Alert Sign Dear reader, online ads enable us to deliver the journalism you value. Please support us by taking a moment to turn off Adblock on

Alert Sign Dear reader, please upgrade to the latest version of IE to have a better reading experience


If Jinnah had lived


Your Name:

Recipient Email:

Nelson Mandela, the man who led South Africa past the racial discrimination of apartheid is seriously ill and in the hospital. The nearly ninety-five year old Mandela is the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and served as President of South Africa from 1994-1999, the first black man to hold the office. The South Africa he inherited was one buoyed by the hope and optimism of a hard won victory. Through passive resistance and unarmed struggle, the county’s black majority had wrested from the hands of a white majority the reigns of a system where all advantages had been given to the whites and all costs borne by the blacks. South Africa’s revolution from the inequality of apartheid was bloodless, led by a strong charismatic leader, who had the vision and the perseverance to lead millions away from vengeance and toward reconciliation. Mandela is a leader who lived to see his vision realized and because of this, his country lived and was able to see it too.

Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, died barely a year after the creation of Pakistan. His, was just as hard won, just as miraculous a victory. Through his masterful maneuvering and inspirational rallying; a country had been wrest from the clenched fists of the British Empire sulky about its’ losses. Suddenly, there was Pakistan, a whole country, carved out on a map, existing in reality. But just as Pakistan became real, Jinnah faded, as if the very miracle of the country’s creation had sniffed and sucked the life of its leader, exhausted him with the improbability of its own creation. There was Pakistan, and in an instant there was no Jinnah. It is the choice hobby of historians to point out the first sputtering chokes of a slow, national death and many mark Pakistan’s in that grim September of 1948.

Mandela, who spent twenty-seven years in prison before leading his country to democracy, lived to see victory. He lived to see the passage of the Black Economic Empowerment Act that sought to reverse the racism of apartheid without allowing the now ruling black majority to become a vengeful black majority. While laws aimed to transfer wealth and opportunity, and restrictions were lifted on everything from where South African blacks could live to which bathrooms they could use, the country dove headlong into a future that was against its challenges, largely stable. When Mandela left the Presidency and eventually public life it seemed, his shadow remained, watchful and nurturing over the newly democratic South African state.

If you put stock in leadership as the determinant of national futures, then this comparison would explain for you Pakistan’s condition; its unresolved ailments, its festering sores. If Jinnah had lived, his life extending into the summer and autumn of Pakistan’s seasons of growth, seen vision translated into the ordinariness of reality while still sustaining its spirit maybe the country would be in a different place. Weighed on the scales of tragedy, with leadership as a measure, Pakistan’s loss was the untimely early death of its leader, the man with the plan, without which a country already born had to face questions it did not yet know how to answer. Islam or democracy, security or welfare, education or defense, South Asian or Middle Eastern, too many conundrums, all of them too hard, too confusing even at the ripe age of sixty three. The death of one man should not mean so much, but perhaps the death of some men, leading men, doom the futures of too many more.


Rafia Zakaria is a columnist for DAWN. She is a writer and PhD candidate in Political Philosophy whose work and views have been featured in the New York Times,  Dissent the Progressive, Guernica, and on Al Jazeera English, the BBC, and National Public Radio. She is the author of Silence in Karachi, forthcoming from Beacon Press.


The views expressed by this blogger and in the following reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Dawn Media Group.

Author Image

Rafia Zakaria is an attorney and human rights activist. She is a columnist for DAWN Pakistan and a regular contributor for Al Jazeera America, Dissent, Guernica and many other publications.

She is the author of The Upstairs Wife: An Intimate History of Pakistan (Beacon Press 2015). She tweets @rafiazakaria

The views expressed by this writer and commenters below do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Dawn Media Group.

Comments (140) Closed

Huma Apr 05, 2013 08:59am
true. sad but true. :(
Ronak Apr 05, 2013 09:15am
Pakistan lost Jinnah and India lost Gandhi about the same time.. Very sad that both leaders didn't achieve what they intended to.
Peekay Apr 05, 2013 09:32am
Hi it is very good Article congratulations for the same, I am an Indian living in South Africa, Johannesburg and I can actually feel what you are saying and its 100 % true.
Sabir Ayub Rabbani Apr 05, 2013 09:46am
Ma'am I salute you for a great article. I feel really proud of you. Qauid-e-Azam was the only leader we had. Once again thanks for writing such a lovely article.
Noor Khan Apr 05, 2013 09:47am
Gandhi had nurtured Nehru ... and he lived long enough to built a strong India ... but Jinnah died early and then Liaquat Ali khan died in 1951 ........ the country became leaderless after them !!!!!!!!!
Madhu Apr 05, 2013 10:22am
When I think about the issues in Pakistan, I think about Gandhi and Nehru. Though Gandhi was assassinated soon after India's independence, India was fortunate enough to have Nehru for another 17 more years. Pakistan did not have a Nehru. Once Liaquat also was out of the scene, very few people/leaders left had the vision and charisma to build a nation. Pakistan will come back, when as a nation Pakistan strengthens it's belief in democracy, secularism and 'unity in diversity'. Pakistan should realize that Pakistan is as diverse as India and it's strength lies in that diversity.
ravi Apr 05, 2013 10:40am
In any analysis we should consider all valid points. India and Pakistan are twin country. Initial task for leaders on both sides were to create environment for building foundation. Both country had more or less same kind of issues. Even India being a bigger had more complex problems to solve. In my view, I will compare Jinnah and Patel not Nehru because all major initial critical decision was made by Patel. Both leader lived for few years Jinnah for 1 year and Patel less then 2 years after independence but Patel manage to accomplish his task with great vision and direction for future leaders while Jinnah failed to do so. Every big personality face failure and success I think Pakistan debated very less Jinnah's failure. First he failed to win confidence of millions of Muslims therefore much larger population of Muslims supported India not Pakistan. Even some great visionary leader like Mulala Azad where against Jinnah. I feel Jinnah created hell for millions of Muslims just to satisfy his ego definitely Mr Nehru was also responsible but that don't denies Jinnah's fault. First nation was created with undefined agenda later it progressed on hatred against India I don't see any evidence of vision for Pakistan in their leaders. Confusion was persisting right from its birth. No leader can solve problem of millions for people,million people can solve their problem and Jinnah confused millions of Muslims for his goal. Job of leader is to provide road map,direction and motivate people to create a environment for growth and Jinnah never managed to do so. He only motivated people with hatred like Hindus and Muslims can not live together and so on. He was good for nothing.
AHA Apr 05, 2013 10:57am
Good analysis. In fact, while Liaquat Ali Khan was a sincere second lieutenant and an excellent crowd puller, he was not really a visionary leader. Jinnah was our first and last leader.
ravi Apr 05, 2013 11:01am
But no leader lives forever and engineering implies to start a car's engine and put it on speed not later once it started and moving everything is OK nothing is required. What I am trying to say that India as a nation came into existence with solid foundation in 26 January 1950 so job done during 1947-50 was more critical. So fair comparison would be to compare work done in both side in initial years. If you think in that way you will realize Patel was main player and he also died before India became republic and Jinnah and Patel both had severe health concern. But yes Jinnah died before him. Jinnah did not had any road map for Pakistan and he was not a mass leader because majority of Muslims decided to live in India and supported India. So only his early death is not a reason for today's Pakistan there are many more to think about. Why he not able to end Zamindari. India had more powerful princely states then Pakistan. Pakistan should come out of this excuse and very taught to accept but think If Jinnah was really a capable Leader ? Well evidence don't suggest he was more close to British than Indians, Muslims league was created by British, he never broke British law so he never really participated in nation issues in opposing British so never was arrested for a day. I don't know how to see it but I don't see he was really caring Muslims in India It seems that his main goal was to be a leader not do something for people.
rich Apr 05, 2013 11:07am
jinnah was not a democratic person, he dissolved elected assembly and he himself was not elected to any office by the people,
Sunil Apr 05, 2013 11:08am
I can understand the author's grouch about the untimely death of Jinnah- the Pakistani leader. He 'might' have provided the direction and vision to Pakistan. All good. But the premise of comparing Jinnah to Mandela is ridiculous. These two leaders could not be any further apart: 1. Mandela fought against the prevailing apartheid in South Africa. The unfair treatment of blacks at the hand of ruling whites. Jinnah wanted a separate country for Muslims. Mandela NEVER demanded the partition of South Africa. 2. Jinnah's demands did not arise from the political deprivation of muslims (they were adequately/proportionally represented in congress). Basic premise of his demands was 'Muslims are different from Hindus; we can NOT live together). Please refer Jinnah's speech in Bengal in 1930s/1940s. 3. Mandela NEVER asked Blacks of South Africa to start murdering Whites because they are different. Jinnah will forever be the man with the slogan 'Direct Action Day'. 4. Mandela's demand were just and based on the stark realities (which were open for one and all to see) and find wide acceptance all over the world. Jinnah's demand at best stemmed from the paranoia of 'future Hindu majority' giving no rights to 'future Muslim minority'. 5. Worst of all: Jinnah struggle might have resulted in 1 new nation (or 2 new nations) but it came at the cost of genocide (around million died in ensuing riots) and 15 millions (read that figure again) leaving everything (home, money, land, neighbours) behind and becoming refugee in alien land. Mandela gave equal rights to 'Blacks' without pushing innocent 'Whites/Blacks' out of their home and country! It is alright to be proud of one's father of nation but please do not compare Nelson Madela with M. A. Jinnah. Best wishes and regards, Sunil
gangadin Apr 05, 2013 11:12am
If Mr. Jinnah had lived till now, he would have Dementia and would not remember anything.
sushant Apr 05, 2013 11:59am
I don't buy this was not the prob with loss of leader as "Leaders are made, they are not born"....the basic difference was in the leading Political parties of both countries.... Congress was matured and comprises of people from all the sections where Muslim league was just made up of Elite class only and had lack of vision.....
S Shastri Apr 05, 2013 12:12pm
I do not see any point in comparing Nelson Mandela and Jinnah. There are simply too many differences in their underlying philosophy (inclusive vs. exclusive, religio-based versus secular), approach (committment to peace versus do what it takes), tools used (non-violenve vs. "direct action", use of legal framework vs. willingness to take the law in your hand), goals desired (unification, not separation), and the aftermath of results achieved (coexistence vs. factionalism). I am also surprised by the author's statement to the effect that Jinnah's was just as hard won and miraculous a victory as Mandela's. If that were so, from where did the "HaNs-ke liya Pakistan, lar-ke lenge Hindustan" slogan emerge immediately after partition? The demand for Pakistan picked up strength only after the independence to preserve Muslim interests in a supposedly Hindu dominated independent India.
SM Apr 05, 2013 12:22pm
Gandhi nurtured Nehru? LMAO Gandhi had serious differences with Nehru and their ideologies don't match at all!
Alexander Apr 05, 2013 12:33pm
Because Jinnah died too soon Pakistan is in such a situation? This is not as much heard as some Pakistani authors blaming western society's for their current state. So because of these TWO reasons, Pakistan is suffering today. Otherwise it would been a superpower! It was surprising the author compared a someone who demanded religious division to the great Mandela!! Jinnah is famous for Pakistanis but Mandela is INTERNATIONAL! because he did not worry about his religion but for the common cause of his people. Please note this difference.
Ashar Pervez Apr 05, 2013 12:34pm
non sense
Ashar Pervez Apr 05, 2013 12:36pm
and another Indian spreads his wisdom
SkyofBlue Apr 05, 2013 01:12pm
Let's remember, that with regards to all the points you mentioned, Mandela fought for a majority race ruled by the minority, while Jinnah fought for the minority ruled by the majority, aaand, Nehru's name would have fit in perfectly in points 4 & 5.
naveen Apr 05, 2013 01:15pm
No disrespect for Mr Jinnah .Pakistan is a country which was created on the basis of a false notion of a person- that 2 people who looks different, eat differently, pray differently cant live together. That's why it has not progressed well and people are killing different sects of same religion and people of other religions. He created unnecessary fear in the minds of everyone escpecially muslims. He never realized 30-40 % muslims sayed in india.Once Pakistanis learn to coexist and get rid of Mr Jinnahs ideas ( that two religions cant coexist ) they will do well .He was short sighted and didn't realize two brothers of same religion can also also look different and eat differently ( read Pakistan/Bangladesh ) and they also cant stay together. Mr Jinnah was living in old world but Gandhi was a leader of future who fasted and prayed for muslims in 1947 riots. That was the difference between two leadersOne created the fear which incited people ( both Hindus and Muslims ) for violence and separation, the other preys for them to live together that was the difference. These are my personnel thoughts
Shawez Apr 05, 2013 01:23pm
Actually he was nominated to the position of Governor General by the party who won the majority vote in the elections to create Pakistan; the Muslim League. They couldn't do elections again for a new Pakistan the day it was created. Think before you make comments like an imbecile.
pankajdehlavi Apr 05, 2013 01:28pm
Let me add to it, Mr. Jinnah knew very well even in 1945 that he is going to die pretty soon as doctors told him about his TB infections. He didn't elaborate his vision about the nation he wanted to make nor he ever bothered to nurture any second rung leadership as was done by Gandhi. Some people closer to Jinnah said he was not sure till last if Pakistan would be created and himself was equally disillusioned about what to do of this nation he suddenly got from sky. In fact, Pakistan was not created by Jinnah. It was created by Britishers as they wanted to weaken India. Britishers knew very well about India's potential and capabilities and they were frightened what would happen if this country will come on world stage with its full economic and political prowess. So, Jinnah was just a pawn in whole great game. Even if he wouldn't be there, another pawn would be created by Britishers to divide India. After seeing the partition genocide, he told his one of the closest associate "I fear people will remember me as Katil-E-Azam rather than Kaed-E-Azam".
K.Rashid Apr 05, 2013 01:28pm
Forgetting the Jinnah vs Mandela comparison, even a leader like Jaswant Singh agrees in his book that Jinnah possibly would have agreed to a agreement for one India with safe guards for the Muslim minority.It was Nehru & Patel stalemating such an agreement. Off course everyone laments the loss of life that took place. That is really sad. Were it not for continued discrimination & domination by a militant Hindu majority , the demand for a separate homeland would not have arisen. Continued massacre of Muslims in India, especially Gujarat, as recent as 2003 attest to this reality. If you take today's Indian middle class, Muslims in comparison to Hindus and Sikhs are vastly under-represented in all professions. Subtle discrimination still continues in professional and social life in India today. That is the stark reality of life for common Muslims today. Forget the window dressing of show casing a few famous Muslims in key positions. Majority of Muslims continue to lag the Indian middle class prosperity
Raj Apr 05, 2013 01:34pm
Madela spent bigger portion of his youth life in jail for aprtheid movement while Mr. Jinha did not spent a single night in Jail I believe. So the sacrifices of leaders of the country makes character of the country and people of that country realise importance of the FREEDOM. Don't compare Raja Bhoj with Gangu Teli
Feroz Apr 05, 2013 01:37pm
You have used wrong analogies and hopelessly too. Jinnah's ideology was based on Muslim supremacy and their unwillingness to live in a land of diversity and pluralism where everyone was equal. It was a cause that was worthless as is subsequently proved and the result of his mistaken vision is there for the World to see, however anyone may want to whitewash the issue. Mandela stood for equality and fraternity in direct contrast to everything Jinnah stood for. His was the right cause supported by all freedom loving people in the World, it did not cause bloodshed either. The colour of the lenses on your glasses will be the colour of the World you will see.
Mo Apr 05, 2013 01:54pm
If truth be told, Jinnah himself did not know what he was creating. He spoke secular on the one hand, and pandered to the more conservative on the other hand. The biggest folly was perhaps the creation of Pakistan itself. The vote of "no confidence" in Pakistan was given by none other than his own daughter, who chose to retain her Indian nationality and never moved to Pakistan.
Foha Apr 05, 2013 02:06pm
I don't understand why our people don't take charge of their situation rather than dwelling on the past (if Jinnah lived, if Zia wasn't there etc) or blaming others (US, India, Israel, etc) Jinnah alive or dead has nothing to do with the mentality of the people of Pakistan. And as mentioned in many other comments comparing Jinnah and Mandela is an extremely poor analogy.
bangash Apr 05, 2013 02:12pm
There was not a single another person in entire country who could provide honest and wise leadership ?! Personally I am begining to believe that neither Jinnah or Muslim League really thought much about how this new "Pakistan" would be structured or governed. They spent their entire energies dreaming of "Pakistan" and were surprised to actually get it.
NA Apr 05, 2013 02:23pm
white minority not majority
ID Apr 05, 2013 02:32pm
He founded a nation from the largest empire the world had ever seen, and fought the partition. It is harsh to say the Qauid did not had an idea what he had created - muslim nation indeed. No muslim need not be told what that is. Of course Pakistan is in difficult time but its time will come inshallah, for its people to express them selve in freedom that Allah has gifted humankind.
BEA Apr 05, 2013 02:37pm
If Mr Jinnah would have been alive today he would be crying at the state what Pakistan has become it was not his dream to see Pakistan like this.
Sonia K Apr 05, 2013 02:50pm
Mr. Alexander- for the Great Jinnah who is studied INTERNATIONALLY and written and commented upon INTERNATIONALLY- his people were the people of PAKISTAN- not just Muslims.Yes his division was based on Hindu/Muslim divide BUT he never shoved any other religion out of perspective, nor was he intolerant- proof his own daughter married into a different faith- his discontent 'as a father' only 'not as a politician' is understandable. His speeches about religious tolerance for EVERY other religion except political Hindu Raj- after British Raj was limited. He never wanted it. Mandela lived to see his dream- while Jinnah carved out a piece of land and didnot live beyond a year!!!
Yogesh P Apr 05, 2013 02:50pm
Nonsense. India was not totally dependent on Nehru after Gandhi. If Nehru had died or abducted by the aliens, there were hundreds of capable people within the congress hierarchy who could as capably handled the responsibility and steered the ship of the newborn state. In fact it may have been a suboptimal scenario for India to have Nehru had such an absolute majority in the early years. Congress party should have lost elections after 1962 debacle or much earlier after taking the Kashmir problem to UN.
ID Apr 05, 2013 02:59pm
Indeed the loss of Jinah was important to Pakistan in every sense. It is the fault of those corrupt leaders that Pakistan finds its self in difficulty today. He founded a nation on the principles of self freedom to practice thier beliefs and what is fundementally wrong with that? Mandela is indeed a great leader and of course Jinah was indeed a great man who sacrifies more than most leaders of the world for its people.
Sonia K Apr 05, 2013 03:17pm
Talk about Jinnah and see how many Indians flock in to give their opinions!!! Mr. Jinnah is STILL A CROWD PULLER! And that too a crowd from Mr. Jinnah's homeland!! Alhamdulillah! Please all those with conspiracy theories: Jinnah didnot know what to do with a country- he never wanted to make one- he just suddenly had a crowd thrust on him. He was a visionary leader- a politician who had decades of experience in politics- but he was human also- and a Muslim- he might have had a weak moment- but that doesnot mean a 'human being from any religious backing cannot have a weak moment when they have a huge responsibility of leading a nation- a throng of people'. Even Mandela! Muslims, and a person of Jinnah's disposition was of humble origins, he knew he would be ultimately be answerable to a Higher Authority for all his decisions. The talk of him being 'selfish to create a land' is simply laughable!!! If that was so easy- Palestine would have been free today!!! Please don't even sound like Ayesha Jalal who is the main originator of these conspiracy theories!!! I respect Mr. Mandela- he got to 'see' the people get their rights- but his claim to fame is his years in prison!!! Most people remember him that way. But that does not mean Pakistanis are in a worse position. We have land and many resources- we just have too many desires and complaints. Nehru made many policies for the Indians which were refuted by them after his death on the pretext of India moving forward. The only thing that moved forward was the inherited democratic government, the newer rejecting the old and major corruption!
Krish Chennai Apr 05, 2013 03:29pm
Not to forget that the title "Quaid-e-Azam" was first referred to him by none other than MK Gandhi
srinivasakumarmn Apr 05, 2013 03:57pm
lol talk topic is about pre independence not 21st century.......... irrilevent answer to relevent topic...
Berliner Apr 05, 2013 04:08pm
All those who write on Mr. Jinnah and the creation of Pakistan should listen to the talk show of Mr. Tarek Fatah on "Bilatakaluff" programme on You Tube. You get the answer to why was Pakistan created and who were the architects?
P N Eswaran Apr 05, 2013 04:14pm
Leaders don't make a nation. The character of nation and its destiny depends on it's people. If today India is lagging far behind China, a large part has been the contribution of Nehru's 17 years (mis)rule tolerated by the Indians.
P N Eswaran Apr 05, 2013 04:41pm
I must congratulate Dawn for publishing candid comments on Jinnah. Coming to the subject of the blog had Jinnah lived would Pakistan be different? Would it have developed into a modern democratic nation living in peace with itself and with India? The very nature of the ideology and mobilization of Pakistan movement does not support such a possibility. Had Jinnah lived it can be said with certainty how he would have died. He would have been either shot at a public meeting or would have been hanged by a military dictator on fictitious charges, or would have been exiled to saudi Arabia (though Jinnah would have preferred India), or would have been blown in mid-air. If he was very lucky he would have settled in the US or UK in self exile. I rarely miss the writings of Rafia Zakaria and in this article she has summoned all her writing skills in trying to put Jinnah and Mandela on the same pedestal!.
Faiyaz Maklai Apr 05, 2013 05:11pm
it was not Jinnah but Nehru and Patel who created Pakistan (read Jaswant Singh). Nehru thought that Pakistan wouldnt survive and would join in. As regards Jinnah he was not asking for a separate country but for the rights of Muslims which is legitimate and Pakistan was just being used as a bargaining tool.
kamran Apr 05, 2013 05:12pm
Mandela lived and fought for the rights in a place where already there was no two religions. Please know the history. You cant compare apples with oranges in this context. British, as they have always been, created the division of hindus, muslims and sikhs in subcontinent. Sikhs did not have majority and a good leader, so they faded away eventually. Muslims in India did not have any rights at that time, the division and the fight was not based on religion, but was based on two ethinic groups, who could no longer live together.
AJK Apr 05, 2013 05:13pm
According to independent researched history the creation of Pakistan and India was not the real choice of Jinnah. Pakistan's demand finally put forwarded by All India Muslim League in 1940. Before this the Party and its leadreship was only demanding a respectable and just share of every independence mainly political and religio-culture and that would only in the Muslim majority areas of United India and not in the entire India. But unfortunately the Congress Ministries rule in different provinces from 1937 to 1939 finally alarmed the Muslims in general and AIML leadership in particular that coeixtence on the basis of equality has a faint chance to be happen in the United India. But take the example of Cabinet Mission Plan 1946 in which AIML leadership especially the same Jinnah accepted the "not partitioning" of India but the exclusive interpretation of Plan by Congress leadership and the Great Gandhi himself once again proved the fears of Muslims true even that was not matched by the interpretation of the very maker of the Plan let alone the Muslims and the Jinnah......
Khan Apr 05, 2013 05:29pm
Majority who died were Muslims by the hand of Hindu and Sikh terrorists
southie Apr 05, 2013 05:30pm
Did your Jinnah spend a single day in prison for freedom struggle as Nehru and Gandhi and Patel did for months, and even years? Did Jinnah leave any political heir behind him to carry on his mantle? How come Jinnah married a teenage girl who was young enough to be his daughter? Why was Jinnah against his daughter's inter-faith marriage while he himself had one? Do you mean to say Pakistan is after all a one man's dream and without him it faltered and fractured itself in the process of nation-building? Whatever it is, one sees too much of postmortem on partition in Pakistan media whereas we Indians seem to have outgrown this phase of history. But 1.2 billion Indians can't thank Jinnah enough for carving Pakistan and Bangladesh out of India! The clock cannot be turned back and Indians today are as much assertive and happy of their separation from Pakistan as Pakistanis have been claiming they are from India since the day of independence It irritates us south Indians to see north Indians speak of Pakistan with nostalgia as none of us share such sentiments with Pakistan or can identify/sympathize with the partition trauma. Jinnah and his ideology never mattered to this part of India and all the discussions on partition makes no sense to a majority of us.
Khan Apr 05, 2013 05:35pm
If he was not capable he can't get independence in such a short period. Indians have their Own version of truth which is applicable only in India and Indians grow up by memorizing it from their media, school books etc its pointless to debate with people who does not wanted to see theirs or theirs leader weakness and shortfalls and always point finger on china, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal, Australia, UK, USA etc...
Rao Apr 05, 2013 06:01pm
Nelson Mandela took racism out of politics of South Africa and kept the country together and stable, whereas Jinnah broke a country into pieces to create a homeland for his fellow Muslims, so that they can become majority and rule the land. You may revere Jinnah as your Father of the nation, but comparing Jinnah to Nelson Mandela is not right.
Pakistani Apr 05, 2013 06:14pm
To judge Pakistan's current situation based on Jinnah's death is foolish if not pathetic having said that, yes Pakistan has been a victim of bad governance , If it has qualified stable government only for a decade the whole equation changes, it will be better than any ARAB state it terms of development and the same time you cannot rule out that Pakistan is one of the worlds most skilled worker producer.
Seetharam Apr 05, 2013 06:37pm
Reading the book: " Freedom at Mid-night" by Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre" I discovered: 1. That Jinnah's grandfather was a Hindu and got converted to Islam for some unknown reason and that he hailed the same area of Gujarat as Mahatma Gandhi. 2. During the negotiations for independence in 1946, Jinnah had to be flown to Bombay for treatment. Dr. Patel who treated him told Jinnah he had Tuberculosis and needed to be isolated in a Sanatorium for treatment. Both the doctor and Jinnah keep this a secret so that his dream of breaking up of India to form a separate country for Muslims is kept alive. If the Truth was disclosed the fate of the subcontinent would have been different and the Hindus and Muslims would have lived in peace and progressed by leaps and bounds instead of hating each other like cats and dogs. Mr. Jinnah cheated the people of India from this glorious future by a total lack of moral compass. He is no Mandela by any stretch of imagination.
sab Apr 05, 2013 06:45pm
despite everything, jinnah was a winner, he will be remembered as a winner...
Arun Apr 05, 2013 07:00pm
You do a great disservice to the people of Pakistan when you say that the death of a single person led to the state it is in. The people of Pakistan are not dependent on one person. What has gone wrong with Pakistan is that the country was justified on the basis of religion, and given that basis it was inevitable that it would turn into a state that tolerated only one religion. Jinnah's personal political ambitions were fulfilled by the creation of Pakistan, but the future of that section of South Asia was destroyed, not just by him, but by the ideology the majority of Pakistan believed in. If you don't believe me, ask yourself: why is the blasphemy law still on the books? A majority of Pakistan supports it.
Rad Apr 05, 2013 07:01pm
Jinnah had created a monster called pakistan.If India,Pakistan and Bangladesh were together there would not have been 3 wars,not an exorbiant sky rocketing defence expenditure and no terrorism.
Khan Apr 05, 2013 07:01pm
He is an Indian they memories Indian version of history like parrots and keep on making silly noises in same pitch and tone
Rad Apr 05, 2013 07:05pm
British no doubt were unning but why should be pawns in their hands.
Deb Apr 05, 2013 07:27pm
Dil behelane ko yeh khyal achchha hai ghalib! There is no comparison between Mandela and Jinnah. Mandela's entire struggle was based on Mahatma Gandhi's philosophy (which Mandela himself acknowledged many times) while Jinnah, with his direct action concept and exclusiveness of Muslims, can never be compared with great leaders like the two stated above along with Nehru, Sardar Patel etc. But thanks to Jinnah, Indians are much better off today.
Deb Apr 05, 2013 07:35pm
Trust me my friend, its much better than Pakistani wisdom.
Gangu Apr 05, 2013 07:43pm
There's a difference between "elected" and "nominated'. I can be nominated for an award; doesn't mean I have won it. Learn proper use of English language.
Gangu Apr 05, 2013 07:47pm
Learn to accept wisdom, wherever it comes from. It's definitely not going to come out of your sorry behind
Nero Apr 05, 2013 07:49pm
"Through his masterful maneuvering and inspirational rallying; a country had been wrest from the clenched fists of the British Empire sulky about its
Talha Apr 05, 2013 07:52pm
Long Live JINNAH'S PAKISTAN........Its better to say this rather than saying long live pakistan just because the democratic situation of pakistan clearly shows illiterate people struggling to gain power....Day will come when youth will stand and play a course of obstacle between all corrupt political party...whether its PTI,APML,PPP etc......
ASinUS Apr 05, 2013 08:00pm
Well Jinnah never requested for an "equal" participation for Muslims in Indian, he wanted a higher representation for Muslims of Indian disproportionate to their number as well as autonomy for Muslim states. If congress had agreed to these demands it would have been discrimination and domination on a constitutional basis as against the so called "discrimination & domination by a militant Hindu majority" as put by you. As for the condition of Muslims in present India, there is backwardness in the society but that is not a state or system based discrimination. The laws are the same for every citizen of India. If you do want to compare the minorities, we can talk about the state of the minorities in Pakistan, where apart from the social discrimination, even the state and the constitution does not provide them equal rights in many matters. And not that I want partition to be reversed, but if you are justifying it by stating the condition of Muslims in Indian, then what about the Shias and Ahmedis in Pakistan? The point being that Jinnah demanded partition based on the differences of religion and that is what is being followed today.
Tariq Apr 05, 2013 08:21pm
Jinnah's biggest mistake was agreeing to Mountbatten's diabolical plan allowing various individual Maharajas to decide if their states would join India or Pakistan. Given that the ruler of Kashmir, Hari Singh, was a Hindu, this scheme was a nothing more than a back door way for Nehru to make Kashmir a part of India. Jinnah should have flat out rejected Mountbatten's scheme and insisted that Kashmir's status be settled prior to the Brits leaving. All dictates of geography and logic pointed to Kashmir being a part of Pakistan. It was only Nehru's obsession with his ancestral homeland that made this even a debatable point in the first place. I believe that if the Kashmir question had been settled before independence, India and Pakistan would have become friendly neighbors (like the USA and Canada) once Nehru got over his Kashmir obsession, and the people of the subcontinent today would be enjoying a standard of living equal to that of the west.
Yasir Apr 05, 2013 08:29pm
Very Very Well Said: "So the sacrifices of leaders of the country makes character of the country"
ss Apr 05, 2013 08:45pm
is it more difficult to become a salman khan, amir khan or shahrukh khan or a clerk in a pvt company.... muslims in india and world wide lack education and remember to become a clerk in a company you need acceptance of few hindus; to become salman khan you need affection of one billion!!! Pakistan was created on a hoax "Islam in danger" which haunts it today as well
PVB Apr 05, 2013 08:55pm
They lag behind because of one reason, EDUCATION.
A. Mirza Apr 05, 2013 09:03pm
Thanks for artcle and comments. Please read Antjie Krog's book "Country of My Skull" before commenting and comparing two Leaders. Thanks Aslam
Satyameva Jayate Apr 05, 2013 09:45pm
Mr. Jinnah was no Mr. Mandela: Mr. Mandela spent 27 YEARS in prison. Mr. Jinnah didn't spend even 27 DAYS in prison. The respect and acclaim enjoyed by them outside their own countries make a telling difference. Outside Pakistan, name one school, university, town, road named after Mr. Jinnah! If early death of the leader is so critical, why not compare with India and what India has achieved even after its Father of the Nation, Mr. Gandhi was murdered withing a few years of independence?
Nonymus Apr 05, 2013 09:51pm
And another Pakistani denies wisdom......
Gary Apr 05, 2013 10:15pm
I salute congress leaders like Nehru and Patel who gave in to Jinnah's demands. In a single stroke, Jinnah made the muslims perpetually weaker than they were. Pakistanis are now fighting each other in the name of true islam. Jinnah did the most favours to the hindus by carving a nation for muslims. India would be nowhere had it not been divided. Its present problems would multiply.
Karthik Apr 05, 2013 10:50pm
I don't think one can look at the if's and but's of history and romanticize about it. A nation in the name of a religion was soon going to delegitimize every voice other than that of the puritanical religious variety, which is what is happening to Pakistan. Let us not forget that while Jinnah did die a natural death, Liaqat Ali Khan was assassinated. No one can say what the history had in store, given this. Moreover, Jinnah himself would have never realize the repurcussions of what he had done.
Laeeq,NY Apr 05, 2013 11:39pm
Jinnah never envisioned the Pakistan in its current state of democracy. A country created on the base of religious beliefs can not stay peaceful in harmony. In Pakistan where so many sects of Islam and other minorities lives side by side, which sharia law will be followed since so many Islamic school of thoughts exist with so much animosity against each other. They do not even pray behind each other. They do not even enter each other's mosques. Only solution for Pakistan is to keep religion at home or at mosque, and keep religion out of government institutions and constitution of Pakistan.
Does not matter Apr 06, 2013 12:31am
I don't know how Pakistan would have done if Jinnah lived, but what i know for sure is, IF he had lived now, he would have shifted to his house in Bombay.
Bakul Apr 06, 2013 01:04am
It is incorrect to compare Nelson Mandela with Jinha. Mandela fought for freedom for his South African brothers and sisters irrespective of their faith. Jinha divided a country based on religion. It would be more appropriate to compare Mandela with Gandhi.
pankajdehlavi Apr 06, 2013 01:33am
This is biggest illusion that Pakistan was created by vote. If you closely look the formula made for election you will find that it was completely faulty. There were separate electorate for Hindus and muslims. And, how can you say that elections were not rigged. Even after 65 years of mature democracy, there are many ways election results can be affected. How can you believe Britishers who were conducting elections didn't rig it in favor of partition. And why a simple all India referendum was not done, if people of India want division or not. There are many things that are still unknown about that time at the administrative level.
Yawar Apr 06, 2013 01:57am
Only a person born in Pakistan and who has studied the life and achievements of Quaid-e-Azam can understand and appreciate his worth.
Sali Apr 06, 2013 02:11am
Pakistan doesn't know how to treat their leaders and they get tired of them quickly. If Jinnah had lived, he would have been treated the same way as Liaqut Ali Khan, Fatima Jinnah and other leaders who gave everything for Pakistan were treated. They left India with everything behind to build a vibrant progressive islamic nation but it was hijacked from them.
NL Apr 06, 2013 04:21am
Thank you ma'am for your comment. All these indian/ hindus do not understand Mr. Jinnah,'s vision for Pakistan, he is not with us to answer their queries unfortunately. Indians are still troubled with Pakistan as a country. Our leader gave us the direction its us people who have ruined it, and we have to fix it ! so do not blame our leader!!
Gary Apr 06, 2013 05:04am
And you say that muslims do not share the blame for their own "position" in India? Their affinity towards religion and reluctance to get modern education which leads to better lives is not one of the reason? Agreed that there is some resentment towards muslims after the partition (and some Indian muslims help justify it), it is not the state policy to discriminate based on religion. Any muslim who pursues good education and social conduct is not disappointed. The window dressing you are speaking of is probably the few muslims who chose take up the path towards progress. Those key positions do not happen overnight and without qualifications, do they? As if put a muslim in a high position and show him to the world. The fact is that muslims are much safer and happier in India than all islamic countries together.
Gary Apr 06, 2013 05:07am
Pray lets have your pearls of wisdom on this very same issue.
BIMAL CHANDRA JHA Apr 06, 2013 05:23am
Sir, Thanks to Rafia Zakaria for writing a good article, but she forgot to mention that Pakistan was born out of conspiracy hatched by British empire. The conspiracy was very clear- divide and rule. The imperialist ruler created hatred between Hindus and Muslims in the name of religion and a new political doctrine of "two - nation theory " was evolved whereas the transfer of power from whites to black majority was not possible in South Africa on the basis of religion because in this case the ruler and the ruled and the ruled belonged to same religion. This was the the fundamental difference. Since Pakistan was created in the name of Islam , the religion became the backbone of the society. Fundamentalists in Pakistan began to think that Islam is the super religion and they have got every right to rule the world in the name of religion which is not possible today's world. Jehad became their sole objective. Religion should not be political tool. Unless and until we understand the basic philosophy of religion we can not succeed. So, Pakistan or any country in the world will not succeed till they follow their religion blindly. Yours faithfully; BIMAL CHANDRA JHA Samanpura Road, Patna, India
anil tiwari Apr 06, 2013 06:28am
If I were in Mr Jinnah's shoes I would have never agreed for a partition which would uproot so many innocent people and spill so much innocent blood and create so much hatred that it still persists for 65-years!!!
Mann Singh Apr 06, 2013 06:54am
Bhai Jaan please enlighten us why have you clubbed the Sikhs with the Muslims. In india the Sikhs are better off then Hindus.
A.Vetta Apr 06, 2013 07:26am
Mr Jinnah made a great contribution to democracy in the South Asia. Regrettably, this simple point that I have made a few time, seems to be missed by most people. By creating Pakistan he took away Muslim Generals from India. Had they remained in the united India Army, they would have surely found some Hindu Generals of their ilk and would have established a military dictatorship in India that would have been supported by the UK and the West. As for personal qualities, as a human being he suffered from human deficiencies of greed and power seeking. Whether illness in the last years of his life mad it better or worse is a different point.
Shipan Apr 06, 2013 07:41am
But wisdom is for world to see!
alien brahmin Apr 06, 2013 08:17am
He founded a muslim nation specially for muslims imagining muslims cant get freedom under hindu leaders rule . but the irony is , at present muslims in india are more free , prosporous and peacefull than a muslim nation like pakistan .
Sonia K Apr 06, 2013 08:23am
Thats exactly why you are Anil Tiwari :)
Capri Apr 06, 2013 08:34am
Nobody is denying the Indian Muslim a slice of the pie, other then Muslims themselves. The educated ones are realising their full potential and are in every field. Please visit India once to see for yourself. The backward ones are those Muslims still mired in their old mulla and madrasa beliefs and with a very low priority on education. Why is it so difficult to convince these disbelieving Pakistanis this fact?
Abid S Mustikhan Apr 06, 2013 08:51am
My family has remained very close to the Haroon Family. Once I asked Mr. Yousuf A. Haroon (may his soul rest in eternal peace), "Uncle, you being the closest living confidante of Mr. Jinnah, do you think that Pakistan would have been in a much better state if Mr. Jinnah lived longer"...His reply, "Son, I think that it was a good omen that he passed away so soon after the creation of Pakistan else, you would not have seen his picture on the office walls and the currency notes"....A true example of a thankless nation..
Rashid Sultan Apr 06, 2013 09:24am
This article is fundamentally flawed. Rafia needs to review historical events and evidence objectively. The two men, Mandela and Jinnah, are like chalk and cheese. Very different in what they struggled for, the tribulations and accomplishments. Mandela was humiliated, treated unjustly, tried, incarcerated, freed, recognised, elevated and then worked for reconciliation and unification. South Africa remains a single nation of all colours, faiths and creed. No one was displaced, dislodged, made a refugee, disembowelled, orphaned or made destitute in the process of power transfer. Now compare this what the process and outcome were from 1925 through to 1947. No more eulogies please. Be brave and tell the truth. The truth is different.
Satyameva Jayate Apr 06, 2013 09:33am
Allah gives brain and hands. It is up to men and women what they do with their brains and hands.
observer Apr 06, 2013 10:05am
I met an Indian who lied to me that Indians have accepted creation of Pakistan. If he was right, the 213 thumbs up votes the above comment must be a lie.
ROHIT PANDEY Apr 06, 2013 10:37am
Mohammed Ali Jinnah would not have made much of difference to evolution of Pakistan's polity. The Muslim population in Pakistan ( and,other Muslim states) BELIEVES with all enthusiasm that religion can be foundation for a governing a state. Mohammed Ali Jinnah was secular and so was Kemal Ataturk...the difference is that Ataturk left behind the Turkish Army to safe guard secularism...and no such mechanism or some thing very similar exists in Pakistan. Liaqat Ali Khan or Zia ul Haq are incidental actors who just promote what is deeply believed in..just as Recep Tayyip Ergodan the present day Turkish PM promotes it...only time will tell if secularism in Turkey will survive.
ROHIT PANDEY Apr 06, 2013 10:41am
Please do share your insights here about Jinnah's achievements?
ss Apr 06, 2013 11:10am
mandela spent half of his life in prison for demanding equal rights of blacks; compared this with Jinnah who did not spend a single night in jail for demanding pakistan
Sonamona Apr 06, 2013 11:11am
Yes. Only a person born in Pakistan can be so blind to hard facts.
vishmed Apr 06, 2013 01:06pm
So Pakistan is doomed? Just because one person died early. So does this mean that Pakistan was a one man show and present 180 million Pakistanis count for nothing.
Uggarwadi Apr 06, 2013 01:35pm
I see so many Indians taking so much interest in this article and all are still ignorant, this very reason was the basis of the creation of Pakistan, if you remain like this, very soon there will be an another division on this very same philosophy. Pakistan is now a reality and it can never be undone.
cautious Apr 06, 2013 01:42pm
Time to move on -- Jinnah is long gone and the problems facing Pakistan are obvious -- Religious extremism, intolerance, corruption and an indifferent population which sits by and watches the country slowly go down the drain.
abdul quddous Apr 06, 2013 01:55pm
Jinnah and Mandela no doubt were great laeders both fight for the natural freedom of humanity.But the main difference in their struggle is in their ideology and the way they fight for their nation.Mandela fought against racism and injustice in society where the Whites were ruling and depriving Black nation was in total loss.But on the other hand,Jinnah fought for the real muslim faith,a faith which divided subcontinent.i am hopeful,one day we pakistanies will see pakistan,a real pakistan glooming and shining in the spirit of peace and harmony.
KSD Apr 06, 2013 03:29pm
Agree completely. Compare a peaceful transition from apartheid to black power under Mandela with more than a million people killed transmigrating between now-called Pakistan and India even before the bugle of independence had blown. Mr. Jinnah's utterances on religious tolerance are often cited but they were purely theoretical. The man had zero control on his own people.
humanitarian Apr 06, 2013 03:39pm
By the way, did you know Jinnah was a smoker and whiskey drinker, plus he had married a non Muslim. He also wore very westernised clothes. Pakistan has few heroes, so Jinnah is elevated as one. The truth is different. However, there is one hero in Pakistan. Imran Khan is his name.
Satyameva Jayate Apr 06, 2013 03:49pm
The issue at hand is Mr. Jinnah and Mr. Mandela. How does the issue of Indians' acceptance of Pakistan is related to that???
pathanoo Apr 06, 2013 03:54pm
If Jinnah, who was a secularist at heart but not a man of high integrity and driven mostly by selfish interest, had lived longer, he would have realized the mistake he made in partitioning the country. Eventually, he would been pushed aside for being a Shia and whiskey drinker and who knows, might even have been hanged by Zia Ul Haq had he lived long enough (instead of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto). For Jinnah's sake, I think that it was good that he died so soon after the creation of Pakistan. At least he did not have to face the consequences of his folly.
PM Apr 06, 2013 04:18pm
If Jinnah had lived he would have been called Kaffir and killed in suicide bombing
AHA Apr 06, 2013 04:41pm
That is in fact correct. Muslim League worked only to create Pakistan, but had no strategy on how to run a country.
AHA Apr 06, 2013 04:51pm
It was actually Nehru that caused the creation of Pakistan.
P,Mishra Apr 06, 2013 05:04pm
How can you say the sikhs have faded away? To day there is a sikh who is prime minister of the largest democracy.
Krish Chennai Apr 06, 2013 05:13pm
Hate to say this, because as a person he was superb, but had Jinnah lived, he may well have been shot dead, by his own folks, just like the man who gave him the encomium of Quaid e Azam, MK Gandhi. May we all have the peace we richly deserve, soon. About time.
Ravi Ingale from University of Pune. Apr 06, 2013 05:40pm
If Jinnah had live??? nothing would happened because just way Gandhi had been killed on his tour to Pakistan and lend money to Pak Jinnah also would had been killed by a Pakistani version Nathuram Godase on the account of his meeting with Gandhi and bilateral relation with India. If Jinnah had not made Pak then Today in India there would be 600 million Undivided Muslims those ruled Indian Subcontinental region and Hindu would be in Minority.
Santoshk Apr 06, 2013 06:08pm
The man did win.. But mankind lost.. and lost like never before.. and never afterwards!!
Santoshk Apr 06, 2013 06:13pm
As far as I know history.. The largest empire ever was of mongols... Did he found Mongolia?? .. Ur comments shows that you are still living in the delusions of your imagined past... Time to wake up my friend!!
Bill Cowdrey Apr 06, 2013 06:43pm
It is pointless to delve in hypothetical situations and silly romantic notions like some Barbara Cartland novels. Ms. Zakaria is trying to put a positive spin on the dismal political situation in Pakistan (and the breakaway province of East Pakistan now Bangladesh) created by Jinnah. The problem is with people and their mindset. India has fared better. However, India, like Pakistan, is also suffering from the same malaise: Bad governance, rampant corruption and economic inequities. Instead of violent insurgency in Pakistan and increasingly chaotic situation in Bangladesh by radical Islamists, India is facing insurgency by Naxalites (Maoists) in at least seven states.
Girish Apr 06, 2013 07:05pm
Oh! You are mistaken! Indians have definitely accepted the reality of Pakistan. What they don't accept is what Pakistan stands for. That is the reason for the thumbs down. Your friend did not lie to you.
Girish Apr 06, 2013 07:21pm
Before independence Muslims formed nearly 30% of the population. They would have formed the largest single block. The rest of the population was divided by race/language/caste/sect and so on. India is a land of minorities. Every community is minority one way or the other. Why should that stop people from living their lives? Identity is mufti-layered and complex. Mandela's vision was universal steeped in common sense.
Sridhar Apr 06, 2013 07:40pm
The author will be better served if she employs a more thoughtful, careful, rigorous approach to historical analysis rather than riding wild on a simplistic proposition. That is what I expect of my graduate students. Mandela evolved from being a radical, leftist who once sought change through violence to a mature practitioner of peaceful, non-violent resistance. He spent a substantive part of life in jail and not consorting with the ruling masters over cocktails and avoiding prison. His vision has been for a united South Africa where people of all colors and creed could co-exist. Not once in his life has he claimed drawing any inspiration from Jinnah. However, he has frequently acknowledged the movement of Satyagraha that was started in South Africa as a harbinger of future anti-aparthied movement for total freedom. What happened in India after the fateful decision to partition. Gandhiji had stepped down from leadership of Congress and strongly advised dissolution of the party. He did not even attend the ceremony formalizing the transfer of power. Instead, he was 900 miles away, in Calcutta, quelling communal riots through peaceful persuasion and He predeceased Jinnah by 7 months. Yet his death and absence from leadership left no vacuum. He had inspired and had mentored a veritable stable of leaders who subscribed to the secular democracy. Men like Gandhi and Mandela pursued vision that was value based. There in lies the difference.
Zinc Apr 06, 2013 07:46pm
If Nehru agreed to Jinnah's 14 points , there would be no need for Pakistan, Pakistan was created for the equal rights and opportunities within Sub-continent,
dev Apr 06, 2013 07:52pm
Don't fool yourself, what did Jinnah sacrifice? His house in Bombay? He never went to jail and hardly ever fought for independence, what he fought was separation and division of motherland unlike Mendela.
Rajendra Jhariya Apr 06, 2013 09:32pm
too matchable
naveen Apr 06, 2013 10:26pm
Its always the same story if last batsman could have hit six sixes on last over, or if the bowler could have taken 6 wickets in last over we would have won the match. A team can not win all the matches because of one person it has to be team effort. A country does not survive because of one person ( does not matter how great this person is ) its the system and the whole population which makes a nation great. No body wants to admit that it was based on personnel gains, hatred and false ideology that two different communities cant live together. People were fed this propaganda on both sided of the border and brain washed .I am sure things in Pakistan will improve as people are getting more educated moving away from old ideology and learn to coexist. Internet, media has got a big role to play.
naveen Apr 06, 2013 10:28pm
very true
Razzak Apr 06, 2013 10:34pm
naveen Apr 06, 2013 10:37pm
And army chief too. People just don't want to see what they don't like
raju Apr 06, 2013 11:16pm
Try to learn the difference between religion and ethnicity, then you will understand Jinnahs vision which has failed miserably.
Qureshi Apr 07, 2013 12:06am
Good job but em afraid that It is absurd comparing both personalities Indeed they both are honorable , but the circumstances in their lives have been totally different. So no comparison in any way!
Ravan Apr 07, 2013 02:43am
Mr. Tiwari , forget this If situation . you can also say If Jinnah did not come to this world or for that matter , if Chengez Khan , Bin Qassim or Hitler were not born , history of this whole world will be entirely different now . you have to deal with the existing problems with or without Mr. Jinnah.
pooja Apr 07, 2013 02:47am
funny article......leave aside mr.Jinnah's accomplishments and what he could have done.....think simple....he died at the age of many more years did u want him to live????
Paul Apr 07, 2013 03:35am
It's very unfortunate that this 'Great Personality' died just after the creation of Pakistan.He was a great advisor not for Muslims living in Pakistan only but for Muslims living in India.
hitesh Apr 07, 2013 03:55am
There is a famous saying in Gujarati : " lakh marjo, pan lakhono tarajhaar na marjo !" That is to say let a million die, but not the ONE who leads these millions. All his good intentions for minority reversed the very day he died.
Dudenator Apr 07, 2013 03:56am
The comment "Sikhs have faded" away reflects the true product of teachings of Ideology of Pakistan. Mr. Kamran, please take the trouble of reading up on Sikhs. They are some of the most vibrant and progressive communities in India. I have just made a trip to Chindigarh and Amritsar and I can say for sure that this community is one of the strongest pillars of India. I can spend the whole day writing about some prominent Sikhs in India.
hitesh Apr 07, 2013 03:58am
At the same time you couldn't compare Jinnah with Gandhi. Simple Algebra if a is not equal to b and a is equal to c that means b is not equal to c. Got it !
S Ahmed Apr 07, 2013 04:56am
very well said. Kudos
BRR Apr 07, 2013 04:56am
Its a shame to mention Jinnah and Mandela in the same sentence - Jinnah did not spend a month in jail, Mandela spent decades in jail. Jinnah was no Mandela.
sikander Apr 07, 2013 05:15am
Very well written. No one from current leaders can lead us out of such complex conundrums. May be we need a new Jinnah.
Chanakya Apr 07, 2013 05:33am
Thank you. You said it all.When we acknowledge the problems, we'll look for solutions.
Chanakya Apr 07, 2013 05:38am
Mandela declared himself a staunch follower of Gandhi, you may like to know.
Ram Krishan Sharma Apr 07, 2013 05:41am
On the other hand , partition was indeed a great blessing of Allah to the Hindus of India. They don't complain . The problem lies with muslims of Pakistan who can not live peacefully even with the people who proclaim to be muslims in their country.
Fahad Apr 07, 2013 05:56am
Imran Apr 07, 2013 06:11am
Jinnah just did not have in him to understand the composite cultural fibre of India.Jinnah failed to understand the thousand years old civilization of India. Jinnah failed to imagine the repercussions of his immature actions of creating a new country in the name of religion. It is impossible to create one, especially in India where are present all the races, religions, castes creeds under the sun. He was a man of hugely inflated ego who got some kind of sadistic pleasures in humiliating congress, especially Gandhiji. He may have been a brilliant orator with loyal followings of elitists and feudal muslims in those times but definitely he didn
arvind Apr 07, 2013 06:28am
Pakistan was born on religious line, Md Jinnah realized it then what next? I have not read anywhere long term dream of any Muslim league leader of Independence era.
Manu Apr 07, 2013 07:15am
Mr. Jinnah will end up on the wrong side of history for the divisive cause he espoused, for the malevolent means he adopted [Direct Action in 1946 which was nothing more than an incitement to murder], for travelling to his destination in an Islamic ship and then advising everyone to be secular [famous 1948 speech]. Today one reads so many comments by Pakistanis that religion should be confined to home then what the hell was partition about ? Congress fought the bRitish Empire, Jinnah fought the idea of India.