Mr. Mohammad Rafi. For a student of Islamic history, particularly related to the Indo- Pak Subcondint,I have been taken by surprise by some of your comments offered on my write-up,"Quaid's Detractors".I would like to briefly comment thereon as under:--( 1 ). Quaid-e Azam was a man of principles Division of Punjab and Bengal was the outcome of the notorious Redcliff Award. It was undoubtedly an unjust award-----the result of manipulations and manouvere between Redcliff, Nehru and Mountbatten The Quaid was taken a back by the result of said award and it is on record that while expressing his disappointment with it, he declared some what like this," We have been stabbed in the back but since we had given our word, we have to abide by it and swallow the bitter pill". To stand by a principle , sometimes proves costly, that exactly happened in this case. (2). Riots had been the norm even much before 1946, due primarily to the brutalities and high-handedness of the Hindu majority meted out to Muslim minority On the eve of partition and during it ,these flared up on an unprecedented scale due mainly to a well planned and methodically executed consipiracy hatched by the Hindu leadership. The Quaid-e Azam and the Muslim Leadership had no prior knowledge of the impending crisis.(3). I am not aware of if Nehru had ever made any offer to the Quaid to give up his claim for Hyderabad and have Kashmir as its substitute. Rather, it is on record, that in July,1947, he (Quaid) declared," I have already made it clear more than once, that Indian States are free to join either Pakistan Constituent Assembly or Hindustan Constituent Assembly or remain independent". Will Mr. Rafi like to quote the source according to which the said offer was made?
Last but not the least, I do agree with you, that Jinnah was not a politician like the general run of politicians who say something but mean something else. He was eulogized by the famous Congress leader, Mrs. Sarojini Naido as “ He was very hard, no doubt, but was hard like a diamond” and, “Jinnah was not purchasable at any price”. Mr. Rafi is right in his assertion that Nehru was a shrewd politician and manipulator. It is well-known, that he had cultivated too close and intimate a relationship with Lady Mountbatten. In fact, he maneuvered accession of Kashmir to India with the connivance of her husband, Lord Mountbatten. On the contrary, our Quaid had an impeccable character, he never stooped low. The Quaid was unarguably, a Statesman-cum- politician par excellence. It is a universally acknowledged fact, that without him Pakistan would not have emerged on the map of the World. As for Mr. Rafi’s un-bounden optimism that Jinnah should have firmly rejected the offer of Pakistan in view of division of Punjab and Bengal and that the Hindus and the Muslims would have settled their disputes themselves after the exit of British from India, I am amused at his naivety .He seems to be totally oblivious of the constant and protracted mutual tussle ad bickering between the two nations for long that compelled Jinnah--------“the Ambassador of Hindu- Muslim Unity” to part ways with the ( Hindu) Indian National Congress as a frustrated and disillusioned person. He then virtually single-handedly fought the battle of Pakistan against tremendous odds and won it for an ungrateful nation.