None of this is cut n paste. i’m currently reading this book, “Freedom at midnight”. i’m sure some of you must have read it. It’s supposed to be quite good. i find it rather awful, but it’s negative in a sense that i want to finish it because i want to be able to understand the authors’ points of views regarding the characters they are discussing, (there are two authors). i think it’s a horrible book in terms of accuracy and objectivity, but interesting b/c it gives you the ‘other’ point of view - if useful only for purposes of criticisms. Basically, the book revolves around the events leading upto the Partition, with predominant focus placed upon Gandhi.
The book pretty much challenges all the beliefs i hold/held regarding some of the main characters. i haven’t finished the book yet, so what follows are just the impressions i have received thus far. There are some 550 pages, i’m on page 110 i think. But even at this early juncture, one can comprehend which approach they are advocating vis-a-vis the individuals. Gandhi is presented as a saint of the East, a man whose complex personality traits we - the average folks - would probably fail to appreciate, a truly selfless man for whom satyagraha and non-violence were principles he strove to live upto in his personal life. Nehru is portrayed as the pragmatist, highly intelligent, practical, non-religious, sincere but stubborn, Indian. Jinnah is portrayed as the worst of the trio - a cunniving, shrewd, rigid, frozen-personality individual who would not negotiate with Louis Mountbatten despite the latter’s fervent attempts to get Jinnah to budge on the notion of partioning India. Basically you have your dichotomies: Gandhi = the romanticized Oriental. Jinnah = the shrewd, manipulating Eastern.
The authors mention that Jinnah (this is a paraphrased quote from the book they themselves used, it’s not my words) - drank wine, ate pork, hardly ever read the Quran, avoided the mosque on Fridays, and could barely articulate himself in Urdu. Yet somehow, the authors state, he managed to galvanize millions of Muslims.
For some reason, i find that history books (at least ‘western’ ones) tend to portray Jinnah in an extremely derogatory manner - when there is mention of him in the same category as Gandhi and Nehru, Jinnah is always portrayed as the worst of the lot: shrewd, highly educated but simultaneously cunning, manipulative individual who was stubborn to his desire (i.e., partition) with no regard to the liabilities his position presented for millions of Hindus and Muslims.
i am NOT trying to paint Gandhi negatively but objectively - history books seem to gloss over Gandhi’s, errr how can i say this delicately, relations with some of his younger female companions, particularly his grand-niece, Manu. Imagine if that had been Jinnah in Gandhi’s place doing that - historians would have had a field day and would have portrayed Jinnah as the sex-obsessed Muslim fanatic. But since it’s Gandhi - you get a completely different discourse. i was amazed at the part in the book, around page 100 i think, where the authors totally try to defend what occurred between Gandhi and Manu. hmm whether or not anything “occurred” between Gandhi and Manu, Allah Alone Knows. i am arguing that while it is the authors’ right to put forth their own opinions, i am absolutely certain that had Jinnah been in Gandhi’s place, their words would have been quite the opposite. Subjectively, they based their favourable opinions based upon the individual involved, not the individual’s actions.
Anyways. One can argue that i am biased because obviously Jinnah is Muslim and i would be more attracted to his ideas and/or to defending him. i think this argument is faulty for several reasons. i am always more critical of my own country’s government and history (remember Bangladesh), and i honestly just want to understand the personalities of these historical leaders in order to understand the historical positions that each was advocating. i don’t hate Gandhi. i just want to have a better grasp of what was happening at this period of time.
Why do western history books always portray Jinnah as such a cold man devoid of any feelings ? A better read, i think, is Akbar Ahmed’s book on Pakistan and Pakistani identity…name slips me now, something like “Jinnah and the Pakistani identity” or something. At least that gives you the other side of the coin - although whether it is accurate, is also up for debate.
