 |
|
| |
|
|
. | ||
 |
| |
|
............................................... |
............................................................................................................. |
The outcome of Partition of India in 1947Having entered into 21st century, the contemporary analysts and political thinkers are justified with good reasons to look back into the era that could produce two giant leaders in the subcontinent who dared to achieve partitioning of mother India. To me both were the great political thinkers of the 20th century as both Mohammed Ali Jinnah and Mahatma Gandhi worked hard to make a place for them in the history which otherwise occurring alone would never have been possible. Coming from the province of Gujrat, both were educated in the same English institution and both were barristers. To all such similarities they had yet dissimilarities of the extreme kind too. Their living styles and approaches in politics spoke about it that they were two sides of the same coin. Jinnah having received his law degree returned to India with a modern and progressive look while Gandhi instead doing his law degree went to South Africa for law practice where he indulged into a crusade for the immigrant’s rights. And when after 23 years Gandhi returned to India, he decided to speak the common man language and dress like ordinary Indian . But on the other hand, Mohammed Ali Jinnah continued practicing his progressive mannerism and etiquette’s that he learnt in London. Today Gandhi is worshiped in India as the liberator of India while Mohammed Ali Jinnah is founder of Pakistan where Gandhi is looked upon as a Vilene. Born in Karachi December 25, 1876 Mohammed Ali Jinnah lived for 71 years till his death in Sept 11,1948. During all these years he remained to be one of those rare great people who had changed the world. No doubt creation of Pakistan and indulging into the partition of India was hell of a job that hard working barrister could accomplish. In 1896 returning to India after making his image felt amongst the rulers Mohammed Ali Jinnah joined Indian National Congress Party in 1905, a step that led him to the supreme imperial legislative council of India. Here he was recognized to be a politician of unparalleled caliber. It was the era when he used to be preoccupied with both congress and league for political purposes. Both the parties were busy with their struggle to achieve further rights to share the rule after having attained the self-government municipal powers. And for such constitutional purposes they were to work together under the spirit of mutual understanding and accommodation and as such holding of joint annual sessions was a routine phenomenon with them. In 1913 went to London for negotiations with the government and on his return he decided to join Muslim League. The negotiations for reforms could bring about the Lakhnow pact that was followed by home rule movement participated actively by Jinnah. But in 1919 he had to resign in protest from the legislative council due to the imposition of the Resolute Act. During this era Gandhi had returned to his native land to start a new life as a reformer. Staying abroad for 23 years he had no active knowledge of the country and its political upbringing. He just started his mission with the medieval Hindu style that influenced Jinnah to withdraw to London in 1920. Back in London he immersed himself into his law chamber while keeping an eye on the development in India. He was of the opinion that India had been trapped badly in between the colonial governance and the Gandhi’s spiritual moment. To Jinnah the religious fundamentalism in politics was dangerous omen as it was to derail the Indian political scenario from constitutional to narrow minded fundamentalism. Meanwhile to those many progressive and modest political circles demanding of Jinnah to return back to India he would eagerly make his willingness provided there was a real political movement based on real constitutional approaches and not spiritual principles. To him the Gandhi’s philosophy of independence being purification of soul was meaningless and beyond comprehension. Being a lawyer he had never forgotten the difference between the jurisprudence of personal laws and with respect to that of constitutional laws. Unlike Gandhi'’ sadu politics his approaches were crystal clear secular, patriotic and nationalist. Being a known ambassador of Hindu – Muslim unity, he knew that brining religious ways and manners into politics would spoil the very social equilibrium in India.
|
|
.......................................................... ..................................................................................................... ...... |
.
