Retributions  

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Let’s stop whitewashing our history

Jaswant Singh’s new biography of Muhammad Ali Jinnah has quite predictably raised political hackles. The Congress which has long forgotten the distinction between the Nehru-Gandhi family and India has raised questions about Mr Singh’s nationalism. BJP, a party which has never shown much fondness for intellectual pursuits, has disassociated it self ”completely” from Jaswant Singh’s book with some leaders even demanding ”action” against the author.

But what is particularly disappointing is the response from the media. Barring some honorable exceptions–Karan Thapar’s interview with Jaswant Singh was particularly well done–the majority seems to view the book from the prism of current Indian politics. Or worse, question why BJP leaders are obsessed with Jinnah. Sample this comment from CNN-IBN’s National affairs’ editor,

This BJP craze for Jinnah is ridiculous. Why deify a partitionist when Maulana Azad harboured little ambition and worked for a united India?[link]

For one, Jaswant Singh has clearly stated that he has written his book as an Indian concerned about one of the most important events in modern Indian history (Not to mention that BJP is most embarrassed about Jinnah). For another, true history can never only be about the ”good guy”–it must involve those who shape history whether we like their politics or not. In that respect, Jinnah was definitely one of the most important and influential figures of Indian history.

Now, it may be quite possible that Jaswant Singh’s reading of Jinnah is entirely incorrect.  After all, this allegedly non-religious secular man championed the idea of Hindus and Muslims as separate nations rejecting the shared history of hundreds of years. Despite his oft-referenced speech, the country he fathered has turned into a virtual Islamic theocracy. And it is indisputable that his basic idea–that religion can be the basis of nationhood–lies repudiated not only by the creation of Bangladesh but by the sectarian violence which ravages the land of pure.

But does that mean that partition and the role of principal players–and Jinnah definitely was one–should not be subject of genuine intellectual inquiry?  After all, why did India fail to prevent partition? Even if we assume that intentions of Nehru and rest of the Congress leadership was completely overboard, they failed at a certain level otherwise India would never have been divided.  How is it possible that Pakistan–a concept which was ill-defined as late as 1940–suddenly became such an unstoppable force that the Congress was forced to agree to a division which  its top leadership deeply disagreed with? These are important questions which must be dispassionately explored in detail. Why the reluctance to do so? Why the hesitation to have an open debate?

In his book India After Gandhi, Ram Chandra Guha argues that Hindi cinema is one of the binding forces which keeps India together. For a cultural force which enjoys such importance in our collective consciousness, how many Bollywood movies have critically examined what happened in 1947? Perhaps, except, Garam Hawa, none. Or even the last three decades where India has seen Emergency, assassination of two prime ministers, secessionist movements in Punjab and Kashmir, and a war fought in the icy heights of Kargil, the number of movies which have examined these events with more than a superficial understanding can be counted on fingertips.

It is extremely unfortunate that for a country which has perhaps the richest and most varied history in modern world, there is marked reluctance to discuss certain painful historical episodes and a deliberate attempt to reduce history to Black and White: Jinnah bad; Nehru good. Indeed, the hesitation to ruffle feathers extends across the political spectrum. While it is understandable why Congress governments refuse to release Henderson-Brooks report, what stopped the NDA government from doing so? A fear that a future Congress government would expose its equally inept handling of the Kargil war? India is poorer for this intellectual pusillanimity; this conspiracy of silence for we are reduced to learning about the gross failures in Kargil from perspicacious journalists like Praveen Swamy.

And therein lies the importance of Jaswant Singh. Mr Singh deserves praise for telling Jinnah’s story as he read it. It matters nary whether Singh is right or not–that is a matter of historical judgment and this blogger, an arm-chair enthusiast at best,  is hardly qualified to make that call. But if it can spark off a debate on one of the saddest episodes in Indian history, it would have more than served its purpose.

And let’s not forget the old adage,

‘Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.”