JASWANT'S JINNAH

Mr. Jaswant Singh, a senior leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party has brought out a biography of Mohammad Ali Jinnnah, the Father of Pakistan. In India he is looked upon as the person mainly responsible for the Partition of India into Hindustan and Pakistan.
However, Mr. Singh thinks otherwise. He thinks Jinnah a secular man to the core, was not responsible for the partition. Acceding to him, Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India and one of the most prominent leaders of the Congress party, and Mr. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, who integrated about five hundred small states into India as we know it today, immediately after independence, and the first Home Minister of independent India were responsible for the partition.
In his Jinnah:India-Partition-Independanc, Jaswant Singh has sought to dispel, so he claims, many misconceptions about Jinnah and the partition. He says, “We have misunderstood him because we needed to create a demon. We needed a demon because in the 20th century the most telling event in the subcontinent was the partition of the country”.
Indeed partition of India is one of the telling events in the 20th century. And it also goes without saying that the events and circumstances that led to the portioning are to be carefully looked into and documented. The British have told their version of the story in detail in their “Transfer of Power in India”. Unfortunately we Indians are yet to record our version of the story for our own sake. The attempt by the Historical Council of India to prepare a detailed account of our freedom struggle has not got anywhere.
As Jaswant sees it, Jinnah was “a great Indian” who has been “demonized” to absolve Nehru and Patel of their complicity in the partition of the country. According to Jaswant, Nehru had a streak of authoritarianism. He wanted to concentrate all authority at the centre. Jaswant Says, “Nehru believed in a highly centralized polity. That is what he wanted India to be. Jinnah wanted a federal polity. That even Gandhi accepted, but Nehru didn’t”. Nehru “stood in the way of a federal India until 1947 when it became a portioned India”.
Apart from the exception, the widely held view all over the world is that Jinnah was responsible for the partition of India. The very tile of Rafiq Sakaria’s book on Jinnah “The Man who broke up India” speaks volume. M.J.Akbar in his well known work “India Siege Within” refers to Jinnah at one place as “the man who eventually destroyed Gandhi’s dream of a free and united India”. At another place he describes Jinnah as “Modern Aurangzeb”.
Lord Mountbatten, the last Viceroy in India had this to say “I had never realized that an intelligent man, well- educated, trained in England was capable of closing his mind-it wasn’t that he didn’t see it-he closed his mind. A kind of Sutter came down. The others could be persuaded, but not Jinnah. He was a one man band, and the one man did I like that”.
“Mind you, Jinnah is now forgotten. He was the man who did it……..All this misery and trouble was caused by Jinnah and no one else. And he hasn’t had one word said against him. He was the evil genius in this whole thing”. (Page: 44;(emphasis original)Mountbatten and the Partition of India, Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre.)
Was Jinnah a secularist?
It is widely known that Jinnah used to enjoy his whisky and pork quite well. Something a devout Muslim counts as untouchable. The Jews and the Muslims consider the pork as the abode of Devil.
It is also recorded that he touched the Quran only once when he joined the bar.
Was Jinnah a religious fanatic?
Arun Shourie writes in his “The Pistol Jinnah Forged”, “Once he returned to India he devoted his time and energy to ‘unify’ the Muslims, ‘under one Allah and behind one flag, one slogan, one leader”, to ‘organize’ the League so that it would become their sole spokesman, and finally to centralize authority within the League entirely in himself”.
Jaswant Singh’s book does not reveal anything new, something unknown till now. He has not dug up anything new that warrants a reappraisal of Jinnah and his place in history. And it does not display scholarship of any kind.

AHMADINEJAD'S COUNIL OF MINISTERS

Mr.Ahmadinejad, the new president of the Islamic Republic of Iran has named his council of ministers. Out of the 21 persons nominated 11 are new to their job. They do not have any previous experience in the government. He has also named three women to be inducted as ministers. If he succeeds they will be the first women cabinet ministers in Iran since the Revolution.
According to the Iranian constitution the president is to nominate his ministers within two weeks of assumption of office. Ahmadinejad began his second term in the office of the President on 5 August 2009, ignoring allegations by the opposition, of malpractices in the national election.
However, some of his party men have come out in the open against many of the candidates. Ali Larijani, the speaker of the parliament has warned him that the law makers may object to many of his nominees. The Deputy speaker Mohammad Reza Bahonar has also warned the president that he cannot get the law makers to support some of his nominees as they are wet behind the ears. Ahmadinejad had faced difficulties in choosing his cabinet ministers 2005 also.
The three women nominated would hold, if the law makers supported them, the ministries of Health, Education and Welfare.
Marzieh Vahid-Dastjerdi, the woman he wants to be the Health minister is a Gynecologist. At present she is a member of the Medical Ethical Boards Committee at the Tehran University of Medical Sciences.
Fatemeh Ajorlou, is the president’s nominee for the Welfare ministry. She is a member of the Parliament.
The president has not changed his Foreign Minister. He wants the incumbent Manouchehr Mottaki to continue. He is a strong supporter of Ahmadinejad. He is likely to continue his anti American policy, something that made the president popular among the people.
All the same one has to wait and watch how many of his nominees are going make it. The pro government Principlists has criticized the president for not consulting the Parliament before nominating the persons he wants to be in his cabinet.
Ahmadinejad had been criticized for keeping inexperienced ministers during his first reign also.
Meanwhile, Ahmad Jannati, head of the Guardian Council, said that the opposition leaders and their followers should be arrested for conspiring to overthrow the elected government of Ahmadinejad. He is reported to have said, “Everyone knows that they are the origin of the plot and corruption, but they are linked with some powerful people”.

AUNG SAN SUU KYI: INDIA'S CRIMINAL SILENCE

The military junta in Myanmar has sentenced Aung San Suu kyi to 18 months imprisonment, dashing the hopes of millions all over the world. In fact the military court sentenced her to three years of hard labour. Than Shwe, the leader of the junta commuted it to eighteen month’s house arrest. With this she stands disqualified to contest the election in 2010. Suu Kyi, who has been under detention since 1989, is accused of meeting and accommodating John Yettaw, an American national at her house. Yettaw has been sentenced to seven years of hard labour and imprisonment. However, the security personnel who had been guarding her house have not been punished for dereliction of duty.
Southeast Asian Nations, the US and the United Nations have expressed their disappointment over the sentence. The Dalai Lama extended his support to Suu Kyi and said the verdict ‘deeply saddened’ him.
US secretary of State Hillary Clinton who was visiting the Democratic Republic of Congo said “We continue to call for a release from her continuing house arrest”. Clinton opined that, “She should not have been tried and should not have been convicted”.
Indeed no one had expected the Junta to act otherwise. That she would be kept under house arrest was a forgone conclusion.
All the same none of her neighbours such as India and China have raised their voice against the Junta. China said it respected Myanmar’s sovereignty. One can understand the silence of China a country that has silenced many a dissenting voice. Dalai Lama and Rubiya Kadeer are lucky enough in that they are able to air their views. They are also lucky to have a large audience who share their concerns and strain themselves to see to it that these leasers are not silenced by the mighty Chinese State.
What appalls me is the silence of India that never tires of thumping the chest claiming to be the largest democratic county in the world. Moreover Suu Kyi belongs to the rarest of a rare species. She is a living example of truthfulness and non-violence, of the spirit of Gandhiji, the father of our nation. Hence, India’s silence can be described only as criminal.
We do not dare to speak for the Dalai Lama and his people. True Nehru let him stay in India and operate as a government in exile. But he dared not speak for the Lama. He knew the Chinese intentions very well. He new well that China had no right over Tibet. In fact it is one of the few countries that had a language and culture of its own. It has almost all attributes of a ‘nation’. I dare say neither Benedict Anderson nor Eric Hobsbawm, the modern scholars on nation and nationalism, would challenge Tibet’s right to call it a ‘nation’.
However, Nehru fascinated as he was by the communist, socialist ideals failed to recognize the socialistic pretensions of China. He was also obsessed with his concept of the ‘brotherhood of India and China’. Even when mountain of evidences showed that China was crushing the Tibetans and trying to annex it Nehru kept looking the other way. Finally when the Chinese descended the Himalayas and marched into India he was shattered.
Of course Myanmar does not pose any such threat to India. However, the possibility of China joining hands with it and threatening India is to be kept in mind, though such a possibility is very remote at present. Besides, as stated earlier as a country that is proud of its legacy of non violent struggle for freedom India must speak loudly and clearly against the kind of treatment meted out to Aung San Suu Kyi and her people. We must exert all the pressure we can on the Junta and see to it that Suu Kyi is freed from her house arrest soon.

SECOND REIGN OF AHMADINEJAD IN IRAN

Brushing the allegations of rigging the election and the concerns expressed by the western nations aside, Mr. Ahmadinejad assumed the office of the President of Iran on 5th August 2009, with the blessings of his mentor Khomeni. Ahmadinejad said later that he would resist the “oppressive powers”. He also claimed that his election is a sign of change in Iranian politics.
Even as Ahmadinejad assumed office, protestors gathered in front of the parliament chanting “Death to the dictator”.
The opposition leaders did not attend the function. Rafsanjani, former President and supporter of Mousavi, was also conspicuous by his absence. However the envoys of Britain, Sweden and France attended the official function.
Outside the parliament riot police and Islamic militiamen had a tough time controlling the protestors. They used pepper spray to disperse the agitated demonstrators who continued to protest despite warnings of stern action by the government. Police later arrested Mir Hamid Hassanzadeh, the former director of Mousavi’s website and Reza Noor Bakhash, the chief editor of Farhikhetegan, a paper that supported Mousavi.
Mousavi said “I have noticed the birth of a strong national feeling during the course of the election”. He expressed confidence when he said that the protests have united people from different groups in the society.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who was on an African tour said, “We appreciate and we admire the continuing resistance and the ongoing efforts by the reformers to make the changes that the Iranian people deserve”
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran had on 3rd August, 2009, endorsed Ahmadinejad as the new president of the country. Khamenei who stood solidly behind Ahmadinejad all along the present crisis described him as ‘courageous, astute and hardworking”. Khamenei also cautioned Ahmadinejad to listen to his critics and be prepared to face the challenges ahead.
However, Khamenei did not allow the new president to kiss his hand as he did in 2005. Ahmadinejad had to satisfy himself with a kiss on the leader’s shoulder.
Although the government has released 140 of the people rounded up during the protests after the re-election of Ahmadinejad many still languish in prison. Former president Mohammad Khatami said that the ones who were arrested should be compensated adequately. Khatami a pro reform leader and supporter of Mousavi said, “Blood has been spilled and several families are damaged psychologically. Illegal and un-Islamic acts have been committed against the people”.
Let us wait and watch the course events take in Iran.