Jinnah. He had a pistol. He used it.

Tarun Vijay

"I am not prepared to discuss ethics. We have a pistol and are in a position to use it." So said Mohammad Ali Jinnah while delivering his presidential speech at the Muslim League convention on July 19, 1946.

What followed was an unimaginable massacre of Hindus in Kolkata on August 16, 1946. Six thousand killed, twenty thousand raped and maimed.

Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee, the then leader of Hindu Mahasabha had said, "Jinnah is out to destroy the very soul of India."

If one single instance should be cited to understand what Jinnah really was, it would not be his speech in the Constituent Assembly, Karachi, often quoted by Indian Hindus, but his call for "Direct Action".

That was August 16, 1946, known as the day of "great Calcutta killings". After the "Direct Action" resolution was passed by the Muslim League on July 19, 1946, its president, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, said in his valedictory speech: "What we have done today is the most historic act in our history. Never have we in the whole history of the League done anything except by the constitutional methods and by constitutionalism. But now we are obliged and forced into this position. This day we bid goodbye to constitutional methods…. Now the time has come for the Muslim Nation to resort to direct action. I am not prepared to discuss ethics. We have a pistol and are in a position to use it."

Syama Prasad Mookerjee, the then leader of the Hindu Mahasabha, who had said, "Jinnah is out to destroy the very soul of India", organized Hindus fearlessly and foiled Jinnah’s plan to oust Hindus from Kolkata. He formed a volunteer group of the Hindus named the Hindusthan National Guards, resisted horrendous goondaism of the League and moved in the riot-affected areas giving courage to the victims of a planned slaughter and orgy of violence by the League’s marauders.

Syama Prasad Mookerjee was traveling all over India awakening the masses to rise against the partition plot. On October 8, 1944, at a United Provinces Hindu Conference, he said, "The sooner Mr Jinnah understands that Pakistan in any form or shape will be resisted by Hindus and many others with the last drop of blood, the better for him, for he will then quietly descend on realities and himself plead for a just and equitable settlement. None but an agent of imperialism will so block the path of Indian unity and freedom as Mr Jinnah is doing."

Dr Mookerjee, who is respected as the ideological icon and source of inspiration by the Bharatiya Janata Party, was a devotee of Sri Aurobindo and The Mother. In fact, he had been in close contact with Sri Aurobindo, who had said, "The idea of two nationalities in India is only a new-fangled notion invented by Jinnah for his purposes and contrary to the facts. More than 90% of the Indian Mussalmans are descendants of converted Hindus and belong as much to the Indian nation as the Hindus themselves. This process of conversion has continued all along; Jinnah is himself a descendant of a Hindu,converted in fairly recent times,named Jinabhai and many of the most famous Mahommedan leaders have a similar origin."(SABCL, vol.26, page 46).

It was Dr Mookerjee who stood firm and tried to organize a people's movement against partition. He said: “Hindus regard this country as their sacred and holy land. Irrespective of provincial barriers or the diversity in faiths and languages there exists a remarkable economic and cultural unity and inter-dependence which cannot be destroyed at the will of persons and parties who think it beneath their dignity to regard India as their motherland. We must live and die for India and her liberty.” (24th December 1944).

He disagreed with Gandhi placating the Muslim demands and said,"As soon as the other communities realize that the Hindus of India are united and have pledged themselves to stand together for the attainment of their ideal and have adopted a policy of understanding and tolerance to all classes of people residing in India, other communities whose support we are seeking in vain today will then join us voluntarily and on terms honourable to all.”(“Awake Hindusthan”, Page 12).

He further said: “Our experiences in recent years have proved that much as we would be willing to surrender the rights and interests of the Hindus for the purpose of placating other communities, much as we would like to pursue the policy of delivering “blank cheques” the response from the other side is slow and halting, if not sometimes hostile in character.("Awake Hindusthan", Page 13)

In this context, I would like to add that however different Jinnah might have been , we just can't belittle Nehru before Jinnah. Nehru belonged to us; he fought for India’s freedom, spent years in jail and had an Indian dream. We may have a thousand differences with him on policies and programmes, but so what? That would be our "domestic matter". Jinnah led our motherland’s vivisection and he never fought for the freedom struggle.

MJ Akbar has written these lines describing his persona,"Muhammad Ali Jinnah, aristocrat by temperament, catholic in taste, sectarian in politics, and the father of Pakistan, was the unlikeliest parent that an Islamic republic could possibly have. He was the most British of the generation of Indians that won freedom in August 1947. As a child in the elite Christian Mission High School in Karachi, he changed his birthday from 20 October to Christmas Day. As a student at Lincoln's Inn, he anglicised his name from Jinnahbhai to Jinnah. For three years, between 1930 and 1933, he went into voluntary exile in Hampstead, acquired a British passport, set up residence with his sister Fatimah and daughter Dina, hired a British chauffeur (Bradley) for his Bentley, kept two dogs (a black Dobermann and a white West Highland terrier), indulged himself at the theatre (he had once wanted to be a professional actor so that he could play Hamlet) and appeared before the Privy Council to maintain himself in the style to which he was accustomed. He wore Savile Row suits, heavily starched shirts and two-tone leather or suede shoes……Despite being the Quaid-e-Azam, or the Great Leader of Muslims, he drank a moderate amount of alcohol and was embarrassingly unfamiliar with Islamic methods of prayer. He was uncomfortable in any language but English, and made his demand for Pakistan — in 1940 at Lahore — in English, despite catcalls from an audience that wanted to hear Urdu.”

That was a bit of Syama Prasad and the related reflections that may prove worthwhile in the present political debate enveloping the nationalist school of politics. At the end of it, what the Gita has said and the RSS teaches us must make the final lines to this blogpost:

It’s better to die unwavering even in tatters than to change track midway and die stinking rich.

That’s Dharma.

Krishna said: "Swadharme nidhano shreyo (to live and die in ones’ own path alone is the life worthwhile and adopting the ‘other’ dharma is horrible)".

For small desires we lose a lifetime’s achievements and glory.

History was never made essentially by those who became state heads, but often by those who didn’t.

Or by those who gave up everything for others’ good, honestly. Syama Prasad and Deen Dayal Upadhyaya are two major icons of faith for the Hindu nationalist parivar. Both created history and died in their early fifties. Both were mysteriously ‘murdered’. Their lives must light the path of those who care to follow swadharma.

That’s BJP’s legacy too. As it is of other ideologically committed organisations of the saffron hue.

Lincoln didn’t shy away from the civil war and stood like a rock on the question of American spirit and unity. So was Syama Prasad. He died but didn’t bend.