Advani's statement on Jinnah

During his visit to Pakistan, BJP president Lal Krishna Advani made a controversial statement that the founder of Pakistan, Mohammad Ali Jinnah was secular.Predictably it gave birth to a storm in the Sangh parivar on an unprecedented scale.VHP general secretary, Praveenbhai Togadiya dubbed Advani a 'traitor'.Demands were raised for Advani's resignation if he continued to stick to his position.As a result,he had to write his letter of resignation from Karachi.

Support to Advani came from among the leaders of the BJP.Former Prime Minister Vajpayee and senior leader Jaswant Singh also said that Jinnah was indeed secular.JD(U) leader Sharad Yadav and George Fernandes also supported Advani on his statement.

In my post on June 7,2005, I have posted my views on whether Jinnah was really secular.More professional views from the point of view of a journalist can be found here , in which Kanchan Gupta has given many reasons why Jinnah was not secular.

If reports in the Indian Express are true link ,Advani's utterances on Jinnah was a well thought out strategy to malign Pandit Nehru and put the Congress party on the backfoot.The report says that Advani wants to hold Nehru responsible for the partition.The report says:'it is a well-known fact that Mahatma Gandhi and RSS were opposed to creation of Pakistan since the very beginning and Nehru was against making Jinnah the Prime Minister of India and the country faced the pangs of partition'.

Partition of India is a bitter historic truth.Thousands of people were killed in the riots and thousands were displaced from their homeland. India has come a long way since then. Through perseverance and hard work, and as some people allege through foul means,the refugees in 1947 and their offspring are one of the wealthiest communities in India.Ulhasnagar,a small town near Mumbai bears a testimony to that.Many of those who were displaced during partition made it big in their respective fields.Two of them, Manmohan Singh and Inder Kumar Gujral went on to become the Prime Minister of the country.Advani himself,who was displaced during partition made it to the post of Deputy Prime Minister.Some of the prominent names in the list include Vijay Kumar Malhotra,Amartya Sen,K.R.Malkani,Raj Kapoor and Sunil Dutt.In short,the Punjabi and Sindhi communities, which suffered a lot at the time of partition have not only undone the wrong done to them by the destiny, but also made bigger achievements than those who were not affected during partition in many cases.

Under these circumstances and when the partition of India cannot be easily undone,Advani's statement was not only unnecessary but also superfluous.

In India of 2005,wherein people who actually witnessed and suffered partition are in their late 70s or early 80s and their offspring who were born and brought up in independent India and who just heard the horrific tales of partition from their parents and grandparents and may be through TV serials like 'Tamas',determining who was responsible for partition can at the most be a topic of intelligent discussion but it is unlikely to appeal to the senses of people,as it might have done five decades back.

One point made in the report in the Indian Express is that Nehru opposed Jinnah as a Prime Minister of India.In fact, it was suggestion of Gandhi to make Jinnah Prime Minister and all the ministers Muslims in order to prevent partition.If Jinnah had won the mandate of the people and rightfully claimed Prime Ministership,it was perfectly acceptable.However making him Prime Minister to avoid partition is nothing but appeasement of Muslims,something Sangh Parivar always blames Gandhi for.If Nehru opposed Jinnah's being Prime Minister,nothing is wrong in that.Therefore, if Advani is out to make an issue of this and claim that Nehru was responsible for the partition,it is not going to carry the day.

In fact,at this time it is irrelevant to discuss who was responsible for partition, when partition itself took place almost six decades back.Much has been said and written about it and it cannot be an issue in elections at all.Imagine Tony Blair's labour party making an issue of Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement of Hitler and not being able to prevent second world war in the elections of 2005.Or imagine George W.Bush's republican party making an issue of Franklin D.Roosevelt's failure to avoid Pearl Harbour in the elections of 2004.Does it make sense?

So one is forced to draw the conclusion that Advani made the statement on Jinnah just in order to appease Muslims.When BJP was in opposition,it made a big issue of Muslim appeasement by the Congress party.Atal Bihari Vajpayee said in Lok Sabha in 1972, while participating in debate on riots in Bhiwandi,'Ab Hindu Maar Nahi Khayega'.Recognition of and establishment of close ties with Israel was one of the demands of Jan Sangh.But when the party came to power,it joined the so called 'secular' bandwagon and started appeasing Muslims even more than the Congress.If you require one evidence to prove that,the fact that Imam of Jama Masjid in Delhi issued a 'fatwa' and asked Muslims to vote for the BJP in 2004 elections is enough.It was the same BJP that ridiculed V.P.Singh's Janata Dal when Imam issued similar fatwa to vote in favour of the Janata Dal.

Statement of Advani on Jinnah is just a next chapter in the same story.Its endorsement by Vajpayee and Jaswant Singh is a sub chapter.However in the process,terrible,perhaps irreversible damage has been done to the traditional voters of the BJP. Now BJP will not get active support of the RSS and VHP in the elections as it did over the years.Only time will tell how many Muslim votes BJP is able to garner in its new incarnation but the fact remains that Advani et al. have betrayed the cause they have stood for so long and history will never forgive them.