Open Letter To Dina Wadia

Mantolives: You have still not addressed the liers that liars like you tell. So I am putting them up again. Until you answer these, your arguments will remain those of a liar. I would like to challenge you to own up to your lies, or to point out why they are not lies. Instead of trying to belittle everyone`s knowledge.

Why is it that liars are always afraid to face up to their statements, after making them, when somoene challenges them? Is it because the house of cards they have built, will come down. Instead of trying to become the personal bodygaurd of Jinnah, how about first handling your own lies.

Jinnah was known for his integrity, first and foremost. And for his lack of nepotism, even for his own relatives. You have turned his whole legacy on its head. You worship at the feet of his relatives (something he would forbid all Pakistanis to do), and you lie (something he despised).

So please address your lies, or own up to them. Character assassination is a tactic used by people whose arguments are exposed in front of everyone. It is unfortunate you cannot argue against the resources I have quoted (I always comment on Jinnah, Nehru and Gandhi, through direct quotes from resources). I am waiting for your character assassination of Wolpert also. Luckily he is not a liar like you.

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

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

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

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

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``

Hoping that you will address your lies......Though I have a feeling you, like all liars who are exposed, will go off on tangents and furthur character assassinations, based on furthur lies. You attributed certain statements to me, which I have exposed.....Kindly reply......

Mantolives #: Wolpert and you conflict on certain statements:

You have stated:

``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.``

According to Wolpert, who actually directly quotes a close colleague of Jinnah:

``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.``


You have stated:

``He left her a large amount in inheritance ...``

I believe it is a well accepted fact, and Wolpert points in out, that Jinnah actually left a small fraction of his estate to his daughter. This goes against legal norms, and social norms, where the only child would get a majority of the estate, if not all of it` especially if she had no one else from her family, who was there to look after her (no mother, brother or sister):

``Fatima Jinnah, who inherited most of her brother`s estate``

Zamir in his reply has pointed out (though without a reference):

``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).``

Do you have some sources to back your points, which seem contrary to the facts?

Mantolives # ``In 1932, in Hampstead during a stroll, Jinnah picked up H C Armstrong`s work `Greywolf`, on the life of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of Turkey. He identified so intensely with the life of Ataturk that it was all he talked about for a few days, so much so that the 13 year old Dina Jinnah started calling him `Greywolf`.``

This one is true (finally something that is factual). It is well-known that Jinnah admired Ata-Turk. So do millions of Turks. I fail to see the point you are trying to make, however. Are you suggesting that Pakistanis should admire everyone that Jinnah admired? Are you associating some sort of a Sunnat with him? Is he now going to be turned into a Prophet or a Pir?

Jinnah admired many people. He probably disliked many, as well. I fail to see what that has to do with anything. He refused to recognize that he had a daughter. Should all Pakistanis do that, as well?

He did his job well. He created a country. After that, it is upto the people to take it in any direction they want to take it in. First and foremost, in this is, that they should all tell the truth, and not lie. Liars, to me, are the biggest problem of Pakistan. It doesn`t matter if they admire Ata-turk or Imam Ghazali. That is immaterial......

Error...

Oooops I made a mistake... Gujjubania`s great, modern and developed country ranks not 120... but 127 on HDI...

Gujjubania...

And where does the second one rank? 120 what? What an achievement ... you should truly be proud. Nobody expected that of you.

Human Development index, thanks to Dr. MahbubulHaq, measures primarily three thing .. 1) income 2) Longevity 3) Literacy... I agree with this scale if the collection of Data is some how verifiable ...

There are many critics out there of the HDI ... and one criticism which is quite reasonable is that in third world countries, the collection of Data is not accurate. From what I hear the economic indicators as well as the health indicators like life expectancy ... are outdated.. the number for the total population is based on an estimate... and similarly literacy rate can not be verified... How these estimates can be absolutely and totally wrong has been shown well in the past... In 1997 the estimated population of Pakistan was said to be 145 Million... then after the census the population turned out to be only 135 million. Imagine the error.


So be happy and continue to live in your fool`s paradise. Yes your country does rank 15 or so places above us on this HDI... but your countrymen found Pakistan to be quite a different place than they expected... perhaps you should have a word or two with them ... They are now misleading the youth of your country about Pakistan being this wonderful country and all that.

Rsidhar,

Sadly you have to view everything from the angle of putting us down. Your assertions comparisons and spin might be able to impress people who have little or no knowledge of history but I am sure will find no currency amongst reasonably aware people.

Jinnah himself was ruthless in putting down disturbances especially anti-Hindu and anti-Sikh violence... that is why most international newspapers were very forthcoming in their praise of a man who they had previously blamed for partition.

Referring to one such incident Hodson writes in his book `The Great Divide`:

`The mob then took to looting, particularly those of non-muslim shops in the city. When Mr. Jinnah heard what was happening he insisted who were brought in to control the situation were to be ordered to shoot to kill, and `not to take any prisoners among the rioters`. This instruction was not carried the letter but order was restored fairly quickly . The era of large scale massacres and mass migrations was virtually at an end. `

page 418...

It is not without reason that Jinnah deserves to be called the `Protector General of the Hindus` ... there are countless letters from Pakistani hindus addressed directly to the Governor General of Pakistan ... they had complete confidence in the man.

It is true that Jinnah was not a man of fasts and a spectacle... no way he could have been as famous as Gandhiji... and he lived only 1 year after partition as opposed to 17 years that Nehru spent on the helm ... but to make these comparisons the way you do is blatantly unfair to the cause of history... what Jinnah overcame... the tremendous odds, financial problems for the new state, huge influx of refugees.. some 5.5 million into Pakistan (as opposed to 3 or so million to India)... and 55 crores witheld for atleast 6 months ... Jinnah`s achievement was almost superhuman. That is why when Jinnah died Bernard Shaw predicted to Nehru that soon he would be inheriting Pakistan as it had lost its ablest leader.

Atleast make fair comparisons instead of regurgitating the same old superiority complex you suffer from.


-YLH

Whether canadians of this website like it or not... Pakistanis who live and toil hard in this country will continue to welcome Jinnah`s daughter as a state guest... here are two articles by two very famous Pakistanis... Cowasjee.. and Mehdi Masud.


Her father`s daughter


By Ardeshir Cowasjee

Paying her third visit last month to the country founded by her father, Dina Wadia, writing in the visitors` book at Jinnah`s Mazar, expressed the wish, ``May his dream for Pakistan come true.``

She first came to Pakistan in 1948, when the year-old country lost its founder, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, and she her father. Her memories of 1948 must solely be confined to the sad circumstances, to her own sorrow, and to the massive outpourings of grief by the hundreds and thousands who climbed the rocky hillock at dusk on September 12 to bury him.

It was a great pleasure to meet Mrs Wadia (who so resembles her father in features and manner), her son and his two sons, and to converse with her in our common expressive lingo, ``ParsiGuj``, which in one sentence can convey almost a written chapter. I took with me an old photograph of her father, cigarette in mouth, lounging on the lawn of his London house playing with his dogs, Essie, his Doberman and Peter, his West Highland Terrier. What else we discussed must remain private in deference to her wishes.

Invited by the chairman of our cricket board, Shahryar Khan, Dina Wadia came, with son Nusli and grandsons Ness and Jeh, to Lahore to watch the final one-day cricket match. The man, General Pervez Musharraf, who was extremely firm on the fact, soon after he took over Pakistan, that his dream for the country echoed Jinnah`s dream, travelled to Lahore to meet her. She, her son and grandsons then flew to Karachi, just for the day, to visit her father`s tomb. That to her mind her father`s dream was a far cry should come as no surprise to even the most unthinking of us Pakistanis.

She however should have been impressed with the upkeep of the tomb and with the development of the grounds in which it stands. She perhaps does not know that full credit for the landscaping of the gardens must go to the president general and his army team who have so well transformed a neglected, rundown and barren area.

It may have taken over a half a century to provide gardens in memory of a man who created this country, but how many, including his daughter, are aware that it took 22 years to build and complete the mausoleum in which he lies.

He lay under a tent to begin with, with architects coming and going, suggestions made, drafts drawn up, disagreement and discord. In 1956 the Quaid-i-Azam Mausoleum Committee was formed and it sought the advice of Khan Bahadur Suleiman, a former chief engineer of the public works department of undivided India. Architect Mehdi Ali Mirza and his junior, the young Khwaja Zaheeruddin, were summoned. They did the correct thing. They approached the International Union of Architects in Paris and set about organizing an international competition for the design of a suitable monument.

Fifty-seven entries were received and in 1958 the jury assembled in Karachi and the design sent in by Raglan Squire of Britain was selected as the winner. It was a beautiful design, striking in its simplicity, a huge concrete flowing canopy, far surpassing all others in its perfection.

Then in stepped the obdurate Miss Fatima Jinnah. She pulled rank and prevailed upon the government of the day to reject Squire`s design. At her insistence, an architect from Bombay was brought in and in 1960, President General Ayub Khan, fitting in with her wishes, approved his design. Construction was started, work progressed at a snail`s pace until in 1969 when President General Agha Mohammad Yahya Khan appeared on the scene, banged down his swagger stick, and the mausoleum was magically completed in December 1970.

A shortage of funds, of water, of initiative, of interest and of will, ensured that nothing was done about the landscaping - until along came another general in 1999. (Ironically, the three generals were more concerned than ``our democratically elected`` civilian heads of state and government).

Musharraf, in his early years, made much reference to Jinnah. He maintained it was not too late to revert and attempt to rebuild the country and the nation in the mould visualized by its maker. Speaking to the people from the mazar in 2001, on the 125th birth anniversary of Jinnah, the general told the nation that the way forward, the way he was attempting to take them, was Jinnah`s way. But to move forward ``we will have to step very cautiously.``

His decisions, said Musharraf, were to be taken with Jinnah`s vision of Pakistan in mind, encompassing a welfare state drawing inspiration from the tenets of true Islam, built on foundations of democracy, with respect and protection for the individual, with equal rights for men, women and children irrespective of religious faith or political views. (And it must be remembered that religion, according to Jinnah, is a matter solely between a man and his God - it has nothing to do with the business of the state).

Musharraf quoted from a speech Jinnah made in 1941: ``There are at least three main pillars which go to make a nation worthy of possessing a territory and running a government. One is education. Next, no nation and no people can ever do anything very much without making themselves economically powerful in commerce, trade and industry. And lastly, you must prepare yourselves for your defence, defence against external aggression and to maintain internal security.``

In tune with Jinnah`s creed in his never to be forgotten speech of August 11, 1947, to the members of his Constituent Assembly (which warrants daily repetition), Musharraf asked his countrymen to ``sink all religious and sectarian differences and show tolerance of each other`s beliefs, views and thoughts, to shun religious differences.`` Religious intolerance, said he, has utterly blurred Jinnah`s vision.

The nation has deviated. Not only are we unable to tolerate other religions, but ``we refuse to accommodate the views of the various sects of our own religion. We have undermined Islam to a level that people of the world associate it with illiteracy, backwardness, intolerance, obscurantism and militancy.``

He admitted that ``corruption and nepotism have eaten the nation like termites from within. He made an appeal to the so-called ``elite``: ``Let society treat the corrupt with contempt so that the fear of God is put into them and they at least hide and feel ashamed instead of showing off their ill-gotten riches.``

We had hopes then before matters went awry, that we perhaps had a man intent on focusing on Jinnah`s vision, who, with strength and support, would ensure that it became reality.

But time and circumstance and preoccupations other than with the elusive dream, took its toll. The general was sidetracked. External interests were focused on the waging of the international war against terrorism which demanded that Pakistan put in place some sort of democratic system as a showcase to placate western powers.

To do this, Musharraf maintains, he could not but succumb to the will of the people as ostensibly manifested through a general election. He had no choice but to accept as legislators many of the corrupt, the old robbers, and rather than extracting what he could from their ill-gotten gains, letting them stand trial, be sentenced and perhaps jailed, they were installed in the assemblies and several were given cabinet portfolios.

To finalize the democratic process, such as it is, the general did a deal with the forces of obscurantism, the militant mullahs, and to keep them happy and in place, has made concessions that are in direct conflict with the dream that Jinnah dreamt. This move spells danger, and it calls for control. At a press conference in New Delhi on July 14, 1947, one month before the birth of this country, Mohammad Ali Jinnah was asked: ``Will Pakistan be a secular or theocratic state?`` His answer: ``You are asking me a question that is absurd. I do not know what a theocratic state means.``

Jinnah`s way was forward, never looking back - progressive, tolerant, building rather than destroying, respecting human rights and freedoms not stamping on them, winning international respect for policies of tolerance, sanity and care of the people, rather than being classed as a pariah at odds, with the times and a world on the move.

Musharraf still tells us that he believes in the dream. If this be so, it is incumbent on him, though battling against formidable odds, to somehow ensure that before he departs from the political scene he steers us onto the right path. He has time, and hopefully the will, to enforce in the country a system of law and order which so far he and his arm have dismally failed to do (his civilian government is helpless and hopeless).

He and his men have admittedly managed an improvement from the chaos and mayhem of the twin governments of the 1990s. But looking firmly towards the future, he (not his helpless government) must ensure that not only are the nation`s children educated, but rightly educated so that they may not merely survive but be enabled to participate in the 21st century.

---

A journey of reconciliation


By Mahdi Masud

Dina`s was no easy situation. Her parents had separated when she was nine, her adored mother had passed away a year later and the Quaid`s refusal to accept her choice of a life partner was a painful burden.

The recent visit, during the cricket ODIs, of the Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah`s daughter, grandson and great-grandsons has received only fleeting media notice on the premise, apparently, that there was no political or public policy aspects or implications of the visit. Of considerable interest, however, is the emotional significance of the visit of the Quaid`s progeny in the troubled background of Dina`s relationship with her illustrious father, ever since her marriage.

For necessary perspective, a brief reference to the break-up of her parent`s marriage would be in order. Her mother Ruttee Jinnah could not have foreseen that the bonds of deep mutual affection and admiration which linked her to her distinguished spouse would be grievously tested by the demands of destiny which beckoned her life partner and which entailed total concentration on his lofty aims and Himalayan mission.

This had also happened to spouses of other outstanding leaders in the subcontinent and beyond. Kamla Nehru suffered grievously and died a premature death, her illustrious husband caught up in the vortex of India`s independence struggle. Kasturba suffered to a great extent; Mahatama Gandhi having forsaken even elementary matrimonial duties in his quest for spiritual greatness.

The list of outstanding historical figures who had little time for their spouses is long, though there are exceptions. This is how Violet Bonham Carter, a close friend of Winston Churchill, described Winston`s emotional dependence on his ``sweet Clementine``. Wrote Violet Bonham Carter: ``Clementine was the fire by which Winston warmed his hands and dried his tears. She was the night light by his bed. She was security!``

Dina Jinnah was born in London, shortly past midnight on August 14-15, 1919, interestingly enough, 28 years to the day and hour before the birth of ``Jinnah`s other offspring, Pakistan``. During the early years of their life together, Ruttee Jinnah ``even attended stormy political gatherings with her husband, sitting with him on the platform, a vivid reminder of all that Jinnah personally risked`` during a period of revolutionary turmoil in India, in the words of Jinnah`s biographer, Stanley Wolpert.

Separation from her husband after a decade of married life and her sensitive nature may have accentuated serious problems of Ruttee`s physical health. Kanji Dwarkadas gives a touching portrait of the time when she was in a Paris nursing home, some months before her death in Bombay. He found her one early morning with a collection of Oscar Wilde, open on a poem which read, interalia, ``Down the long and silent street, Dawn with silver sandalled feet, crept like a frightened girl!``, a reflection perhaps of her own state of mind. No wonder, Jinnah is said to have broken down and wept like a child when her body was lowered in the grave, according to Diwan Chaman Lal and other family friends.

It has been said that the Creator recalls earlier from this world those who have already fulfilled the destined test of mortal life. Perhaps Ruttee Jinnah, who died when only 30 (in 1929), was one of these special creatures. Although the Quaid survived her by about 19 years, during which he, in the words of Stanley Wolpert, ``altered the course of history, modified the map of the world and created a new nation state``, a triple feat achieved by no one else, it would be safe to assume that in the deepest and most tender recesses of his heart, he sorely and frequently missed Ruttee, the only known love of his life.

Although Jinnah`s personal life, after the death of Ruttee, lost most of its gaiety and verve, he still responded to sincerity, sensitivity and genuine feeling. One instance is that of Sarojini Naidu, the Nightingale of India, one of his closest friends and admirers, who penned some of the most fulsome tributes to Jinnah that any man has ever received. It was Sarojini Naidu who described him as ``the Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity``and on the Quaid`s demise sent ``an imperishable flower of memory to be placed on the grave of my dear, departed friend.``

Reverting to Dina, her`s was no easy situation. Her parents had separated when she was nine and her adored mother had passed away a year later. The Quaid`s refusal to accept her choice of a life partner was a painful burden which she carried. For obvious reasons, she must have been a heart-broken young woman when she came to Karachi in 1948 for her father`s funeral. The overwhelming sorrow of the surging millions at the funeral should have confirmed to her some of the sources of the Quaid`s strength and greatness.

The insistence by Dina Wadia and her family, on privacy, and a low profile during the recent visit, was understandable. With her son and grandchildren living in India, the need to eschew any political overtones was equally understandable. That the visit purely for cricket is, however, an excuse. The journey was apparently a journey of reconciliation, a last chance perhaps for the 85-year-old Dina to make her peace, not only with her father but also with the state he brought into being, a state, which, with all its faults, continues to be regarded as a major actor on the world scene. Which daughter would not long for a final farewell to her legendary father, a word of reconciliation, of letting bygones be bygones, of love and affection. How truly apt were the words ``Sad and wonderful`` used by Dina to describe her visit to her father`s last resting place.And which grandson would not wish to pay a homage to his grandfather who in the words of the London Times obituary, ``had become a legend even during his lifetime.`` Going beyond his mother who had noted that she prayed for the realization of her father`s dreams, Nuslie Wadia wrote that while his dream of visiting Pakistan had been realized, he hoped to come again to witness the further fulfilment of his grandfather`s dreams. Most befitting were the sentiments recorded by the Quaid`s great-grandchildren, Jehangir and Ness: ``It is a great honour to be here. Thank you for everything,`` they wrote.

---

Mohar

My dear friend... there is no countering biases.... you have your mind set on what you believe... hence nothing of what even people like Ambedkar, Gandhi, Nehru, Mandela or Hodson would say would convince you otherwise.... I am only a simple Pakistani who studies History as a hobby.

I can`t change people`s opinions who are blinded by hate.



Romair,

The only one involved in character assassination here is you. It is clear as the day. The problem is with people like you who seem to refer to only one book. Stanley Wolpert in the introduction accepts that he never interviewed Dina or any of Jinnah`s family. His one liner about Jinnah`s daughter is based on nothing but what people in Pakistan told him. Wolpert wrote a great book, and my wife had the opportunity of meeting him last year in Washington... no doubt he is a great scholar... but it doesn`t mean he is not human. There are many errors now pointed out by many historians... for example... according to Wolpert Kanji Dwarkadas is a Hindu... whereas he was a parsi... there are a number of such mistakes in Wolpert`s book. When studying a historical figure one book is not enough... one should go through many to get a holistic picture... over the last 5 years I have read a few books on Jinnah and now I have started reading the Jinnah papers. Given the right context few could argue that the position I have taken is contrary to the facts. The few that do argue this are people like you and also your buddies in the MMA who shamelessly declare that they are the guardians of the so called ideology of Pakistan.

Akbar S Ahmed, who otherwise is a nonsense writer, admits in his books that Jinnah maintained contact with his daughter right to the end. You can call me a liar all you want... it won`t make me a liar. Your whole attack on Jinnah`s daughter is indicative of a mentality only Mullahs have in this country... and you know very well your real intentions though you are trying to couch it in other terms.

Jinnah`s last will and testament:

``I direct my executors to set apart Rs. 200,000/- (two lacs) or (two hundred thousands) which will at 6% bring an income of Rs. 1,000/- one thousand and pay the income thereof whatever it be to my daughter every month for her life or during her lifetime and after her death the corpus of two lacs so set apart to be divided equally between her children, males or females, in default of issue the corpus to fall into my residuary estate.``


Note ... he uses the word `Daughter` and not `Ms. Wadia` as Wolpert asserts. I am not sure of the 10 million figure... ofcourse there was the house, the securities etc... the correspondence between Jinnah and his daughter is already available, both in the Jinnah papers and other books... and they prove beyond a doubt what I am saying.


I addressed the rest of your issues in #60 which you didn`t have the moral courage to respond to. I must say that you are misleading everyone by suggesting otherwise.

Your assertions about Jinnah`s constitutional dictatorship... sadly this is also based on your lack of information and your dependence on only one book.

``Jinnah accumulated all power in him as the leader of the party, head of the administration and the State, a virtual dictator.``

Jinnah resigned as the President of the Muslim League in December 1947 after AIML was officially laid to rest succeeded by PML and IUML. Under the Constitution of 1935, the Governor General was the supreme authority. Coupled with Jinnah`s status as the `Quaid-e-Azam` and the undisputed leader of the people, Jinnah naturally was the philosopher and guide of the new state, much like the other great man produced by the Islamic world, Kemal Ataturk... who too chose to be the president of the republic instead of the Prime minister. Yet had Jinnah been a dictator, he would have written a constitution like De Gaulle for example and given it to the people. But he did not, allowing instead the Constituent assembly to deliberate on it... and this was a big mistake. The problem in my estimate was that at that critical juncture he didn`t use the authority to the extent he should have. He had the legal ability to do so... but he didn`t. What is dictatorship anyway... if the constitution vests decision making power in him, he can hardly be called a dictator. Yet Jinnah used only a fraction of those powers... he wasn`t even able to force his will on Mamdot and Daultana when he tried to bridge the rift between them. They refused, and continued to rule Punjab as they pleased when Jinnah was living in those days only a few miles away in the Jinnah House near the new Lahore Airport... The letters make interesting reading, especially those between Sir Francis Mudie and the Quaid-e-Azam... far from a dictator.

For the umpteenth time, I must recommend the `Jinnah Papers` to everyone. Doodh ka doodh Pani ka Pani ho jaye ga... and if you can`t find them, then read an excellent debate on the issue in the book `Formative Phase` by Khalid bin Sayeed.


As for Ataturk... Jinnah admired him because he wanted to do the same in Pakistan. According to M J Akbar of Asia Age, Jinnah wanted to be an Indian Ataturk, modernizing the Muslims, ... he had told his sister once `If I got as much power as Ataturk, I would modernize India`s Muslims.` This was in the 1930s... and atleast according to Hector Bolitho`s `Jinnah, the Creator of Pakistan` written in 1951, one of the major motivations behind Jinnah`s return... so the fact that Jinnah admired Ataturk, and that both Iqbal and Jinnah referred to Ataturk as an inspiration is very significant in the discussion of what kind of Pakistan the founding fathers envisaged, whether or not you my dear canadian friend like it or not.

You are right... it is upto us Pakistanis and not you canadian, what Pakistan should be, and who should be a state guest in Pakistan or not. ... as for `khotay sikay` or `counterfeit coins`... they end up being buried in Cambridge University, after screaming on media such as this website on what they think Pakistan should be.


-YLH

Ignoring all the circumstances of the pre- and post 1947 era and hypthosizing in a vaccum, the answer to your question still is:

NO. He was not a constitutional dictator. One who is a popular leader cannot be a dictator. One who has to go to the people to seek office cannot be a dictator. Simple as that. Let me answer your question again: NO. and again. NO.

Similarly, Mahatir wasn`t really a constitutionalist dictator. He could be booted out of office through elections.

I`m pretty sure you`re not going to bother answering my prior queries. I know why. I think you`ve learned your lesson that Malaysia, China etc cannot be used in any way as examples where nations can be lead to success under dictatorships without the need for democracy. Next time I hear this from you, I`ll assume it`s not coming out of your mouth but elsewhere.

Cheers!

re: Mantolive`s last post to me
Did i say that Jinnah did not care for communal harmony? I am sure he did and i am sure he did prevent communal riots in Pakistan.
However, the moment Jinnah said he wanted a seperate nation for muslims, he is infact saying that muslims cannot live with hindus as the latter cannot be trusted. How did this happen? How did the ``ambassador of hindu-muslim unity`` (as Sarojini Naidu called him) become the founder of a muslim nation?
Clearly even you (despite your deep knowledge of Jinnah`s life) cannot tell what went on in his mind. Jinnah was a very private person and few knew what was brewing in his mind.
I suspect it had a lot to do with his own political fortunes which he saw dwindle when Gandhiji took center stage and took over the mantle of hindu-muslim unity and Jiinah had to fight for space in congress. Did he not remain for sometime member of both Congress and Muslim league? Those were perhaps the transition time, when he was fighting to preserve his cherished ideal of communal unity but another voice must have whispered to him that his and his muslim brothers` destinies lay elsewhere, not with the Hindu India whose leader was Gandhi, a man he had come to dislike intensely.
Let us not forget that both Nehru and Jinnah were western educated elites. They both believed in western secularism, rule of law and religion meant little to both. Jinnah was not a religious man though he cared for muslims. Nehru was an avowed atheist. But Nehru reconciled at some stage to Gandhiji`s rise in stature in Congress as the undisputed leader and stayed close to him during the freedom struggle and inherited both his aura and political mantle. Gandhiji named Nehru his successor and it was a well known fact in those days that Nehru would become PM as and when India became free.
Jinnah could not reconcile to Gandhiji`s stature and leadership that he assumed of Congress and he rebelled. His must have been a very difficult decision. The other man who rebelled was Subhash Chandra Bose. One gets a sense that Gandhiji unruffled more feathers than one could care to count!
Now, imagine that British India was a muslim majority country with a hindu minority. In that scenario, Jinnah would have been the undisputed leader of India. He would not have to sacrifice some of his core ideals and he would have reconciled to Gandhiji`s status as a minority leader. He would not have to fight for a seperate nation state then.
One wonders if Gandhiji would then have fought for a seperate homeland for hindus but i doubt it. Just food for thought!
Sridhar

Manto

Your various posts quoting famous people on Jinnah are informative .... and attest the personal attributes of the man - that he was honest, incorruptible etc... I have no dispute with that. To put matters in to perspective - so is Bush Jr. He personally is a very affable, honest, caring, health-consciuous person. But that means jack to Iraqis. His policies are a curse on his nation and others too.

At the end of the day - Jinnah would be known for the rabid communal politics which he practiced to a perfection - creating a whole country out of nowhere within space of a decade. Direct Action day was a direct call to violence against majority community. You can`t hide behind Nehru, Cabinet Mission plan or whatever.

In these matters - the parallel with Advani is remarkable. Advani is yet another politician who would be known for the rabid communal politics which he practiced to a perfection - dramatically taking a party from two seats to seat of power within a space of decade. His Rath Yatra was direct call to violence against minority community. He can`t hide behind mandal, caste politica, VP singh or whoever.

re:#95 by mohar11
Jinnah was a great leader in his own rights. I am perhaps doing a great disservice by comparinng him to other leaders of his time. All these were great men. Men of great character, integrity.
Jiinah knew he was dying. Any ordinary mortal would have not bothered about homeland for the muslims. It is clear that he felt it strongly and he really did care for the muslims of the subcontinent. But the tragedy is that when this did happen, his earlier ideals of hindu-muslim unity fell to pieces. He could not have founded a new home for muslims (some not all) and yet claimed the he cared for hindu-muslim unity. The very day he founded a home on a religious basis, he became non-secular. He then could not have claimed that he wanted a secular nation though deep down he was secular and he did care for communal harmony.
I think he sacrificed his core ideals of secularism, communal harmony for a cause he thought was greater: muslim homeland.
Let us not compare L.K.Advani and Jinnah.
Advani is a political opportunist with no ideals. The guy went around Rath Yatra spreading communal hatred for votes. Today, the same guy has changed colors and is talking about communal harmony. All for votes. I prefer Modi who at least is sticking to some ideals he cherishes, however despicable those ideals may be. Modi has more integrity than Advani even though both belong to the trashcan.
Jinnah towers over every politician of the subcontinent today, including ABV.
Sridhar

Romair (various posts):

Thanks for referring to Stanley Wolpert so much that I had to buy it and am now going through it. It seems like a good contribution from a neutral writer.

I come from a family that supported JUI for last many years. So reading some thing on Quaid-e-Azam`s secular view point is quite unusual when our parents tell us all the time that he wanted to have a Islamic State.

But then I agree with some folks that I intermingle with in real life, whose viewpoint is that we should not raise any issues about his life and ideaology that may bring in controversy and fractiousness in the society. Let us accord a status to him of an infallible. If we raise any single issue, that may lead to opening of the floodgates. It is like same philosophy that we apply to dealing with Sahaba-e-Rasool (may Allah forgive me if I make any excess). We do not raise any points about their fallibility. Comparison is not on my mind, but following the same methodology definitely is.

So why get into any controversy about a person who has indirectly given us so much in our lives?

Taking the strength from his character and his vision, we, as a nation 140 million strong, and strong in terms of military capabilities and almost on the verge of an economic take-off, can remain focused on economic and social development to turn the country into something that Quaid wanted.

#106 by rsridhar
//Let us not compare L.K.Advani and Jinnah. ..//

Well - I am not sure. I will like to take things at the face value rather than try to
second-guess any given fact or situation .... what somebody might or might not be thinking ... why he did what he did ... all these are speculations ... more or less.

There was no overwhelming evidence that muslim community would be oppressed at hands of hindus, as alleged by Jinnah ....... just like there was no overwhelming evidence of so-called muslim appeasement - as alleged by advani.

At the end of the day - the outcomes of the policies adopted by two men are the similiar. And yet - one of them would be considered a ``towering`` personality and the other is an opportunist.

I don`t buy that. Both must be held equally accountable to the outcome of their policies and not be white-washed for expediency.

Rozaiba #103: ````NO. He was not a constitutional dictator. One who is a popular leader cannot be a dictator. One who has to go to the people to seek office cannot be a dictator.``

Thank you for finally answering the question. Even though it has taken you so long to get to the point.

It seems you have no issues with centralized authority in the hands of a Governor General (or a President; or chose whatever name). Hmm.....interesting views on Parliamentary democracy, you have. As long as you like someone, he can never be a constitutional or unconstitutional dictator. Your views basically turn Parliamentary democracy on its head........I would assume you are strong supporter of a strong Presidency in our current political system. I mean, you do seem to support it for Jinnah....

I had used the term Constitutional dictator, you used the term dictator, but lets let that slide. Some of the most populist leaders have been constitutional dictators. They have to be popular to come into power Constitutionally. It is then that they centralize power in one their own hands; sometimes for the right reasons, and sometimes for the wrong reasons.

But according to your explanations, as long as someone is popularly elected, they cannot become a constitutional dictator. So an elected laeder can do anything to put all the power in their own hands, he will never be a constitutional dictator. And if a Governor General (or President) appoints the Prime Minsiter, and choses the Cabinet, sits over cabinet meetings, while simulatneously remaining head of his party, he is not doing anything wrong. Do you think the President in Pakistan`s current system should have such powers?

What if a popularly elected leader storms the Supreme Court and gets rid of the Chief Justice. Is there anything wrong with that?

``I`m pretty sure you`re not going to bother answering my prior queries.``

You are far too sure of yourself. Kindly list any queries you have in a list of questions. And I will be more than happy to answer them. And it will not take five replies to get me to answer them. I will answer them directly in my next reply. I don`t have any agenda or personal preferences (unlike you). I try to present and comment on issues as I see them, following constant principles. So please go ahead and shoot, and ask away..........

Ahmadzai #109: ``Thanks for referring to Stanley Wolpert so much that I had to buy it and am now going through it. It seems like a good contribution from a neutral writer.``

You are most welcome. Do read Wolpert. He is very good and credible. Big fan of Jinnah and of Gandhi. Like me. It will give you a real picture of these men. And not the picture that many repliers on this site try to present.

Jinnah has unfortunately become a tool for individuals trying to define Pakistan`s creation, within the boundaries of Secularism and Islam. They use and abuse Jinnah, as they like. And most of all they try to claim ownership of him, for some reason. Kind of like, how people try to claim ownership of Islam, stating themselves to be Islam`s self-appointed defenders and onwers. Turning him into a punching bag, to make their points.

Such arguments and individuals only look at the side of Jinnah that suits their arguments and never to the other side, which contradicts them. These are the same the individuals who will cheer for Musharraf, if he cheers for Ata-turk, completely ignoring the fact that he is a dictator. And will cheer for Zia if he cheers for Imam Ghazali, completely ignoring he was dictator. However, the moment, either drops Ata-turk or Ghazali, they will start calling them dictators.

Their views are not based on principles. They are based on whomever is pushing their agenda.

With respect to Jinnah, usually a quote from Wolpert is enough to shut everyone up. Like the individuals who trying to distort history by attempting to hide Jinnah`s huge dislike for his daughter to the point of never meeting her, or even acknowleding her as his daughter. And the ones, who were comparing him to Mousollini. Distorting history to push a personal agenda, should always be challenged and the liars exposed.

``Let us accord a status to him of an infallible. If we raise any single issue, that may lead to opening of the floodgates.``

I am afraid this is something I cannot agree with. It is necessary to understand leaders for who they were, without putting a halo around them. Otherwise, everyone will put Jinnah into their own bucket of infallibility. The Islamists will put him into an Islamic bucket, and the Secularists will put him into a secular bucket. And so on. Yet we will never know what he really was. This will lead to more division than anything else.

At the same time, one cannot live in the past however. I think people who rely too much on nostalogia, i.e. ``his dream is not fulfilled,`` ``if he saw us now`` etc. are pessimists and have low self-esteem. They don`t have faith in their own capabilities. They want to hold onto the past because they don`t have confidence to handle the future.

It is, thus, sad to see young men and women treat Jinnah`s daughter (and even his grandson) as some sort of a barometer, along whose quotes Pakistan should be judged. That is the height of lack of self-esteem. She should just be viewed as an elderly lady, who was treated very very unfairly by her father in her youth, due to which she developed great differences with him (and probably a great dislike) to the point of him, not recognizing her as his daughter, and her not bothering to come to his grave, nor to her Aunt`s funeral. That is it. I don`t understand why people are so insecure that they are looking to her as some sort of a Pakistani saviour or heroine.

People should study Jinnah, for historical purposes, in a completely impartial manner, without relying on lies to push their own agenda. That is it. Not look at him as a saviour. Nor as a person along whose wishes, the future of Pakistan should be built. He is dead. He did his job, wonderfully. There is no way he could have predicted the solutions to present-day Pakistan`s problems, fifty years ago. The future of Pakistan should be decided by Pakistanis who are alive, at the moment.

Pessimists and those will low self-esteem look to the past for comfort and safety, in the arms of dead personalities. Optimists and those with self-confidence, study the past for history, but only rely on their own skills and talents, to define a future for themselves.

I have very little respect for some individuals on this site, who try to use Jinnah, to push their own agendas (Islamism, Secularism, TNT, Pakistan`s breakup with India etc.). Such individuals and their views are usually quite harmful, becasue they will resort to lies, if they have to, to push a point.....One needs to be careful.