The contrasting game theories of Gandhi and Jinnah - Livemint
Many have sought to compare Jinnah with Mahatna Gandhi, often for some deeper purpose, and that officials spent literally years lying to. Jinnah said this after the Nagpur session, where Gandhi's . The Congress formally adopted full independence as its goal only in the more flamboyant of the two Ali Brothers, both popularly referred to as. Gandhi and Jinnah - a study in contrasts An extract from the book that riled India's and was committed to attaining his stated goals of unity, not just between the.
He never mastered the deftness of touch that Gandhi could employ. But there was once a lighter spirit discernible in him, captured for us by Sarojini Naidu. Her extended description of him contains most of the well-known phrases applied to his early career and it deserves to be quoted at length on the subject of his character, if only to counterbalance much of what is found elsewhere.
In she contributed an introduction to a collection of his speeches, in which she describes him as: This reflects the extraordinary reverence in which his contemporaries held him and the way that he seems not to have abused the space and authority this granted him. He was essentially the same in public and private. He never stood on ceremony, or hectored his opponents, no matter how far apart he stood from them on the issues at hand, whether he was addressing the king or a minor Raj official.
His ability to reach out informally across political and social divides was extraordinary; during his trip to England inhe managed to befriend the very mill workers that his hand-spinning was intended to condemn to unemployment. Gandhi also enjoyed a much wider and warmer kind of political support than that which Jinnah constructed so painstakingly. His political aims were easily understood and generally shared. Just as importantly, his methods were thought to be correct; Indian freedom under Gandhi was to be won in an Indian way.Gandhi vs Jinnah - Truth as viewed by guiadeayuntamientos.info
To oppose him coming from within either orthodox Hinduism or broad Congress philosophy would have seemed either irreverent or un-Indian. Those who did oppose him found it difficult to remain in the Congress: Jinnah inC.
Das inand Bose in had to leave and create their own platforms to oppose him at an all-India level. Criticizing the Mahatma was potentially a short cut to the political wilderness. Contemporary critics of Gandhi were not usually close to him, mainly because he tended not to leave cast-offs But through it all Nehru always admired him, and thought of him as a magician, capable of pulling off feats of political sorcery of which no one else was capable.
His unique ability to do this, and the unifying and empowering effect of that ability, was the main factor that pulled the Congress out of its middle-class youth, then anchored it as a powerful force at the centre of Indian politics. Several senior members of the Congress did later write memoirs containing criticisms of Gandhi ranging from mild to severe. Bose was less restrained in The Indian Struggle.
Bose became increasingly frustrated with Gandhi through the s. Among friend-critics, the most prominent was Rabindranath Tagore, who had a clutch of disagreements with Gandhi, most notably over the Non-Cooperation Movement of He found it impossible to support the burning of valuable clothes and the denial of schooling to young Indians that the boycott required. The two men remained on cordial terms, but were never close after the Non-Cooperation Movement Those perplexing riddles seeded the idea of doing a book on Partition.
That cause and effect was something the world now might be rather interested in since it was no longer just a regional tale for Indian and Pakistani school textbooks. It was the year-old chapter of history, he believed, that was responsible for the build up of an explosive situation that has the potential to rewrite world events, quite comparable to Gavrilo Princip shooting Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his duchess in Sarajevo on June 28,or the never ending, bitter Palestine-Israel conflict, or Kim Jong-un building a rogue empire.
When Newsweek changed ownership inHajari was looking for a change. He decided to take two years off from nine-to-five journalism if there is such a thing to write a book on Partition. He spent the next 18 months hopping between the cavernous archives, on three continents, digging up as many key documents, accounts and records of the turning points that led to Partition. Those crucial footnotes of history -- letters, diaries, telegrams and memoirs -- were gleaned to construct, and flesh out, new profiles of the main players of Partition, and bring them back to life.
Over, finally what turned out to be three years, he constructed, what he felt was, a fresh perspective on Partition, taking time to re-evaluate historical roles, snipping and weeding out redundant biases. In the bargain, offering coverage befitting of what he considers to be a landmark happening in the history of the 20th century. History ought to be examined, and re-examined, threadbare, before nations have the capacity to move on, is Hajari's contention.
Gandhi and Jinnah on life after Partition - India Today Archives News - Issue Date: Aug 20,
Only then maybe Partition and its overstaying ghosts can be laid to rest, eventually maybe, optimistically, leading to better relations between India and Pakistan. In his previous stint at Newsweek, he spent 10 years in New York. Hajari has been surprised by the praise Midnight's Furies received from Indian intellectuals, who picked up his book, not thinking they would be reading anything new and told him they ended up learning a lot.
He received some criticism too -- on Twitter of a different kind from people who had clearly never read his book and believed him to be Muslim -- for what they felt was his going easy on the British over their role in Partition. In your book, you came up with a lot to incriminate Jinnah.
And plenty to blame Nehru for too. You seemed to have found Jinnah a troubling, polarising, egotistic character, known for his vindictiveness and his negligence of the human cost. That leads to the most important question those of us in India have: Who would you apportion the blame, chiefly, for the perilous path the subcontinent took in ? It would be hard to assign a number or figure, percentage wise.
I thought Nehru and the Congress leaders were equally to blame. Actually, I feel, and I hope it comes across, that I had a bit more sympathy for Jinnah then most Indian accounts of Partition generally have.
On the occasion of becoming prime minister of the new Union of India, Nehru asked members of the Constituent Assembly to take a pledge of loyalty to the new nation.
But in terms of who is responsible for the mistakes -- and ruining the chance of political compromise -- I think, in that case Nehru was at least as much to blame as Jinnah.
Jinnah was arguing the case like the lawyer he was. Nehru had multiple chances to make compromises, that would have preserved a united India, and he chose not to. He may have been more charming personally. Personally, he might have been the person you wanted to have dinner with! He was a flighty, impractical, emotional politician, who was operating at some level of high principle, that was not very pragmatic. I think Jinnah had very good reasons not to trust Nehru and the Congress and that is Nehru's fault.
Refugees from West Punjab at the Wavell Canteen in Delhi taking their meals before leaving for various refugee camps, September Photo Division, Government of India Nevertheless, do you think that Jinnah was aware that his politics was akin to riding a tiger, which he would eventually not be able to get off?
I am not sure any of them were. They were all doing it. Gandhi and Nehru, as well. There was as much vicious anti-Muslim behaviour going on, as the opposite. And these people were followers of the Congress.
Mahatma Gandhi, Mohammed Ali Jinnah tried to avoid partition, says Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri
Gandhi didn't realise it. There was for instance that scene of Noakhali the riots in October-Novemberin Chittagong district in un-partitioned Bengal in which 5, Hindus were killed in the book. Gandhi did not understand that some of the things he was saying there were inciting Hindus to go kill Muslims. Exactly, in Bihar riots broke out in Chhapra and Saran districts in late Octoberas a reprisal for the Noakhali riots, killing anywhere upwards of 5, Muslims; the death toll figures varied widely.
At the very, very top level, all these people -- Nehru, Jinnah and Gandhi -- were so distant from their followers. They were in Delhi. They were just in drawing rooms, with each other, negotiating and they were so used to the kind of rhetoric you would use in a courtroom.
The things they would say, the things they would write in the press. I don't think they quite realised the impact those words would have at the ground level. In that case, I would hold all of them guilty.
So they were all guilty of riding that tiger? They all didn't understand that the negotiations they were doing -- the kind of brinksmanship, the hard line positions they were taking, all part of negotiations -- were happening against the backdrop of these increasing tensions all around the country. They were too focused on what was happening in their little room and didn't understand this was having an impact elsewhere.
You describe that Nehru admitted, when discussing the Partition of Punjab, for instance, that they had not gone into any great detail about how it would actually happen. So Nehru's wrong doing was not just alienating his rival Jinnah but also not understanding the nitty-gritty of how Partition would unfold? They were all, perhaps, guilty of being vague about the details?
About the ground realities? None of them were administrators. None of them had ever held executive positions. They were all trained as lawyers and had become politicians. So if you asked Nehru: Or about the police force, the administration. All stuff that the British had handled till that point They again didn't understand the reality of the impact of the things they were doing.
So in your view, would you equally apportion the blame? You wouldn't say perhaps Jinnah was more to blame? And also do you think if the Congress knew about Jinnah's poor health, the formation of Pakistan could have been avoided? This has come up all the time. His illness Jinnah was suffering from tuberculosis since the s.
‘Friends and enemies’ - The Hindu
He wasn't hiding anything. He had been a sick man for many years. And in he wasn't any more sick than any other time. He didn't get really sick until But he had tuberculosis? He had had it for years. In he had to take a whole month off, and recuperate in some village outside Karachi. The year before, he had done something similar.
But wouldn't it have made a difference if people knew?
Let's say he had died in Who is to say that whoever came after him, in the Muslim League, wouldn't have been more radical? How do you know, somehow, that this would have been better for India? Let me give another analogy. Supposing you are having a child and you know you are not going to be around, some time after the child is born.
You would definitely think a little more about how things would happen in your absence? Pakistan, in a sense, was Jinnah's child. I have come across nothing to suggest that he thought he was about to die. I think he thought he was going to live for a long time and continue to lead Pakistan. Even in the pictures taken on Pakistan's Independence Day he looked very frail.
Oh yes, he was a sickly man.