Open Letter To Dina Wadia

Why are they afraid of Dina Wadia... why of an old woman of 86?

The state of our education is that we feed our youth lies and more lies. Romair is the product of the local educational system... he has been taught such brilliant lies as `Quaid-e-Azam disowned his daughter`... `his daughter foresake Pakistan`... `Jinnah`s daughter is the enemy of Pakistan`... it is to be expected ofcourse... remember Muslims are the people who even murdered their Prophet`s grandson and then used Islam to justify it.

Jinnah never disowned his daughter. Even after Pakistan he was constantly in touch with her contrary to what the Islamic idealogues will have us believe. He left her a large amount in inheritance ... and the whole `aaq` business is the imagination of the people who wrote Pakistan`s history after 1979.... but even a pathetic ideologically motivated scholar like Akbar S Ahmed accepts that Jinnah never disowned his daughter... in 1976 Bhutto tried hard to bring her to Pakistan ... but she didn`t, because she was heartbroken at the turn for the worst our country had taken. Why did she choose this point... maybe this is an endorsement of the peace process between our two nations... after all Jinnah had envisaged not two nuclear states at logger heads but two peaceful and prosperous states working together for the greater good.


As everyone can imagine, I was very excited when I found out about Dina Wadia`s visit... I told a colleague of mine who teaches Pakistan studies ... he replied `so what should we do ` ... why are people like Romair and my colleague afraid of Dina Wadia... they are afraid that she will tell the truth and shatter the myth of the `Islamic` ideology and `Islamism` that they want to weave around Pakistan... she would make it clear that Jinnah`s issue was always that of a minority`s rights, and never a theological question... they thought that with Jinnah`s death and Fatima Jinnah`s murder they had forever buried Jinnah ... they obviously hadn`t counted on Dina`s coming back .... now they are afraid their mythology will come tumbling down. Hence all the lies about her.


Call me an emotional fool ... but much like Rozaiba, I cherish even the ground Jinnah`s daughter walked on...

at Jinnah`s tomb .. Dina wrote:

`It is a sad and wonderful visit. May his dream for Pakistan come true`...


Nusli wrote:

`My dream to come here has come true. Now I will come back to see his dream come true`.

Jinnah`s family has finally spoken ... the dream has not been fulfilled ....Jinnah`s dream has been shattered by the mullahs and the faujiz and the Romairs of this world.... time to reclaim that dream. I just regret that they were `state guests`.... maybe this was a way of the Government to keep a check on what they do while they were in this country.

-YLH

Given some of the weird ideas being put forward by people on this board, especially by Romair and Mohar... I think we need to put up some facts:

1) Jinnah never disowned his daughter. Even the ideologically motivated Islamist author Akbar S Ahmed accepts this.. Jinnah`s last will and testament is evidence enough.

2) Dina Wadia is not a citizen of Pakistan OR India. She is a British citizen and is living in the US. She has never opposed Pakistan as some have put up here. In fact she went on the record congratulating her father on the acceptance of the Pakistan principle. Even in the game (5th One Day International) when asked she responded that she was sad that Pakistan was losing.

3) Nusli Wadia s/o Neville Wadia is the heir to the Wadia`s fortune which was big even before partition. Even though he is very close to people like Jaswant Singh, and was in the past a close friend of Sanjay Gandhi... Nusli Wadia remains a British citizen like his mother.

4) Nusli Wadia is not a Muslim... he is a PARSI... as for Dina Jinnah ... she is very private about her personal faith so we don`t know.

5) Both Dina`s and Nusli`s complaint against Pakistan has been that it has not fulfilled the promise that it held ... of a modern secular Democratic state that Jinnah wanted it to be. It is therefore that they opposed Musharraf`s attempt at the acquistion of Jinnah house.


So all the talk on this board just pure nonsense...

-YLH

Mantolives #various:

You need to get out of your habit of considering yourself more Pakistani than anyone else. You, Urstruly and Rozaiba have a habit of considering yourself the ultimate patriots/mujahids. I am not quite sure what you base this on. It is very difficult to debate something with individuals who are already convinced that they have a monopoly on Islam, or on Pakistan, or on Jinnah, or on democracy, or on patriotism. They turn into self-propogating idelogues.

My whole argument was based on the fact that I don`t think people should be made State guests, because they are the children of someone - even Jinnah. I had nothing to do with liking or disliking Dina Wadia. Apparently, my local education taught me enough to understand this. As did the local education of so many other interactors on this board, including Ras. NHK and ahmadzai. Your foreign education could not pick up on this. Please feel free to debate this point, i.e. you think people should be treated as State guests if they are the kids of someone, who may not even be alive, or not in a State position.

Based on this, would you agree that Bilawal Bhutto should be a State guest? Do you think the children of Amitabh Bachan should be state guests? Why not the children of Liaqut Ali Khan? What about Jinnah`s grand-nephews who are actually in Pakistan? What about the children of Ghaffar Khan? What about the next generations of Sir Syed Ahmad? What about the kids and grandkids of Allama Iqbal?

This is the kind of hero-worship we need to get out of. It is a slave mentality. Jinnah was a great man. His daughter may (or may not) be a great woman. But she does not meet the criteria of being a State guest. Please debate this, without trying to let out your personal frustrations. You are in your twenties now, and cannot be given the benefit of being a kid any longer.

Now over to the false statements, which are becoming too common in your replies. Kindly point out where I stated the following. If you cannot point it out, then please let me know why you make such false claims in your replies. It is unethical.

Lie No. 1: ``... `Jinnah`s daughter is the enemy of Pakistan``

Where did I say Jinnah`s daughter is the enemy of Pakistan. In fact, I stated the following: ``I am sure Dina Wadia is probably a wonderful person.....I am happy Dina Wadia and her son came to Pakistan to watch the match``

Lie No. 2: ....Romair is the product of the local educational system...

How do you know what educational system I am a part of. My guess is I have studied in non-Pakistan systems far longer than you have. Including a large part of my elementary school years. But that is neither here nor there. I think Pakistan`s educational system, though wanting, does have some good schools. I don`t put down Pakistanis who have a local education, or an Urdu-medium education. Many of them make far better points than yourself......

Lie No. 3: ``he has been taught such brilliant lies``

How exactly do you know what I have been taught or not taught. Can you name some schools I have gone to. Obviously you don`t know. Yet you are bent upon making a statement on the basis of what you don`t know.

Lie No. 4: why are people like Romair and my colleague afraid of Dina Wadia``

Where did I say I was afraid of her. Why would I be afraid of her? Where did fear come into it? Once again, I stated, `` am sure Dina Wadia is probably a wonderful person.....I am happy Dina Wadia and her son came to Pakistan to watch the match``

Lie No. 5: ``they are afraid that she will tell the truth and shatter the myth of the `Islamic` ideology and `Islamism` that they want to weave around Pakistan``

Where did I state that I want to create a myth of Islamic ideology around Pakistan. Please highlght. I don`t have any kind of myth of ideology for Pakistan. That is what separates me from people like yourself. I consider myself an average Pakistani citizen, who feels he has no right to dictate his own views onto everyone.

For the time being, this is enough. You replies, as usual, are full of lies. But I will let you respond to these, before I point out the others (which I will definitely point out, to ensure, you start telling the truth). Another thing I would like to point out:

``Jinnah`s dream has been shattered by the mullahs and the faujiz and the Romairs of this world``

I think Jinnah`s dream has been shattered by lawyers and potential lawyers who lie too much. And will go to any extent, including lying, to try to prove their ideologies. Jinnah must be rolling in his grave, if he found out the following:

1. A relative of his was give State privelages just because she was the relative of an important person. I am sure he did not want that kind of a Pakistan

2. Lawyers and potential lawyers attempting character assasinations, through lies, instead of debating issues

3. People making the following statements, ``I cherish even the ground Jinnah`s daughter walked on...`` I doubt Jinnah ever made such a statement about anyone.

I would actually be very interested in meeting Jinnah`s daughter. I would be interesting to get into a conversation with her, about her father. She is probably a nice person, I assume. But should not be a state guest, unless she does something to earn it. But not anyone whose walking steps I would cherish (everyone is a human being in my book). She is a human being, living a life, in a manner she has a right to live (just like the rest of us).

I do wish she would have taken the trouble to visit Pakistan, regularly, if she was concerned about the place. Usually, when you are concerned about something or someone, you visit them, regardless of the condition they maybe in. In fact, you visit them more often if they are not doing well, if you are concerned about them. Doesn`t matter if you are the daughter of its founder or the daughter of a sweeper who migrated to that place. My guess is Jinnah would have wanted her to visit Pakistan regularly......But that is a separte debate.

Romair #2

{
Could someone explain exactly why Dina Wadia is a celebrity
}

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. Also what made you think that Quied was constitutional dictator?

Yasir Sahib.
Weather or not Quied had disowned his daughter is irrelevant. I don’t think she disagreed with his policies though. I remember reading in “freedom at mid night”, that on August 14th, 1947 she had two flags posted on her balcony, one of Pakistan and the other of India. The most important thing that was written in Quied’s tomb by his grand son – “… I will come back to see his dream come true”.

Now about Ms. Wadia and Jinnah’s family in general. Ms. Wadia had married Mr. Naville Wadia. Quid was worth about Rs. 10 million (1 Crore), yet he left her only 200 thousand (2 lacks). He made sure that his sisters and brother were taken care of (with a monthly expenses) and left all his properties and investments for Ms. Fatima Jinnah and several educational institutes (based Alligarh, Delhi, Peshawar and Karachi).

Jinnah was so against nepotism that he asked his brother Ahmed Ali Jinnah to not migrate to Pakistan saying “You are brilliant lawyer.., but every time you will appear in a court of law the judge will remember you as my brother”. His brother, who was married to a European lady never migrated to Pakistan and their only child is now settled in Switzerland. All of his sisters migrated to Pakistan. The last one, Ms. Sherreen Jinnah passed away some time in 1980s. With the exception of Ms. Fatima Jinnah, who ran in the Presidential elections in 1960s, none of his family members ever used his name for political or economic gains. Even today one of his closest relative Mr. Liaqat Merchant lives in Pakistan as successful lawyer.

Ms. Wadia herself is not settled in India, but in New York where she has been living for at least two decades, her address and phone number are listed in white pages. She has a son ( Nusli Wadia ) and a daughter who also lives in New York. Mr. Navielle Wadia, though was a very successful business man in own right, migrated from India and settled in Switzerland, he passed away in 1990s.

Now a word about the Wadias. Nusli Wadia might be a brilliant and successful businessman, but by no means he is a self made man. Wadias are an old Parsee family, who became rich at least a couple of centuries ago. Before joining the textile business, they had tried other ventures like ship building etc. It is said that the US national anthem was written on a ship built by the Wadias, and Hong Kong’s accession document to UK were also signed on ship build by the Wadias.

arjun at # 27:

I pity you. Not that you are only a person with no brains, you are a baysharam too. I asked that you produce two posts from me in support of an earlier argument. Not only you did not produce any evidence, you wrote something in anger without any sound economic reasoning that proves that things are not moving as per your expectations.

Surely, Pakistan is on the right track e.g. it is about to become USA`s non-NATO ally and is not isolated, that is making you more and more frustrated.

:-)

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

Mantolives:

Thanks for the information on Dina Wadia.

Cheers!

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.

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.

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.

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.

# 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.

---