Open Letter To Dina Wadia

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

re:#44 by Romair
``Look where Singapore and Malaysia and China are today. They have stronger institutions and lower corruption and much higher growth rates than countries like India, Pakistan and Bangladesh``
Smoking pot again?
What strong institutions does China have? Legal system sucks. Banking sucks. There is no constitution worth the name.
BTW, India crossed the 10% GDP growth in the last quarter. Singapore and India have a booming trade. Keep smoking pot and you can still dream of Pak, India and Bangladesh in the same club.
Sridhar

re: Jinnah and Dina
The reason why Jinnah`s daughter did not visit Pak is simply because she does not consider it her country. I do not know what all this fuss is about. Jinnah disowned her. There is no reason why she should even consider Jinnah as her father.
Why did she come to Pak this time around? I am baffled. Possibly just to see how badly her father`s country has shaped up! That must give the daughter some solace!
Sridhar

zamir1 #45: ``I am kind of surprised by this comment. She is not admired for who she did but because she is the daughter of our Quid – plain and simple. Haven’t you known any one in your personal life who you liked very much and then you respected his (or her) children just because they were the ofsprings of this admirable person. Can you imagine the uproar from the people had she not received the proper courtesies``

My point is not about her being liked or disliked. Or being received or not received. My point is about her being given State honors. That is wrong. One cannot give someone state honors, just because one likes them. Or because they are children of someone important. I think Jinnah, himself, would have disapproved.

If one is going to do that, then one should do it for the children of all the leaders of 47 - including the ones who actually stayed in Pakistan, also. Allama Iqbal`s, grandkids, when they visit Pakistan, should get State protocol, as well. As should Liaqut Ali`s and others`. How come they don`t get it?

On a personal level, there are some things about the personal behavior of Dina Wadia, that I find odd, vis-a-vis Pakistand and her own family, which indicate that she wasn`t as concerned about all these things, including Pakistan and Jinnah, as everyone is making her out to be. Dina Wadia did not come to Pakistan for the funeral of her aunt, Fatima Jinnah, whom we call Mother of our Nation. I find this quite sad, since Fatima Jinnah looked after Dina`s father, when he was sick and Dina was unwilling to look after him.

She did not bother to visit the grave of her own father, for 55 years. I personally would have a great desire to visit the grave of my father, if I could, regularly. Not once after 55 years, at a politically opportune moment. Infact, I have probably visited the grave of her father more than she has. As have probably most of the people on Chowk. Even though, she would get VIP treatment, if she ever mentioned the desire to visit.

So people seem to be trying to paint her as someone who was deeply concerned about Pakistan. I have never heard her doing anything for Pakistan, or even visiting the place, when Pakistan faced floods, earthquakes, and other tragedies. If I am incorrect, please do correct me, as I am not an expert on her.

At the same time, perhaps the fault lies with Jinnah. If what Wolpert says is correct, and he refused to even admit that he had a daughter, than one cannot blame her, for her indifferent behavior. I cannot imagine calling my daughter ``Mrs. something,`` regardless of whom she married, of whatever faith. Whatever happened to Jinnah`s secularism, when it came to his own daughter? After all, he, himself married a Parsi. And he fell in love with his own wife, when she was around 16 and he was around 40. He had to wait till she became an adult (18) to marry her.

The point here is not to put down anyone. The point is to view history as it should be, i.e. based on facts. And not to distort them to fit our own interpretations. And to understand that we are all human beings. As was Jinnah, with his own shortcomings, and his own strenghts, and with apparently a lot of family problems (like many of us). He had two close relatives, and apparently had terrible relations with both of them: His wife - who was ``practically`` separated from him, was in a depression, and died at the age of 29. His father-in-law never spoke to him, after his marraige, only calling him when his wife had died. And Jinnah refused to acknowledge he had a daughter, after she married, someone of a different religion. Even though, he had himself done the same.

The other major point is to not turn people into heroes for no reason. And to judge a person`s attitude about others, by their actions, and not by their genes. Dina Wadia has a perfect right to do whatever she wants, and live wherever she wants. But, State level honors need to be earned, not inherited. There are too many other women I can think of who have deserved to be State guests, but were not given that honor. Including women, who rode in on donkey carts across the border in 1947. And women who toil in the hot sun on the farms of Pakistan.

We really need to get out of this elitist hero worship business. Jinnah was a Pakistani hero. As was his sister. Not every member of his family should be turned into one. It belittles the other heroes (having said that, they shouldn`t be turned into villians, either).

I think Jinnah, himself, would be on my side on this one.

#5 mohar11

+++++
How come Mr Jinnah - who created a whole country from a type-writer - couldn`t convince his own daughter on his two-nation-theory .... that ``good muslims cannot live with bad old hindus``?
+++++

Jinnah`s second wife (Ruttee Petit) was born a Zoroastrian - she was the daughter of Sir Jahangir Petit. However, Ruttee Petit converted to Islam as a prelude to her marriage to Jinnah. And, unhappy as the marriage was (they had separated after 7 years of marriage when Jinnah was 48 and Ruttee was 25), I do believe Ruttee Jinnah died a Muslim. It goes without saying that their only child Dina was born a Muslim.

Jinnah`s estrangement from his daughter was indeed ironic in view of the circumstances of his own marriage (second marriage) with Ruttenbai Petit. That marriage had left Sir Jahangir Petit (a Zoroastrian) permanently estranged from his daughter Ruttee and ex-friend (and now son-in-law) Muhammed Ali Jinnah.

Years later, in an ironic replay of history, Muhammed Ali Jinnah was left estranged from his only child, Dina, when she married a non-Muslim (Neville Wadia). Jinnah, by that time, had turned the Qaid-e-Azam of the Muslim nation, and could not accept the marriage. He remonstratedly told Dina, ``With so many Muslims around, couldn`t you find a single Muslim boy worthy of marrying?`` Dinah was every inch her father`s daughter in her reply, ``With so many Muslims around, why did you have to marry my mother?``

The Qaid-e-Azam had no reply to her query but, nonetheless, the marriage left Muhammed Ali Jinnah every bit as estranged from his only child Dinah, as Jahangir Petit had been from his daughter Ruttee after she married Jinnah.

And, yes, it is indeed ironic that Jinnah, the father of Pakistan, wasn`t the father of even a single Pakistani. His grandson, Nusli Wadia, is today a prominent citizen in Mumbai, India.

Jinnah`s son-in-law, though of Zoroastrian heritage, was actually born a Christian. Nash Wadia, ( grandfather of Nusli Wadia), had given up his Zoroastrian religion to become a Christian & married a Christian. Likewise, Jinnah`s daughter, though of Zoroastrian heritage from her mother`s side, was born a Muslim. Dina Jinnah presumably became Christian when she married Neville Wadia. But I am not sure if she ever formally converted to Zoroastrianism when her husband and father-in-law did. Nusli Wadia and family are now back being Zoroastrians - the original religion of Ruttenbai Petit as well as of Nash Wadia:

---

http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2009/stories/20030509001708300.htm

[Of a controversial edict on the religious status of children born in marriages between Parsis and non-Parsis]

Frontline
Volume 20 - Issue 09, April 26 - May 09, 2003

The concerns of a community
By LYLA BAVADAM

..... One example is that involving Neville and Nusli Wadia, father and son, scions of the Bombay Dyeing company. Neville Wadia was born a Zoroastrian but converted to Christianity when he married because his wife was a Christian. Later, at a venerable age, Neville Wadia decided that he and Nusli would become Parsis. The thread ceremonies were performed. At that time there was a controversy over what was called a conversion (Nusli Wadia was considered a Christian because both his parents were Christians). However, then the ceremony had the approval of one of the priests who has sanctioned the recent edict. The Wadias were accepted as Parsis even by the orthodox section of the community.
.....

---

# 44 by Romair

+++++
Jinnah was a Constitutional dictator.
+++++

---

Jinnah: Power Hungry, Corrupt And Hypocritical?
By Ahmed Ziauddin
Zia@kubrussel.ac.be
Catholic University Of Belgium

..... I like to draw ..... attention to what Jinnah did after Pakistan`s independence. .....

When the time came, Jinnah opted to become the Governor General of Pakistan instead of Prime Minister because, under the Constitution, Governor General could give instructions to the Prime Minister. Jinnah, after becoming Governor General, not only appointed the Prime Minister but himself chose and appointed all the members of the Cabinet.

He was the President of Muslim League, and did not relinquish party presidentship even after becoming the Governor General. Thus, Jinnah accumulated all power in him as the leader of the party, head of the administration and the State, a virtual dictator.

He even assumed authority to take care of the government`s Kashmir and Frontier Departments.

As a Governor General, he caused Legislative Assembly to endorse these additional powers. He even presided over Cabinet meetings, unprecedented in parliamentary democracy. He often, without the knowledge of the Prime Minister, instructed the Provincial Governors, Ministers and Departmental Secretaries. Parliamentary norms were not applicable to Jinnah.

In fact, the way Jinnah ran the administration, though briefly, he established the precedent to concentrate all powers in one hand and hold a number of positions by a single person, the tendency that gave birth to military autocracy in Pakistan.

---

zamir1 #45: I agree with your comment. I am not quite sure what a more appropriate term would be. Perhaps benevolent constitutional dictator.

zamir1 #40:
Your description of history is quite correct. Following is how Wolpert describes the last days of Jinnah, vis-a-vis his family:

``Fatima Jinnah, who inherited most of her brother`s estate, remained in Pakistan, till her death......Jinnah`s daughter Dina never joined her father in Pakistan while he lived; she came to Karachi only for his funeral. When Dina married Neville Wadia, a Parsi-born Christian, Jinnah tried his best to dissuade her, going almost as far as Sir Dinshaw Petit had with his daughter.....Jinnah never spoke with his daughter after she married. And though they did correspond, he always addressed her formally as ``Mrs Wadia`` and never talked of her to his friends, insisting indeed, that he had ``no daughter.``

Dina and Neville Wadia kept house in Bombay and had two children soon after which they separated. Neville, who presided over the Wadia commercial and textile empire,... and has two sons....Dina and Neville Wadia had a daughter as well, who apparently lives in Manhattan as something of a ``recluse``...Neville Wadia left India after divorcing Dina, choosing to reside in Switzerland. Dina moved to New York City and lived alone in a splendid apartment on Madison Avenue until at least 1982.`` (Jinnah of Pakistan, p. 370-71)

This is why in my first reply, I had stated that I thought she had moved to New York and passed away. It is unfortunate that people are trying to spin the above, and trying to turn the relationship into Jinnah and his daughter into a mutual love story. It obviously is not. It is, in fact, one of the most tragic stories of mutual abandonment between a father and daughter I have ever heard.

Romair
//...Similarly for Jinnah. The Muslim League was bound to collapse, after his death. And Pakistan was bound to be taken over by feudals, and then alternatively by the Army, after his death...//

For once - romair has a point.

Romair

Point taken, however I think the problem with the word dictator is that what it stands for ( Hitler, Stalin etc. ). Dictionary definition of dictator is “An absolute ruler”, “A tyrant” etc. I think you will need to come up with a better word for what you are describing. The problem with not having a second tier of leadership had nothing to do with Jinnah – but it had every thing to do with the prevailing socio economic conditions of the Muslim at the time.

Rozaiba #36: ``You should not ache so much for a `constitutional dictator` that you proclaim Qaid-e-Azam as one.``

I will ache for whatever I want to ache for. You need not to worry about that. But thanks for your concern.

Jinnah was a Constitutional dictator. At least, in my opinion. Nothing wrong with that. I think that is what Pakistan needed at the time. Had he not been one, Pakistan may never have been created. Lee Kuan Yu was a constitutional dictatar, as well. To some extent, so was Muhathir. And of course, Deng Xiaping was definitely a Constutional dictator.

Look where Singapore and Malaysia and China are today. They have stronger institutions and lower corruption and much higher growth rates than countries like India, Pakistan and Bangladesh - who were never blessed with good Constitutional dictators (Nehru could be considered an exception). The facts are right in front of you.

This does not mean that dictatorships are good - even constitutional ones. It just means that certain individuals, through Constitutional dictatorships, have been able to achieve a lot of progress, or have fulfilled great tasks, in third world countries. While others have not.

``Anyway, he spent his whole life abiding by the law - his livelihood was the law and it makes no sense to suggest he could be considered a `dictator`.``

Being a lawyer is a professional aspect. Being a dictator is a political aspect. Lawyers can be constituional dictators. A constitutional dictator is not an illegal idea. It is well within the boundaries of a Constitution - be it of a party or a country.

Who could have opposed Jinnah in his own party, in an election? Who could have opposed him in Pakistan, after its creation? No one. He spent a lot of time, mediating local political ups and downs after in the mid-40s. But the fact is, he had all the power, centralized in his hands - albeit constitutionally. No other Pakistani leader since then has ever had so much power within his own person - even unconstitutionally. There may nothing be essentially wrong with that. It is legal.

Imran Khan was like that with the cricket team. He could get a selector fired. He could refuse to play, as he did against New Zeland, if he did not like the composition of the opposing team. He could end a cricketer`s career, if he felt necessary. Like Qasim Umar`s. He could pick people into the team, completely out of the blue, without going through a proper structured selection process of first-class cricket.

He was also the greatest and most successful and most popular captain Pakistan has ever had; even amongst his own team members. The reason being, that while he was a constitutional dictator as a captain, he was a very capable and honest one.

But what are the after-affects of all of that? Pakistani cricket now is dependent on picking cricketers without a structured system. It depends on messiah leadership, and not on structured leadership, etc. Was Imran Khan`s style good or bad for Pakistani cricket in the long term. It was definitely good in the short term. But were there better options in the long term. Maybe and maybe not.

Similarly for Jinnah. The Muslim League was bound to collapse, after his death. And Pakistan was bound to be taken over by feudals, and then alternatively by the Army, after his death. Because there was no second tier, other than Liaqut. All of these guys were aristocrats, with nothing in common with the common guy. The good part is that, they were led by Jinnah, who was an honest and visionary, ``Constitutional dictator.`` Not a corrupt one like Benazir and Nawaz.

It would have made no difference what kind of constitution he would have put in place. A constitution is only as good as the leaders enforcing it, and the social structure upholding it. I don`t blame Jinnah for being a Constitutional dictator. In fact, I think he did the right thing, by centralizing the power in his own hands. There was no other way to proceed. Perhaps eventually he would have spread it out, as Pakistan stablized. Or even if he would have kept it, he would have been a Lee Kuan Yu. I am convinced of that.

What I cannot stand is all the hero worship that people associate with him, as if he was ultra-human. As if he had no problems. No issues. Did everything perfectly, and knew it all. He was, in fact, just a human being. It is obvious that he was not a good family man (neither was Gandhi, and niether are many great men, because they are usually too busy with forming a country). To portray his relationship with his daughter as a normal father/daughter relationship is ludicrous, and a huge distortion of the fact. It was extremely distant and formal at best, and quite confrontational at worst.

One should not convert people into Pirs, like that. It distorts their achievements. One should debate them objectively.

And most of all, one should not turn anyone`s off-springs into heroes and State guests. I make exceptions for no one. And I doubt, Jinnah would have either. Only those turning his family into heridatory pirs, would make such exceptions. He must be rolling in his grave.

Unfortunately, certain individuals are bent upon distorting facts, and turning this into a dislike for Dina Wadia. I don`t know her. And have no like or dislike for her. I do know that she should not be a State guest, however.

Mantolives:

Thanks for the information on Dina Wadia.

Cheers!

roza
//...The answer to your inquiry is that Qaid-e-Azam did succeed with his approach....//

He succeeded in creating pakistan, by promoting violence in name of direct action day.... and scaring the unwashed masses about fictional hindoo domination .... promoting TNT and other such blatant demagoguery and lies which would make even Advani cringe.

But that came later. First task was to drive out British. So my question was - how do you drive out the present rulers without challenging them?

Romair

I am not a defender of anything - I just hold an opinion, just like you do. Unfortunately this opinion does not conform to your ideals that`s all. But unlike you I`ve never called you a collaborator of genocidal maniacs and gang rapists.

romair:

You should not ache so much for a `constitutional dictator` that you proclaim Qaid-e-Azam as one. I agree that his biggest failure - for whatever reason- health, not enough time, inconclusiveness of partition etc.- was that he didn`t leave a constitution for Pakistan. Anyway, he spent his whole life abiding by the law - his livelihood was the law and it makes no sense to suggest he could be considered a `dictator`.

Pakistan only needs indpenedently functioning INSTITUTIONS. That`s all. No messiahs, no khalifahs- just simply allowing an uninterupted process where institutions are allowed to grow. History shows that the likes of Musharaf will fail miserably. And then we will be back to square one.

I despise aristocracies- but Dina Wadia is an exception and besides she has nothing to gain from the hero-worship of the Qaid aside from respect of millions.

Mohar:

The answer to your inquiry is that Qaid-e-Azam did succeed with his approach.

But what is of bigger concern is the present day reality. Again people continue to fascinate about brining change through `outside` forces withouth generating a populist appeal. Again and again they fail. They do not like to face the system that 99% of society deals with every day so they want quick solutions. Yet they are incapable of producing a vision that will resonate with the masses. This is the real bind Pakistan is in. Complete absence of leaders with a vision COMBINED with a gang-raped constitution where no institution can develop.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

arjun at # 28:

``Resented her visit? resent..? moi? Au contraire, I am enjoying every minute of the coverage of how Jinnah`s own daughter and grandson chose to live in India and made their fortune there. ``

``Chose to live in India``

Perhaps after reading Montolives` backgrounder (posts 32, 33, 34), you might have realised that why I believe that you have an IQ in the negative.

Now please go back to copy and paste.