|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mahatma & Qaid-e-Azam counterpoised Jinnah vs Gandhi
It still endures, this all-too familiar story with India versus Pakistan now, a game of one-upmanship seeded with the freedom struggle and these two subsequent icons. The modern history of the subcontinent is crafted by these two individuals and ideologues, Jinnah steered the finale by his persistence in demanding and attaining Pakistan. Gandhi defined the non-violent nature of the campaign for Independence, which eventually won him global renown. They spearheaded freedom in their respective countries. If they bore similarities in being Gujaratis, British-educated lawyers, there is a similarity in the legacies they bestowed to their nations. They became trump cards to be used at the opportune moment.
Gandhi's non-violence is used to masquerade our sullied image by our politicians or even as a global brand for marketing or manoeuvring his ideology as a symbol of religious fundamentalism. Similarly, the Qaid-e-Azam is merely ensconced on a pedestal in Pakistan and the liberal spirit he envisaged, is often quoted to alleviate the radical imagery prevalent. Jinnah and Gandhi have "been acclaimed as the father of a modern state, but parenthood was not kind to either of them …", says the author. The reassessment and reinterpretation of history is a continuous process and each writer has his own analysis. This body of work is backed by intensive research. It commences with a very powerful prologue on September 4, 1939, as both men are driving up to Simla to meet the Viceroy. "In the backseat the pair sit closer than they have ever been before, looking strangely ill-matched. One is immaculately dressed in a suit of smooth-finished fabric, the other wears nothing grander than a two-piece ensemble of loincloth and shawl, both of coarse khadi cloth. One coughs occasionally, the other does not. They share, perhaps, only one thing — an unnatural thinness. Like a crane and chaffinch, the two most recognizable men in India are perched so closely together than the contrasts between them seem almost absurd, but this is no more than an unfortunate moment, born of grave circumstance." (Page 2) Matthews has counter-poised these two eminent personalities, their views in politics, the divergence in religiosity, the seeding of the two-nation theory, Gandhi's rise, the reinvention of Jinnah through the 1930s, 1939 and the final departure of the Congress after the resignation of the ministries in 1939. Interestingly, in 1938 Gandhi had quipped, "I miss the old nationalist, are you still the old Jinnah?" Further on, he blames the Congress and Nehru for not acquiescing with the League in forming ministries which had been earlier agreed to. This betrayal, snowballed into a final parting of ways, Pakistan and large-scale genocide — an oft-repeated accusation in historiography. Matthews believes that the British held the scales between the two opponents evenly and that Mountbatten was a wise statesman rising above the fray. Facts tell a different story. He held back the configuration of the Radcliffe Line for three days, until after the Independence Day celebrations. This hampered the deployment of boundary forces; of course, he blames all the three vital players for Partition — the British, Gandhi and Jinnah for the eventual debacle. In the conclusive analysis as he posits the two, he obviously rates Gandhi a notch above as in being far more astute in laying a deep-rooted foundation and a sustainable democratic tradition, which has survived despite all odds. Jinnah, on the other hand "sacrificed one essential element in nation building — the laying out of a common ground for the future". He did not address the problems of insecurity at the formative stage. "The result was a paranoid country too small to sustain its own defence without compromising other obligations." This will be the subject of an endless debate raging for decades. A comparative analysis between the practical idealist in a loin cloth and the sharply dressed realist will be continuously interpreted in historical interpolations, it is too late to rectify any damages done by either. We can only imbibe lessons that history unravels.
|
|||
|
|
|||
My
instant reaction to the book, Jinnah versus Gandhi was that, at
last, the two subcontinental icons have been juxtaposed. Just as well,
that a British historian has penned this well-textured evocation since
on either side of the border opinions would not be bereft of biases
and hagiographic tints. B.R Ambedkar, in 1943, drawing a comparison
between the two organisations and the men who headed them, had said
"Politics in the hands of these two great men have become a
competition in extravaganza. If Gandhi is known as the Mahatma, Jinnah
is known as Qaid-e- Azam…. The session of the Congress must be
followed by a session of the Muslim League. If the Congress passes a
resolution of 17,000 words, the Muslim League resolution must exceed
it by a thousand words….If the Congress must address an appeal to
the United Nations, the Muslim League must not allow itself to be
outbidden, when is all this to end?"
