Thank you Zaki Sabih Sahib, for sharing your life journey in “My life, Pakistan and Great Balidan.” It gives fascinating accounts of personal and family life, the places they were raised as children, the religious and political environment they were exposed to from early age, and life before and after the partition. But it is the critical analysis of tragic consequences of partition which captures our attention.
The book gives firsthand account of heart wrenching hardships and agonies suffered by author’s own family, and many other such families, who migrated to Pakistan after leaving everything behind and starting from scratch in Pakistan. Many of these families made sacrifices both in blood and lifetime possessions. These immigrant families were glad to sacrifice it all, the author calls it “Great Balidan”, for the sake of new beloved country “Pakistan”. They had big hopes and dreams of new life in Pakistan.
As Pakistan’s envisioned dream started to slip away due to corrupt and inept leaders, some are questioning its foundational undertaking. The author is fiercely passionate and unsparing on this topic and puts the blame of partition and human tragedy at the feet of Muhammad Ali Jinnah- in a strong un-forgiving language. Author’s exasperation, disappointment, and anger seeps through the lines when writing about Jinnah and partition.
Even though book is the author’s account seen through the lenses of personal experiences and perceptions, I think role of Jinnah and Abdul Kalam Azad deserves some expanded perspective. Following is my expanded perspective based upon my reading over the years.
All the main political characters on both sides showed stubbornness and they miscalculated, misjudged, undercut, and underestimated each other and they all share equal blame for the partition. Iqbal and Jinnah’s first choice was Confederation of India and not partition. In 1929 Jinnah presented 11 points on Confederation which were rejected outright by Congress with the tacit blessings of Abdul Kalam Azad and demanded to dissolve the Muslim League before any such dialogue. This outright rejection was grave mistake as this rejection gave fuel to separate homeland movement which spread like fire among Muslims. This was the time to engage each other and reach some compromise and not years later in 1946, with Cabinet Mission Plan, when partition was inevitable and everyone knew that at this late juncture it was nothing more than a hail Mary pass and Congress gave a yes nod to Azad just to check the box. Muslim League leaders considered it just a whitewash. Muslim public at large was way ahead of the negotiators and had already made up their mind on separate homeland. Any reversal at this late stage may not have been accepted by them and Muslim League leaders were acutely aware of it.
For all the practical purposes, and in the eyes of Muslim public at large, Muslim League was representing them, and not marginal parties like Jamiat-Ulema-e-Hind whose members Azad coerced into Congress in the name of Pan-Islamism and Khilafat Movement. Many such comrades of Azad moved to Pakistan after partition and nourished Jihadists for Kashmir, with the help of Army, which later morphed into terrorist organizations with dire consequences for Pakistan.
Congress and Azad refused to accept Jinnah and Muslim League as the major consequential agency representing Muslims and seriously engage them as such from the beginning and that had serious consequences. Similarly, Muslim League and Jinnah’s grave mistake was to not take Azad seriously as president of Congress and give him due respect. This created personal animosities. These misguided and unwise steps from both sides seriously damaged any goodwill and trust which are essential currency for any good outcome.
How would the undivided India look like today and how Modi’s India fits in this narrative? After all, minority Muslims ruled India for almost three centuries and there were pent up anger and resentment among majority Hindus, and rightfully so. It is wishful thinking that Hindu majority, which has their own share of extremist Hindu nationalists, would forget and forgive these injustices because Muslims have relatively better clout at ballot box in un-divided India. Emergence of someone like Modi was inevitable in divided or undivided India. Enshrined human and minority rights in constitution are as good as the wishes and whims of majority party as Modi and Trump proves it.
Abdul Kalam Azad was a devout Pan-Islamist and his slogan of why settle for part of the country if you can have all was grounded in Pan-Islamism and pre 1947 India, era of Muslim and British rule. But it has no relation to reality in post 1947 India where Hindu majority is going to usher in their own vision of India, divided or undivided, to erase injustices of prior centuries.
Humans have tribal mentality and unfortunately, partition of India was inevitable, with or without Jinah, in 1947 or decades later, in current form or some other form.
Abdul Kalam Azad was not immune from this tribal mentality either-only he has a bigger tent for Muslims only, “Pan-Islamic Tent”.
The book challenges your existing perceptions and beliefs and is not for the weak heart. Its reading requires open mind, which for some is a lot to ask for on this emotional topic. It is a must read for any serious student of Indian sub-continent history.
The author gives exceptional uplifting message in the final words expressing hope and desire for us all to move forward and not get stuck in the past. Getting stuck in the past is the major obstacle in any progress and finding sound footing in the new unfolding world.
Fayyaz Sheikh
Dear Dr. Fayyaz Sheikh,
Thank you for your thoughtful and incisive review of my book, “My Life, Pakistan and the Great Balidan.” It is a privilege to have my work evaluated by a distinguished pro-Pakistan thinker and avid reader such as yourself.
My book stands apart in its candid critique of Mr. Jinnah and Allama Iqbal—an approach rarely taken by Muslims of Pakistani origin. There is often reluctance or apprehension to offer a nonpartisan assessment of these iconic figures, for fear of being labeled anti-Pakistan. As I noted, “I could not have dared to write it if I were in Pakistan.” (Introduction pp: viii)
Your description of the book as “not for the weak heart” is, to me, a testament to the impact of my central thesis: the Great Balidan. This concept highlights the devastation endured by Urdu-speaking Muslims across India and Pakistan. (The Great Balidan, pp: 207-253)
Allow me to address some of the points you raised regarding Maulana Azad and Mr. Jinnah’s 11-point proposal:
• Mr. Jinnah’s 11 points in 1929 was a reply to the Nehru Report of 1928. For the first time during the British rule, Mr. Nehru endorsed by all major political parties, outlined the future Constitution of India. He offered significant concessions to Muslims, including the proposal for a secular state (neither Hindu nor Muslim) and the recognition of Hindustani (in both Devanagari and Persian scripts) as the official language. Hindustani written in Persian script is the same thing as Urdu.
• Further, the Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946 granted Muslims even greater autonomy and more land than present-day Pakistan, with a weak central government and only three portfolios. Despite these opportunities, Mr. Jinnah and the Muslim League failed to appreciate their value, insisting instead on absolute sovereignty—even to the extent of accepting “Pakistan the size of a handkerchief” if it meant complete independence.
• Indian Muslims owe a debt of gratitude to Maulana Azad for shielding them from the consequences of Jinnah’s ‘Two-nations’ theory. While Jinnah promoted this theory to achieve Pakistan, he was never committed to relocating all Indian Muslims, leaving nearly half the Muslim population in perpetual uncertainty.
• The Muslim League’s call for Direct Action Day was far from peaceful, with tacit support from Suhrawardy and the Bengal Muslim League. This event unleashed widespread communal violence, causing immense suffering among both Hindus and Muslims.
• No nation would willingly become hostage to a minority. The Cabinet Mission Plan represented the best possible offer for the Muslim League, granting maximum provincial autonomy and the right for Muslim regions to secede after ten years. Acceptance could have spared Indian Muslims from the tragic bloodshed and massacres that followed.
Thank you once again for your review and engagement with my work.
Sincerely,
Zaki Sabih
Author, “My Life, Pakistan and the Great Balidan” (www.zakisabih.com)
Here is another prospective of Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s life and his role in the partition of the subcontinent of India. ~ Mirza Iqbal Ashraf
This article is written by Ajit Javed, titled “Pakistan Failed Jinnah.” It highlights aspects of Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s personality that are not usually included in conventional historical narratives.
Below is the summary and key points of the article:
Jinnah’s Personality: A Paradox
According to the author, history contains very few figures who can simultaneously be viewed in both positive and negative frames. For the people of the subcontinent, Jinnah is at once respected and controversial.
Early Political Life and Secular Ideas
• Jinnah spent the first 40 years of his political life fighting for India’s independence.
• He identified himself first as an Indian and then as a Muslim.
• His political mentors were Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Dadabhai Naoroji, and Pherozeshah Mehta. He believed in equality, liberty, and secularism.
• He left the Congress because he opposed the mixing of religion in politics under Mahatma Gandhi, particularly movements such as the Khilafat Movement.
Personal Life and Religious Orientation
The article portrays Jinnah’s personal life as follows:
• He wore Western clothes, smoked cigars, and lived an English-style lifestyle.
• His ancestors were Hindus (Bhatia) who later converted to Islam.
• He had serious disagreements with religious clerics (mullahs) and considered religion a personal matter.
Jinnah’s Vision of Pakistan
According to Ajit Javed, Jinnah envisioned Pakistan as a secular, modern, and minority-friendly state:
• 11 August 1947 Speech: In this historic address, he clearly stated that every citizen in Pakistan would be free to practice their religion and that the state would have no concern with religion.
• National Symbols: He included the white stripe in Pakistan’s flag to represent minorities and reportedly entrusted the writing of Pakistan’s first national anthem to a Hindu poet, Jagan Nath Azad.
• Opposition to Religious Interference: He rejected demands from religious scholars to run Pakistan strictly on Islamic law and admired Mustafa Kemal Ataturk as a role model.
Pakistan’s “Failure” and Jinnah’s Isolation
The article claims that soon after Pakistan’s creation, fundamentalist elements and even leaders within the Muslim League began opposing Jinnah’s ideas:
• Censorship of the Speech: The bureaucracy allegedly tried to prevent the publication of his secular 11 August speech in newspapers.
• Political Opposition: Liaquat Ali Khan and provincial leaders such as Mumtaz Daultana (Punjab) and Ayub Khuhro began ignoring Jinnah’s directives.
• Public Reaction: Protests were held against him in Lahore, and he was even labeled “Kafir-e-Azam” (the Great Infidel).
Final Days and Regrets
The article makes a striking claim that in his final days Jinnah wished to return to India (Bombay):
• He did not sell his house in Malabar Hills.
• He was reportedly disheartened by rising religious extremism and communal violence in Pakistan.
• He passed away on 11 September 1948 as a man whose dream remained unfulfilled.
Conclusion: Dr. Ajit Javed concludes that Jinnah failed in India (in preserving a united, secular India), and Pakistan, by rejecting his secular vision, in turn failed Jinnah.