Second Thoughts: Jinnah

I really don’t know how and why I started reading the controversial ‘Jinnah India-Independence-Partition’, authored by Mr. Jaswant Singh, a senior BJP leader and ex. Foreign Minister. If I were to describe the experience so far reading the book, I would love to describe it in only one word and that is ‘touchstone’. I found this book to be a milestone and one of the best books over vivisection of the ‘Hindustan’ as two separate sovereign nations, India and Pakistan. What we are taught is not necessarily the correct form of the history, as all the governments temper with the unbiased history, like the government of the independent India did, we are never taught what Jinnah contributed to the unprecedented freedom struggle of India; neither are we taught of reasons why British left our country, or rather the subcontinent. Frankly speaking, I don’t find any reason to be reluctant to Jinnah so far, as I see him as the victim. Any other human being also would have done the very same thing what he had done. I am afraid but Mr. Gandhi, who according me is not the principal leader of the freedom struggle, would have done even worse if he had been a Muslim leader, i.e. if the situation were totally opposite, Mr. Gandhi would have done much malicious things than what Jinnah has done. His ridiculous ideas are being carried out today even. It’s the height of hypocrisy. Had Gandhi and Nehru not been the stymie of Mr. Jinnah, India would never ever been vivisected. The constitution of the independent India, and its creator, Dr. Ambedkar, a man of disgust and abhorrence, has done enough damage to the unity of ‘The Republic of India’. Howsoever learned he was, just for the sake of cheap revenge of what had happened to him, that bastard introduced the notorious ‘Quota System’ as a constitutional provision for the depressed class. There are no two ways about the misery of the Dalits and the other depressed class, but provision of reservation can never be a solution to them. One more thing, slavery and slaves are the two words which should be interpreted. If we go back to the history, we would find that the Muslim Invaders succeeded because of the fanaticism, an inseparable characteristic of a normal Muslim. The British and the other European Invaders succeeded just because of the slavery of the then rulers, slavery of the power. Still, we could have killed all the British in India rescued the ‘Mother India’ from them. But we didn’t, I don’t want to go in deep by asking a question termed ‘WHY’. The same logic applies here as well. A ruler can rule the mass till the mass accept him as a ruler, otherwise the ruler can never rule. So we have to accept that the people of India, were not really interested in changing the government and in a coarse sense, not in the independence even. As we know, a common citizen of any country has nothing to do with the government of that country. This statement should further be elaborated in order to be interpreted correctly. A common citizen of any country is too busy to even think for all this, as his primary goals are very basic, i.e. all he needs is to spend his and his family’s life peacefully. Neither is he interested in changing the government nor he is interested in taking over the reins of power in his hand. Well, we got freedom; to be very specific we got freedom from the British government and its employees. Had not been our constitution so generous to the criminals; had not been these many stymies of justice, the crime rate might have been dropped. Had Mr. Ambedkar thought of the other classes of the society and not handed over the most outrageous weapon to the politicians, India could have done better than the best.