BB made a comment calling the Quaid-e-Azam “pure evil“. This is a-historical and triggering to Pakistanis.
Partition is a topic that demands nuance. To call the Quaid (or Pandit Nehru) “pure evil” just reveals a lack of historical knowledge. Quaid-e-Azam was not Hitler. He was not sending people to gas chambers. Historians probably wouldn’t even call Hitler “pure evil” but perhaps that’s the historical figure about whom the strongest case can be made.
I will take the opportunity to quote from my own writing:
In hindsight, perhaps the decision to Partition India was not the best one, yet there is no way that Jinnah could have known what form the future Indian Constitution would take or Pakistan’s struggles in establishing its identity and defining what it means to be a Muslim homeland. The only character in the play who seems to see what the politics of exclusion will lead to is Maulana Azad, who argues passionately against Jinnah’s “two nation theory” and later begs Nehru to avoid Partition at any cost. Azad is worried about the Muslims who will be left behind in the Hindu majority provinces that will remain part of India. He also firmly believes that once one starts on the road to a politics based on differences, there is no telling when the process will end. The creation of Bangladesh in 1971 showed that religion was not enough to hold Pakistan together and that ethnicity is also an extremely important factor. Ethnic conflict remains a fault line in today’s Pakistan, as well as to a lesser extent in India. Thus it can be forcefully argued that Azad was right in saying that Partition would not really solve anything.
Overall, “Tryst” is an extremely thought provoking play that compels the audience to reflect on the complex history of the years leading up to Indian independence. What a united India would have been like is a hypothetical question that can never be successfully answered, yet the play shows us that Partition was by no means inevitable and was very much an outcome of specific historical circumstances and personality clashes between flawed individuals
I will also refer readers to my review of Sam Dalrymple’s excellent book Shattered Lands: Five Partitions and the Making of Modern Asia.
Finally, to address naam de guerre’s objection that Sam Dalrymple is not the “gold standard of Indian historiography”, I will refer readers to Maulana Azad’s book India Wins Freedom (Orient Longman 1988). Maulana Azad was a member of the Congress and as such is definitely not uncritical of the Quaid. Incidentally, Maulana Azad is generally reviled in Pakistan since he was a “Congress Muslim” and against the policies of the Muslim League.
The point is that any serious discussion of history requires the understanding of nuance.
Sam Dalyrympe lol
His book is excellent. It has been very well-reviewed.
obviously because his father had all the connections. Kabir you need to learn how to win a room
That’s not fair.
Whatever happened in your interaction with him, his book contains footnotes and an index.
Books like this go through fact-checking and editorial review. He couldn’t just write whatever he wanted.
probably could..
I guess they were all products of that time. All with shades of grey and probably quite unaware of the domino effect that their decisions would have on the fate of billions. Just like puppeteers inventing a story on the go.
They were all also deified by the respective factions that supported them.
In my opinion, Ambedkar was critical of all three, and possibly objectively so. Its a pity his inputs were not considered to the extent they ought to have been.
Ultimately the Gandhi, Nehru and Jinnah trio decided the fate of the peoples of the subcontinent. No amount of hindsight can undo what happened, so perhaps it is best to treat it as a lesson of history and leave it there.
Ambedkar had huge impact on the Constitution.
Gandhi was definitely a Saint.
Oh yes, he did undoubtedly. What I meant was, more of a voice at the high table of just the three. It should have been more than three individuals deciding the fate of millions.
I think Gandhi was an astute politician, nobody has come close to how he had everyone believing he was a saint when he was far from one. That too decades after Independence! Sorry, disagree with you on that 🙂
he saved the Bengal from bloodshed; they were playing cricket on the Maidan, the day after Partition.
Definitely, they were all products of their time. And they all had “shades of grey”.
I’m not insisting that Indians admire Jinnah. But calling him “pure evil” reveals a lack of understanding of history.
Incidentally, in his book “Pakistan or the Partition of India”, Ambedkar lays out the case both for and against Pakistan. He ultimately argues that Partition is inevitable.
https://franpritchett.com/00ambedkar/ambedkar_partition/index.html
You are downplaying the role of the colonial power. Ultimately, it was Lord Mountbatten who advanced the date of the British departure from India by a year. The June 3, 1947 Partition Plan was basically handed down to the Indian leaders as a fait accompli.
I’m all for the Partition being discussed academically but painting one side or the other as “pure evil” is not the way to go about it.
Fair point on the colonial power. They were the ones who benefitted the most from the situation. Still are benefitting ironically…
I just wish they had pushed back against the British “fait accompli”. Perhaps then the partition need not have been as terrible as it was. But we can only speculate…
this is BB trying to push the Overton envelop.
Is the whole notion of Jinnah being “pure evil” predicated on Direct Action Day? While he’s been criticized for not being explicit enough demanding the rank and file to adhere to non-violent methods, do we have any evidence that he wanted to see blood on the streets of Calcutta?