RRespected Dr. Sahab
I have received this mail from a friend of mine who is a former ambassador. I would like your views on the subject.
I entirely agree with all the arguments rightly forwarded against the criticisms aimed at Mr. Jinnah, but I have couple of complaints against him. In 1942 I was I in Aligarh Musllim University studying in my second year of college. During the long summer vacations, teams were formed of young students and sent to various places in India to propogate the concept of two independent states of Muslims and Hindus. It was firmly highlighted by each of such groups that the two states will be formed purely on the basis of majority. Any province having Hindu majority will go to India, and any province having Muslim majority will go to Pakistan, and the Princely State Rulers will be given the option of deciding whether they wish to join India or Pakistan, or remain independent. These principles were by 1946 firmly agreed by both Congress and Muslim League, and the British had no objection to this principle. Why did then Jinnah concede to the division of Punjab and Bengal. Majority of even one percent in principle was a majority, Muslims were far more than one percent in these provinces. He conceded because Lord Mountbaten threatened that this is what he can get, take it or leave it! And that they would leave India to their fate. I strongly feel that Mr. Jinnah should have taken a firm stand then and rejected the offer and should have told Mountbatten, You may leave if you wish, we have lived and struggled with each other for centuries, we will continue our struggle if necessary, but a principle is a principle, majority is a majority, I cannot concede to this justified rejection of the principle. Had he done that, with our majority in these two large provinces Hindu India could not have taken away from us these two provinces. Agreed there would have been hard struggle and deaths on both sides, but not as many as it happened due to the democratic partition that took place in 1947. The killings had already started in 1946. I was stranded in Aligarh, as the university had closed due to the disturbances that were spreading all over India, I had to seek help of a friend in Delhi to return to Karachi in a train guarded by the military. With whole of Punjab and whole of Bengal, neither Kashmir nor Assam would have gone from us. Besides, when Nehru offered Jinnah to give up his claim for Hyderabad, and take Kashmir, Jinnah turned down the proposal on the ground and belief that Kashmir was Mulsim majority, and Hyderabad ruler was a Muslim, and he had every legal right to decide where he wanted to go. The result! Lost both, and got a trunkated Pakistan, which could not hold together even for 23 years. Reason! Jinnah, a brilliant lawyer, a man with unsullied integrity and honesty, but not a politician. Nehru, on the other hand, was a shrewd politician and manipulator, who won the close and intimate friendship of Mountbatten's family. All his brilliance, his lonely and singular battle against heavy odds, courageously fought, ended in what we are left with today. I may be totally wrong, and you may not agree with me, but I do believe our struggle from the very beginning was lopsided. Aliani.