JINNAH by ISHTIAQ AHMED

Previous books on Jinnah or Pakistan were based on here say but Ishtiaq Ahmed collected all the spoken words of importance for 20 years before creation of Pakistan . Some speeches misled many but Ishtiaq Ahmed carefully documented Jinnah spoke words .Since Jinnah did not write much , it was tedious task of collecting Jinnah ‘s thoughts at different times in history for 30 years before his death . As a comptent lawyer , Jinnah was selective in chosen words for his speeches or comments since 1930.

This reviewer is inclined to think that on page-15 DrIshtiaq thought that Mr Jinnah was clueless abouthow Pakistan should be organised and governed: ---“On the other hand, for the Pakistan that finallyemerged in mid-August 1947, he had no consistentidea or vision.”On page-17 Dr Ishtiaq quotes British historian E.HCarr’s highly dubious and fallacious claim , withoutdisputing or refuting it as below:---“Mainstream historians have accepted the role ofindividuals in history but within the context ofobjective conditions. For example, the Britishhistorian E.H. Carr distinguished between mensuch as V.I. Lenin and Oliver Cromwell, who helpedto shape the social forces which carried them tohistorical greatness, and those such as Napoleonand Prussian chancellor Otto von Bismarck whomsocial forces propelled forward with them havinglittle control over the social forces. Nevertheless,Carr discarded as absurd the ‘great man’ theory,which focused exclusively on individuals.”The harsh fact remains that Lenin entered as a socalled great man in history only thanks to Germanintelligence who saw his entry as useful for theGerman war effort.To state that Lenin shaped historical forces whichcarried him to greatness is a highly dumb anddebatable conclusion of E.H Carr .On page-22 the author’s historic background aboutMuslim advent in India has many loopholes andsome half truths . He stated as below:---“In the tenth century, Turco-Afghans began toinvade India from the northwest mountain passes.First, the Punjab was conquered and in the earlythirteenth century Muslim dynasties wereestablished in northern India. SunniIslam subscribing to the Hanafi school ofjurisprudence became the predominant group inIndia. A Shia minority comprising the Ithna Ashari(believers in twelve imams), or Ismaili and Bohrasub-sects also established their presence.”1. Punjab was not conquered first as theauthor stated but Peshawar which had noconnection with Punjab. Even Punjab is amisleading term since there was no Punjabtill the British East India Company creating ahitherto unknown , new province in 1849 ,by combining old Multan and Lahoreprovinces as they were known before 1849.2. Southern Punjab as we know it now wasconquered long before the Turco Afghanscame by Arabs in 711-14.3. Shia Ismaili ascendancy in form ofQarmathian kingdom of Multan wasestablished long before Turco Afghans , butour learned author misses this fact.4. Shia kingdoms of South India wereestablished and were a major militarypower in India , but the author makes nomention of them.On page-23 the author mentions an obscureunknown character called Ms and quotes the belowstatement which is “misleading” “vague” and“incomplete”“According to Naureen Talha, 86 per cent of theimperial services were manned by Muslims”.Quoting this obscure and known author with noknown expertise in Indian Muslim history as far asMughal nobility is concerned left a bad taste in themouth .On carrying out a detailed search I could locate noNaureen Talha on reputable research platforms likeresearchgate or academia.edu.Yes there was a naureen Talha on amazon booksselling an overpriced book dealing Pakistan’screation and economics . So Naureen Talha was anabsolute disaster as far as Mughal nobility wasconcerned !The layman reader may note that the right personto quote regarding Mughal nobility is Mr M.AtharAli whose book “THE MUGHAL NOBILITY UNDERAURANGZEB” 2 remains the magnum bonumclassic par excellence !M.Athar Ali summed up the number of Hindus (NonMuslims) in Mughal nobility under the so calledmost bigoted 3 Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb asbelow:--42 THE MUGHAL NOBILITY UNDER AURANGZEB- M.Athar Ali-Asia Publishing House – New Delhi-19663 Again a debatable conclusion which cannot be proven byfacts.4 Page-31- IbidSo contrary to pure and unadulterated nonsensesweaping judgements of unknown and novice MsNaureen Talha , Athar Ali who is a most respectedscholar , non Muslims even at their lowest were notless than 21.6 % , while this Ms Naureen Talhawants to mislead us by claiming that Muslims were86 % and non Muslims thus only 14 %.Since this book was published by a highly reputablepublisher “PENGUIN” we expected good editing andproof reading , but it was a sad shock to read onpage-24 that Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb had diedin 1704 , three years earlier than his actual year ofdeath.Dr Ishtiaq states on page-26 as below :--but the British government decided to abolish therule of the Company, which came into effect on 6August 1858.This is a factual mistake. Rule of British East IndiaCompany was abolished precisely on 2nd August1858 vide acts 21 and 22 of British parliament.5The author’s assertion about common kitchens onpage-26 is not correct :--5 Page-THE CHRONOLOGY OF BRITISH INDIA -James Burgess-John Grant -Edinburgh-1913- and Page-62- THE HISTORY OFBRITISH INDIA- A CHRONOLOGY -John. F .Riddick- Praeger -Westport-2006- 2 Aug. 1858. Queen Victoria (1819-1901 ) gaveher assent to the Act abolishing both theCompany's Court of Directors and the Home Government'sBoard of Control. In their place the Act established a Secretaryof State for India and a Council of india comprised of fromtwelve to eighteen members to act In an advisory capacity tothe Secretary. In future the Viceroy of India and the Governorsof Bombay and Madras were to be appointed by the Crown andthe Lieutenant-Governors of the provinces by the Viceroysubject to Royal assent.“Not surprisingly, the British took their cue from SirSyed and abolished common kitchens. Thereafter,Hindu and Muslim soldiers cooked and ate foodseparately.”As a matter of fact there were no kitchens in 1857 .Kitchens or langars as they were known , came intobeing in British Indian Army after 1857 when it wasorganised on class company basis , advocated by“more loyal than the king” Syed Ahmad Khan in hishighly opportunistic pamphlet “causes of IndianMutiny”.There were no langars or kitchens in Britishcompany’s army before 1857 and Indians cookedfood through their own arrangements. As a matterof fact this created Hindu Muslim unity as soldiersvoluntarily organised in small groups by their ownchoice known as “HANDIWALS”. This as per theopportunist par excellence Syed Ahmad Khanproduced unity in Indian soldiers of the company ,which as per the Syed was one of causes whyHindus and Muslims united against the Britishcompany in 1857 ! So this opportunistic Syedadvised British to create battalions based ondifferent religion basis , so that a future rebelliondid break out . Cook houses were thus created onlyafter 1857 as far as the companies regular armieswere concerned.Novices may note that the first unit organised inIndia on class company basis was in the PunjabFrontier Force by Captain Vaughan , on his owninitiative in 1850s. But Punjab Frontier Force was apolice organisation before 1857 and was not theregular army of the British company.66The author makes inaccurate and factuallyincorrect assertions on page-26 :--“The much smaller British Army, which comprisedentirely British troops (never more than 50,000),and the much bigger Indian Army, the bulk ofwhich consisted of natives but was commanded byBritish officers.”This scribe fails to understand why such inaccurateand fallacious are required to be made ?This assertion of Dr. Ishtiaq has no connection withhistorical reality.As examples in 1887 British Indian Army strength inIndia was :--71. British troops - 72,6022. Indian troops- 153,092In 1895 there were :-- 81. British troops- 72,5732. Indian troops- 133,663The most “disputable” and “controversial” part ofDr Ishtiaq’s book is his “JUDGEMENT” on LucknowPact of 1916 :---7 Page-197-THE ARMY IN INDIA AND ITS EVOLUTION -Government Printing Press- Calutta -1924.8 Page-198-Ibid“The Lucknow Pact was proof of Jinnah’soutstanding leadership qualities. However, the factthat the Congress Party was willing to go the extramile to accommodate the demands of the MuslimLeague deserves to be acknowledged as well. TheCongress had seen the founding of the MuslimLeague as a challenge to its claim to represent allIndians.”As an eminent political scientist Dr Ishtiaq’s sagacityshould not have missed the most “central” and“crucial” part of Lucknow Pact.By reducing Bengali Muslims from 52 % to 40 % MrJinnah established the most dangerous unwritten ,but very much real principle of “ETHNICCHAUVINISM” , that Bengali Muslims were inferiorto “ASHRAFIYA” of UP and Bihar .Dr Ishtiaq as a thinker of high caliber here shouldhave realised that “TAMPERING” with BengaliMuslims demography and their “DEMOGRAPHICMURDER” at Lucknow laid the foundation of thelater “DEMOGRAPHIC TAMPERING” with legislativemajority of Bengali Muslims in the 1956 constitutionof Pakistan where at gun point they were forced toaccept 50 % seats .Dr Ishtiaq here also failed to analyse that theMuslim League at this point in time in 1916 was nota completely representative Muslim party , butmerely a much overrated and much glorified ,debating club !He also failed to analyse that the Muslim Leaguedelegates who comprised the Lucknow sessionwere overwhelmingly from Lucknow city , asanalysed by various eminent writers like K.K Azizand Professor Francis Robinson.Dr Ishtiaq quoted figures about Bengali Muslimsunable to win seats in election in Bengal to defendLucknow Pact . These figures were most frequentlycited by defenders of Mr Jinnah at Lucknow Pact.Sadly Dr Ishtiaq became apologist of Mr Jinnah , asfar as Lucknow Pact was concerned.Dr Ishtiaq totally whitewashed the fact thatLucknow Pact was opposed by Punjab’s mostnotable Muslim leader Sir Mohammad Shafi as wellas various Bengali Muslim leaders.His short circuiting , critical analysis of Lucknow Pactand rather most rashly elevating Lucknow Pact as agreat achievement of Mr Jinnah is the worst part ofthis book . Note that stabbing Bengali Muslims inthe back was , as Shakespeare would say was themost unkindest cut delivered by Muslim League tothe Bengali Muslims and DIRECTLY LED TO THE1971 CRISIS AND BREAKING OF JINNAH’SPAKISTAN !Dr. Ishtiaq has listed Chaudhry Khaliquzzaman’sbook in his bibliography but surprisingly failed toanalyse Chaudhry Khaliquzzamans most seriouscriticism of Lucknow Pact. 9 Khaliquzzaman haddescribed Lucknow Pact as a blunder in his book asbelow :--109 PATHWAY TO PAKISTAN-Choudhry Khaliquzzaman- LongmansPakistan- Karachi -Printed by Ferozsons-196110 Page-37-IbidDr Ishtiaq ignores the fact that “SEPARATEELECTORATES” had already been accepted by theBritish in 1906 and , congress was not the majorplayer as far as accepting or not accepting theseparate electorates was concerned.Above all the writer of the book fails to see thelarger strategic picture from a high vantage point ,and thus fails to understand that “DIVIDE ANDRULE” was the major strategic conclusion of theBritish from the traumatic events of 1857-59 andthey saw “DIVIDE AND RULE” as the best strategy.This logically led to “SEPARATE ELECTORATES”which ideally suited British strategy alreadyformulated and fully enforced after 1857-59 war.On page-26 the author makes a statement whichthis scribe humbly thinks is a “sweaping judgement”:--“Oriental despotism, which had prevailed beforethe British captured India, and which the Companyhad exploited to its advantage, thus, ended.”Dr Ishtiaq made this seemingly generalized andharmless statement in perhaps general terms .However historically speaking this statement“TOTALLY LACKS SUBSTANCE AND IS ABSOLUTELYINACCURATE , AND THIS REVIEWER HUMBLY FEELS, BUT WITH ABSOLUTELY UNSHAKABLECONVICTION, THAT WE EXPECTED SOMETHINGFAR MORE DIFFERENT FROM DR ISHTIAQ”.The reader may note that one of the greatestanalytical thinkers of the post 1857 British era inIndia was Metcalf , whose magnum bonumintellectual achievement was the book titled:--“ The Aftermath of Revolt India 1857-1970 ” 1111 “ The Aftermath of Revolt India 1857-1970 ”-Thomas.R.Metcalf- Princeton University Press-1964.Metcalf in this classic book summed up Britishstate’s rule in India as below :---“It rested upon the solid support of theconservative and aristocratic classes and upon theprinciple of complete non-interference in thetraditional structure of Indian society, and itevoked an allegiance above and beyond its valueas a force for the regeneration of India. Yet,precisely because of this, the Empire after theMutiny was less viable than before, for the Britishno longer sympathized with the demands of theeducated class for a share of power. They weredisabled from meeting the nationalist challenge ina friendly and responsive spirit.” 12This reviewer is inclined to agree with Dr Ishtiaq’sassessment that the Gandhi-Jinnah clash was morea clash of egos than clash of principles.(pages-40 to 43)This reviewer agrees with the author’s analysis thatMr Jinnah was a superb tactician and brilliantly usedthe religious card to mobilise Muslim masses12 Page-viii- Preface-“ The Aftermath of Revolt India 1857-1970 ”-Op Cit.particularly after 1940 . This reviewer is inclined tothink that Dr Ishtiaq regarded Mr Jinnah asstrategically barren , and one who had no clear ideaabout how Pakistan would be governed ? Hisspeeches were tactical , rebutting his opponentsand polemical as per Dr Ishtiaq, a point with whichthis scribe agrees.On page-250 Dr Ishtiaq is not clear about role ofFrontier Corps which was always only stationed intribal agencies .Thus he stated:--“Jinnah appreciated their support for Pakistan andservices in Kashmir and decided to withdraw thePakistan Army by the end of December 1947 fromthe tribal areas. Paramilitary units of the FrontierCorps, known as Scouts, were instead posted thereto police the agencies and maintain law andorder.”The actual position was that Scouts were alreadypermanently located and deployed in the tribalagencies and were not posted there , as some newpolicy as Dr Ishtiaq implies.Dr Ishtiaq’s facts about the tribal invasion ofKashmir are extremely weak although varioussources could have improved his knowledge , if hehad chosen to read them .His statement on page-254 is incomplete and vague, whereas , a more clear statement was possible :--“On the other hand, Pakistani irregulars andarmed Muslim tribesmen from the NWFP enteredthe Valley, apparently looking for revenge andhoping to liberate Kashmir.”Dr Ishtiaq simply ignored the most important bookon Kashmir war “RAIDERS IN KASHMIR” by MajorGeneral Akbar Khan . Akbar Khan clearly describedthe background to the invasion of Kashmir and thefact that Akbar was asked by Muslim League keyleader Mian Iftikharuddin to prepare anappreciation about armed insurrection in Kashmiras below :--Pages-11 and 12- RAIDERS IN KASHMIR – Major GeneralAkbar Khan, DSO – Karachi-1970The absolute complicity and connection betweenthe Pakistani state and tribals invading Kashmir washighlighted in the book “PUNJAB CAVALRY” byColonel Sardar Yahya Effendi . This book waspublished in 2006 and was readily available in theopen market .Colonel Sardar Yahya Effendi , narrated in this bookthat a jeep of this scribes original regiment 11Cavalry fitted with wireless sets was detailed byPakistan Army General Headquarters (GHQ) toaccompany the tribals invading Kashmir and movingon axis Muzaffarabad-Srinagar.1414 Pages- 152 to 154 - Punjab CAVALRY-M.Y Effendi-OxfordUniversity Press-Karachi-2007Dr Ishtiaq misses the greatest Pakistani stateblunder of Kashmir war when he totally fails to notethat an idea of attacking Srinagar with armouredcars squadron of 11 Cavalry (FF) well documentedand known 15 was rejected by Pakistan ArmysBrigadier Sher Khan and Raja Ghazanfar Ali who hadcold feet .15 Discussed in detail in RAIDERS IN KASHMIR and inSEPTEMBER ’65 BEFORE AND AFTER- Brig Amjad Ali KhanChaudhry-Ferozons Private Limited-First Edition 1977-50thAnniversary Edition , September 2015.Published and Printed byFerozsons (Private) Limited -Lahore 2015Dr Ishtiaq now makes incorrect assertions (page-254) about the Kashmir war as below :--“Interestingly, the first commander-in-chief ofPakistan, General Messervy, decided to retire.Jinnah promoted Gracey as the C.-in-C. in February1948. Pakistan had purchased new armamentsfrom Britain by that time. This time, Gracey, whohad defied Jinnah earlier, agreed to commitPakistani troops, and the first Pakistan formationofficially entered the war in the latter half of April1948”.The situation was other way round the Pakistanipolitical leadership both Mr Jinnah and Mr LiaquatAli Khan were clueless and indecisive . This pointcould have been highlighted by Dr Ishtiaq.So Dr Ishtiaq’s statement that General Gracey“agreed to commit troops” is “INCORRECT”.The situation was totally opposite . General Graceyhad to “WETNURSE” and “PUSH” the Pakistanipoliticians to order to deploy Pakistani Army inKashmir . The situation was described by MajorGeneral Akbar Khan as below :--The Pakistani tribesman were ready to rebel andBritish General Gracey wetnursed Pakistans civilianleaders that Pakistan Army must be launched into Kashmir.Dr Ishtiaq could have discussed the caliber of MrJinnah and his hand picked prime minister mosteffectively if he had read the biography of LiaquatAli Khan published in 1997-98. But he totally missedthis well researched/referenced book byMuhammad Reza Kazimi . In the book Kazimidescribes in detail why Mr .Jinnah and Mr Liaquatclashed , which is an indicator of their charactersheight or depth !They fought over a petty issue i.e , who was senior in the dining tableseating arrangement , Miss Jinnah the sister of Mr Jinnah or Mrs Liaquat, wifeof premier Liaquat ! As per Liaquats biography published by Oxford Press Karachisuch was Mr Jinnahs anger that he passed strict orders that nodecision of pakistans cabinet would be accepted unless sanctioned byMr Jinnah in writing.Dr Ishtiaq also surprisingly failed Venktaramani’smost crucial and well researched book on USPakistan relations which this scribe thinks , isindispensable reading for any Jinnah researcher.In this book Venkatramani described how mr Jinnahsuggested to US ambassador to buy his ownproperty , flagstaff house which he had bought from a Parsifor the proposed US Embassy building inKarachi.The book describes the meeting between Mr Jinnahand US ambassador as below :--Another indispensable book missed by Dr Ishtiaq tounderstand Mr Jinnah , Lucknown Pact and thepolitics of Muslims was Francis Robinson’s“SEPARATISM AMONG INDIAN MUSLIMS”..The bottom line is that Mr Jinnah was a marginalplayer in the British controlled strategy of “Divideand Rule” perfected after 1857-59 battles . As thisscribes grandfathers brother Agha Abdul Rauf , anold police and intelligence hand put it “THERE WASNO PAKISTAN STRUGGLE AS FALSELYCLAIMED……..THE BRITISH DECIDED TO PARTITIONINDIA” .

Its a great waste of time no new thing to know except few.

The book has nothing significant to add on MA Jinnah with respect to what we were not knowing in India before. In its 750 pages long narration, it dries you out for the first 450 pages without saying anything new. The only contribution which this books manages to provide is to counter Ayesha Jalal's 'The Sole Spokesman'. It is a waste of money. I will urge not to buy it.Penguin, as a yardstick of excellence in publishing, has done a fairly bad job with this book when it comes to copyediting and how referencing has been managed. The whole book is full of paragraph long sub-headings and it seems author do not have enough to say so that his argument could advance to a few pages for cohesion and flow. The prose never takes off! Someone who might be interested in Ayesha Jalal's thesis may simply pick up Anita Inder Singh's abridged edition published by National Book Trust. Do not waste your money on this garbage!

Very extensive biography

Scholarly and very well researched masterpiece.

It is a long book but not a boring read read. The author has done independent research and the book's been edited well to keep chapter length concise so as to keep your interest and focus till last page of every chapter.

Most of the available literature on this controversial man is of extreme nature, either it's glowing hagiographical or acerbic critique reflecting more the writer's agenda with cherry picked material. This writer has provided actual speeches' text among a tonne of other contextual information for the reader to decide for himself what to make of this man's journey from a nationalist to hardline communalist and all that passed in-between in a chronological manner. Provided many new perspectives to my understanding of the circumstances & parties of partition.The book's size is a bit oddly disproportionate though, more thicker than it's breadth/length. And the color green would've been more apt rather than red, both for the communal ideology he proffered and the visceral jealousy he harbored for... read the book!