Did Nehru, Jinnah fail their communities?

Dr. Vinay Thusoo
Strange but true. India got its first prime minister from the Minority community called ‘Kashmiri Pandits’ and Pakistan got Mohd Ali Jinnah as Governor-General, from the   Minority in Pakistan called ‘Shia’. Both communities who gave India and Pakistan their respective first tallest leader and many more, are suffering in their own countries. Pandits  were forced to exile in 1990 and likewise, the plight of Shias is not hidden from anybody. It can be validated from the fact that even for their Qaid E Azam, funeral prayer was given as per Shia ritual in a room of the Governor General’s House and his janaza (funeral) according to the Sunni ritual at the ground where a grand mausoleum was later constructed. Unfortunately, the valley based politicians didn’t speak either of fear or some of them might have thought that the apple-cart of hollow secularism as conceived and practiced in the state will turn turtle. I don’t want to undermine some of the members of the majority community who at various intervals of time did speak and were hurt by the exodus of Pandits, because they knew the value of having a vibrant minority for maintaining sanity in the valley. The contribution of Kashmiri Pandits  in various areas of learning since ancient times is fortunately well documented.
The pressures of a common front of the majority against a minority, and the minority against the majority, generate a ‘conspiracy of silence over social evils’. In India and Pakistan, Majority and Minority both appear to have inherited features of the majority-minority syndrome, with particularly disastrous consequences for the minority. The original situation of conflict may have disappeared but extreme stand as of now from the Hindu community and Muslim orthodoxy talk and behave in a manner that revives the syndrome.
The majority-minority syndrome divides the nation, breeds hierarchy and aimlessly detracts from welfare and development and encourages a morally obnoxious conservatism. It has the potential of turning the country into an economic wasteland
Why is that the minorities, wherever they are, are being discriminated on the basis of colour creed and religion? Why minorities on daily basis have to seek approval from the majority community for their action? More the minorities are asked to prove themselves, more they hide behind their rituals/religion. There is one more question why those leaders were not able to put in place certain values which could have given meaningful directions to the country. Nehru was successful to implant the values of secularism in India but failed to extend it to the valley where Jinnah in his month stay had implanted the poison of two nation theory. The seed sown in 1944 bore its fruits finally in 1990 when minuscule meaningful community was forced to leave. Nehru worked towards consolidating Kashmiri nationalism as an affiliate of Pan-Indian nationalism to checkmate the influence of the two-nation theory on the political culture of the Jammu and Kashmir state. Clash of Kashmir Nationalism and National nationalism led to the difference between Nehru and Sheikh which Country is bearing the brunt of. To make things look straight, In India, the word secularism should be replaced with “Appeasism” because whosoever is in power choose to appease the religion/caste/creed, which they think are potential voters. So the whole concept of secularism  in present form is misfit in country like India. To substantiate my view once Jinnah addressed a rally in Kashmir and said to Sheikh Abdullah to include more of Hindus and Sikhs into his party to give it look of a secular one, the way in India, Indian National congress has done. He used to call Maulana Azad, the poster boy. That statement of Jinnah sowed  Pseudo secularism in Kashmir. And finally Kashmiri Pandits were up-rooted from the Valley. Jinnah asked Mr. Sathu, the noted journalist, why Kashmiri Pandits were reluctant to join their Muslim brethren in their fight against the autocratic rule.  Sathu told Jinnah about the fears of his community. “They have the impression that they will suffer    politically, socially and economically under the Muslim rule, hearing Sathu’s reply, Jinnah responded, if they have such fears they are right, “because we Muslims in India share the same fears viz-a-viz the majority community.”  Jinnah promised to take every step to impress upon the majority community in valley to be fair to the minorities. Jinnah and Nehru both believed in secularism in true sense before Jinnah dedicated himself to communal leadership. Nehru was able to prevent India from lapsing into an identity focused on religion. “As long as I am at the helm of affairs,” he declared, “India will not become a Hindu state. The very idea of a theocratic state is not only medieval but also stupid.”
Jinnah’s vision of secular Pakistan was not tolerated by the fundamentalists. They had tolerated Jinnah so long he was leading the Muslims in the fight for Pakistan but when Pakistan was achieved Jinnah was seen as a hindrance to their objective of making Pakistan a theocratic state. Later attempts were made to have this speech burnt or removed from the official record. Unfortunately, Jinnah in the religious, separatist garb won the race leaving behind Sarojini Naidu’s Jinnah as a one-liner in Indian history books. It won’t be wrong to say that Jinnah had failed in India and Pakistan failed him. Jinnah and Nehru both seemed to be walking the dotted line drawn by Lord Curzon in 1905 when he divided Bengal.Winston Chruchill was also in favour of having British India divided into Hindustan, Pakistan and Princestan, because he was convinced that Princestan will remain British pockets in India.
In the light of absurd conspiracy theories making rounds in social media, I wish to conclude with disclaimer that my intention is not to castigate the stature either of Nehru or Jinnah. But had they kept their respective egos aside, probably partition would have never happened and none of the minorities  would have felt the way they are feeling/suffering and above all two nation theory would  not have triumphed in Kashmir.
(The author is Public Relations Officer, University of Jammu)

Follow our WhatsApp channel