Sieving history for facts

Vandana Shukla

This is very tragic — but very thrilling. M. A. Jinnah on the Partition

The Partition of India is a difficult territory for any writer to tread lightly. Venkat Dhulipala, steps on this landmine equipped with fresh insight and knowledge. The writer questions the established theories on the Partition, analyses and states facts in a new light of his exhaustive research in Creating a new Medina: State power, Islam, and the Quest for Pakistan in Late Colonial North India.

The accepted truth of books on the Partition like India Wins Freedom by Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and other new anthropological studies that dissect the Partition theory of the British through personal narratives like Ayesha Jalal’s The Pity of Partition, portray the creation of a new country against the breakdown of negotiations between the British Government and Indian National Congress and the Muslim League, over the transfer of power. Their arguments rest on the British Government’s Cabinet Mission Plan, which envisaged a weak Indian federal centre where Muslims and Hindus would share political power equally. These writers argue that this plan came close to what Jinnah and the Muslim League wanted, but was rejected by the Congress leaders. Often, Nehru’s ambition to be the Prime Minister, even though of a divided India, is attributed as the true perpetrator behind the Partition.

Dhulipala challenges these fundamental assumptions substantiated by historians and writers of various shades by elaborating on the Pakistani nationalism that started preparing a solid ground for the creation of Pakistan, much before the Lahore Resolution of 1940. He argues, Pakistan was not simply a vague idea that emerged serendipitously, out of the two-nation theory; but was imagined and planned and carved as a sovereign Islamic state, a new Medina.

The plan of the new nation-state was to consolidate Islam’s revival and rise in the 20th century, as the new leader and protector of the global community of Muslims. The blueprint of this plan was judiciously worked out by the elite Muslim of the Central Province, now UP, in collaboration with the ulema. Even though the Deobandis were opposed to the idea of a separate Islamic state, Jinnah cleverly justified the demand for Muslims in the states where they were in minority, stating, he lauded the great sacrifices made by ‘the pioneers and first soldiers of Pakistan’ for selflessly demanding liberation for their 60 million majority provinces brethren from Hindu Raj. As against the Deobandis, the Aligarh Muslim University intelligentsia supported the demand for Pakistan.

Dhulipala introduces different shades of history in building his argument, noteworthy are the ideas of Dr B. R. Ambedkar, expressed in Thoughts on Pakistan. The book also includes archival maps of divided India, as suggested by Ambedkar and C Rajagopalachari.

Chapters dedicated to Muslim league’s lack of concrete plans for the economy and defence offer interesting insights into how masses could be befooled by propaganda even when it leads to their uprooting.

The 500 page book is suffused with anecdotes, arguments and counter arguments in favour of creation of Pakistan, supported by journals, books, newspaper reports, songs, pamphlets and rare material obtained from the archives. It establishes that Pakistan was not always ‘insufficiently imagined’ in the process of creation as has been assumed thus far in Partition historiography.

One peculiar anecdote deals with post-Partition Pakistan the writer chanced upon in the archives. A spiritual testimony, so to say, of the crisis of the newly carved country, a year after Jinnah’s death, describes a séance conducted by a spiritualist in the national interest. The spiritualist is asked to invite Jinnah’s spirit, who is offered a cigarette. When asked to guide the destiny of Pakistan, the spirit reacts, “It was not for him to guide Pakistan’s destiny anymore.” When pressed further for an advice, the only suggestion the Quaid-e-Azam offers for the rulers of Pakistan is “Selflessness, selflessness.”Five reasons why one should read this book: It questions the established history, is well-researched, despite being an academic work, the interest of the reader never slacks, it is written lucidly and is edited well.