Taking a fresh look at historical characters happens routinely in mature democracies. There have been enough historians re-evaluating the role of Nehru, and there is no shortage of interpretations of Gandhi. And the BJP leader Jaswant Singh’s book on Mohammad Ali Jinnah is not the first to say that Jinnah was not to be solely blamed for the partition of India in 1947. Ayesha Jalal’s The Sole Spokesperson, for instance, argued likewise, saying that he was merely using the threat of an independent state as a bargaining tool to ensure a better position for Muslims in India. For every view that Ms Jalal offers, however, there are others pointing to Jinnah being aided and abetted by the British who had played a game of divide and rule for decades and who did not trust “Hindu” India after the Congress launched its Quit India campaign at the height of World War II. Those in London with imperial visions of the future wanted a north-western frontier sliver under the control of “loyal” Muslims (such sweeping characterisations stand exposed today in all their silliness).
It is of course possible to take the position that the Congress made Partition possible through its many mistakes: the poorly timed Quit India movement itself, Nehru’s ill-considered comments at a critical juncture, the alienation caused by the failure to share power in Uttar Pradesh with the Muslim League, and so on. But it is hard to argue that a Jinnah who insisted that only the Muslim League and no one else could represent the Muslims, who launched the violent Direct Action Day in 1946, and who was a cat’s paw for the British throughout, can be absolved of primary responsibility for the partition of the country—which, as Jaswant Singh observes, solved nothing.
Jaswant Singh’s book will provoke controversy not necessarily because of what he has said, but more likely because of who is saying it. Like LK Advani before him, Mr Singh may find it tempting to hang the responsibility of Partition round the Congress’ neck, and blame in particular that ultimate secularist Jawaharlal Nehru, but in the process Mr Singh adopts some strange positions. He told Karan Thapar, in a TV interview whose transcript this newspaper printed, that Jinnah merely wanted “certain provinces to be with the Muslim League. He wanted a certain percentage (of seats) in the Central legislature. If he had that, there would not have been a partition.” Even if that that were true, it is amazing that Mr Singh should find such reservation along religious lines acceptable. Indeed, having found it acceptable, he goes on to pan the very reservation he feels it was all right for Jinnah to champion. To quote from his interview: “The problem started with the 1906 reservation. What does the Sachar committee report say? Reserve for the Muslim. ... I think this reservation for the Muslims is a disastrous path.” Taking a fresh look at history is fine, but is it too much to ask for consistency in the positions taken?