It is shocking beyond words to find such people, and that too in a large number, who shamelessly defend the portrait of MA Jinnah in AMU, a person who was responsible for the vivisection of India, killings of more than two million people, large rape and rapine and displacement of many millions in the name of an Islamic country, Pakistan.
Way back in 1940 MA Jinnah had said, ‘The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs. They neither intermarry nor inter-dine together and, indeed, they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspects on life and of life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Musalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes, and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other hand, 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 for the government of such a state.’
Again in 1944 Jinnah said, ‘We maintain and hold that Muslims and Hindus are two major nations by any definition or test of a nation. We are a nation with our own distinctive culture and civilization, language and literature, art and architecture, names and nomenclature, sense of values and proportions, legal laws and moral codes, customs and calendar, history and tradition, and aptitude and ambitions. In short, we have our own outlook on life and of life’. Although the seeds of the partition of India were sown by Allama Iqbal in 1930 itself, Jinnah was the person who translated their dreams into reality by playing with the passions of illiterate and dogmatic Muslims'.
It is strange that some people, due to their hatred for Veer Savarkar, try to lay blame on him for two nation theory, but nothing can be farther from the truth. In his famous speech in the Calcutta conference of Hindu Mahasabha in 1939 Veer Savarkar had said, ‘India shall not be divided into two parts, one for Muslims and the other for the Hindus; that the two nations shall dwell in one country and shall live under the mantle of one single constitution.
Dr. BR Ambedkar in his book ‘Pakistan or Partition of India’ has said that ‘he (Savarkar) does not propose to suppress the Muslim nation. On the contrary, he is nursing and feeding it by allowing it to retain its religion, language, and culture, elements which go to sustain the soul of a nation. At the same time, he does not consent to divide the country so as to allow the two nations to become separate, autonomous states, each sovereign in its own territory.
Way back in 1940 MA Jinnah had said, ‘The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs. They neither intermarry nor inter-dine together and, indeed, they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspects on life and of life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Musalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes, and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other hand, 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 for the government of such a state.’
Again in 1944 Jinnah said, ‘We maintain and hold that Muslims and Hindus are two major nations by any definition or test of a nation. We are a nation with our own distinctive culture and civilization, language and literature, art and architecture, names and nomenclature, sense of values and proportions, legal laws and moral codes, customs and calendar, history and tradition, and aptitude and ambitions. In short, we have our own outlook on life and of life’. Although the seeds of the partition of India were sown by Allama Iqbal in 1930 itself, Jinnah was the person who translated their dreams into reality by playing with the passions of illiterate and dogmatic Muslims'.
It is strange that some people, due to their hatred for Veer Savarkar, try to lay blame on him for two nation theory, but nothing can be farther from the truth. In his famous speech in the Calcutta conference of Hindu Mahasabha in 1939 Veer Savarkar had said, ‘India shall not be divided into two parts, one for Muslims and the other for the Hindus; that the two nations shall dwell in one country and shall live under the mantle of one single constitution.
Dr. BR Ambedkar in his book ‘Pakistan or Partition of India’ has said that ‘he (Savarkar) does not propose to suppress the Muslim nation. On the contrary, he is nursing and feeding it by allowing it to retain its religion, language, and culture, elements which go to sustain the soul of a nation. At the same time, he does not consent to divide the country so as to allow the two nations to become separate, autonomous states, each sovereign in its own territory.
Another preposterous logic is put forward that Jinnah belonged to undivided India; therefore, there is nothing wrong to have his portrait. But will such people tell that if there is any university in Pakistan which adorns the portrait of Gandhi, Nehru, Patel or Bose? The reply will be emphatic ‘no’. Then why should any Indian university have the photograph of a megalomaniac like Jinnah on its walls?
Those, who say that Jinnah was a freedom fighter, are either knaves or fools or an amalgam of both. Jinnah never went to jail even for a day and never participated in the freedom struggle as he was in the good books of Britishers and was used to get all facilities and comforts from the Raj. This is an altogether different matter that by raising the passions of foolish and dogmatic Muslims, he had dwarfed the stature of the likes of Abul Kalam Azad, Rafi Ahmad Kidwai, Zakir Hussain and others. The problem, with these Congress leaders, was that they tried to prove themselves to be more Muslim by their conduct than Pakistan supporting Muslims. Jinnah, on the contrary, was never a practicing Muslim and yet he had a tremendous spell over the Muslims.
The sooner it is removed from the AMU the better. Those who are opposing it must be crushed with iron hands otherwise such elements will snowball into the disease of cancer, the emperor of maladies, leading to unimaginable catastrophe for India. Jinnah is not a person, it is a mentality. Need is to exterminate this mentality, as ruthlessly as possible, to keep India united.
