriating for him was the fact that spiritual message had a distinct Hindu hue. Now for Mahatma spiritual message was about fostering religious harmony. However Muslim intellectuals and to lesser extent Jinnah, always apprehensive about the metaphysical boa-constrictor form of Hinduism became paranoid by Mahatma'a approach. They took it as a conspiracy to assimilate Islam within the folds of Hinduism.

I believe it was this paranoia combined with his ego which wouldn't accept Mahatma's leadership which ultimately drove Jinnah to Pakistan.

Update: There are two issues that I will like to discuss in separate posts, one is the proximate causes vs historical causes as far as partition is concerned, second is the mobilization strategy of Mahatma.