The portraits we put up in our homes, offices and universities tell something about our icons and the ideas that we subscribe to. We put up a photo of Gandhi in courts because we subscribe to the ideas of truth, ahimsa and values that he stood for.

Personalities that we condemn reflect the kind of ideas or historical figures we dislike. Nobody puts a portrait of Hitler in a government office or even a home for any reason. What did Jinnah stand for? Let us not try to draw a line between what he did before a particular date or year. His ideas led to the partition of India and death of millions of Hindus and Muslims. People must know what his ideas led to a horrible chapter in India’s history.

The Pakistan resolution/Lahore resolution was passed by the Muslim league in 1940. It was indeed a tipping point which led to the eventual division of India. What did Jinnah say in his address to the Muslim League? The contents are reproduced below (emphasis added) :

Before I deal with what Mr Gandhi said a few days ago I shall deal with the pronouncements of some of the other Congress leaders — each one speaking with a different voice. Mr Rajagopalacharya, the ex-Prime Minister of Madras, says that the only panacea for Hindu-Muslim unity is the joint electorates. That is his prescription as one of the great doctors of the Congress organisation.

- Advertisement -

Babu Rajendra Prasad, on the other hand, only a few days ago said, “Oh, what more do the Mussalmans want?” I will read to you his words. Referring to the minority question, he says: “If Britain would concede our right of self-determination, surely all these differences would disappear.” How will our differences disappear? He does not explain or enlighten us about it.

“But so long as Britain remains and holds power, the differences would continue to exist. The Congress has made it clear that the future constitution would be framed not by the Congress alone but by representatives of all political parties and religious groups. The Congress has gone further and declared that the minorities can have their representatives elected for this purpose by separate electorates, though the Congress regards separate electorates as an evil. It will be representative of all the peoples of this country, irrespective of their religion and political affiliations, who will be deciding the future constitution of India, and not this or that party. What better guarantees can the minorities have?”

So according to Babu Rajendra Prasad, the moment we enter the Assembly we shall shed all our political affiliations, and religions, and everything else. This is what Babu Rajendra Prasad said as late as 18th March 1940.

And this is now what Mr Gandhi said on the 20th of March, 1940. He says: “To me, Hindus, Muslims, Parsis, Harijans, are all alike. I cannot be frivolous” — but I think he is frivolous — “I cannot be frivolous when I talk of Quaid-i-Azam Jinnah. He is my brother.” The only difference is this that brother Gandhi has three votes and I have only one vote. […]

It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders; and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality; and this misconception of one Indian nation has gone far beyond the limits and is the cause of more of our troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, and literature[s]. They neither intermarry nor interdine together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions.

Their aspects [=perspectives?] on life, and of life, are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, their heroes are different and different episode[s]. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other, and likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority must lead to growing discontent, and final. destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the government of such a state.

The entire Indian constitution has been built on the idea that rejected this very philosophy of Jinnah. India’s secularism, as per our Nehruvian establishment wholeheartedly rejected the idea of a Muslim Pakistan and a Hindu India. If that were the case, there should have been absolute intolerance towards Jinnah. I am not a great fan of Churchill, but he got it perfectly right on the strategy of appeasement. ‘An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.’

However, the cabal throws the burden of decency of ‘Hindutva’ wadis and complains that they are ones creating ‘trouble’ and using ‘Jinnah’ for the sake of polarisation. India requests this cabal to make its stand clear on their support or opposition to Jinnah instead of playing the victim card. I am not a great fan of Churchill, but he got it perfectly right on the strategy of appeasement.

‘An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.’

True secularists should be the first persons to throw away Jinnah’s portrait. Otherwise, please accept that you are Jinnah supporters who tacitly agree to the two nation theory. I also request this cabal to move over to Pakistan because Indians cannot tolerate the idea of another division of India on the basis of Jinnah’s ideas.