Re: Why can’t you criticise
Of course you can criticise “Mr Jinnah”. He was a burger, he was well off, he lived in a pretty house, he had servants, he wore custom made stylish suits from England while poor old Gandhi wore no clothes. He was arrogant, the Brits always complained about him never smiling and shaking hands. And above all, he had three dogs, now Western wannabe who had three dogs as pet and shared sofa with them, did not deserve to become the leader of Muslim country. Just ask Khawaja Saad Rafique of Nawaz League, he’s a very important person in Pakistan. It is unfair that I actually don’t see people moaning about all that - why does Jinnah get a special treatment in Pakistan?
Anyway. Back to serious point. I’m one of those people that believe that Urdu as a *national *language did not prove to be an entirely successful experiment. Now that’s not due to Jinnah, I don’t feel ‘right’ about criticising him when I put all the emotions aside. By the time, the debate on Urdu language became a separatist campaign, Pakistan was far from being the shadow of the country, Jinnah had envisioned. The language debate was just the tip of iceberg. The issue was an offshoot of deep economic inequalities and political power struggle that became the reason for communities falling apart and growing hostile.
But why should I criticise Jinnah? Urdu wasn’t his language. He could barely speak the language fluently himself. It wasn’t even the most popular language amongst the people who migrated from India. But Pakistan was a new country, it needed a binding medium to unit all these people together, and make them an inclusive group, and Urdu as a lingua franca provided that opportunity. It was a good decision at that time. It made sense in 1947 to have it as a *national *language, but perhaps in 2014, you can have an argument that should’ve been declared an official language where you only speak the language if you need to, and it did not define your national identity and patriotism. I say this because I do not appreciate the past practice that just to maintain the supremacy of Urdu other languages and dialects of Pakistan were dismissed and downgraded, and that was not done by Jinnah! I’m pretty sure had he lived longer, he would’ve promoted the sanctity of locals languages as well.
But having said, Pakistan’s real tragedy is that Jinnah died soon after the making of Pakistan. In that one year that he lived, he was becoming increasingly ill. Had he lived for another ten years, or even five years, I have no doubt in mind that he would’ve penned down a lot of reforms, and made a lot of changes to his original plans. Pakistan was a different country back then, and the founding fathers and the general population were a lot smarter, back in the day, constitution or any kind Magna Carta was not considered a final word of God and subject to no change and criticism, like it is today.
I agree with most of the part of your post.
About your first para, I’m not asking about personal traits, how they live, what they own, what they ate / drink. I was asking for discussion of the actions which afterwards proved wrong.
I do agree that what Mr Jinah did had a reason and he considered it best at that time. But he and other leaders were human beings and when their actions contributed to some bad results, why should not be such actions analysed from different perspectives (as you did in your post to a good extent)?