IN one of my previous articles titled "Expressing solidarity with the people of Kashmir," published in this newspaper, I focused on the long-standing contentious issue of Kashmir. My column was based on the viewpoints expressed by speakers at a symposium organized by the Pakistan Repatriation Council (PRC) in Jeddah on the occasion of the Kashmir Day. This day was observed to commemorate the day when the Indian forces occupied Kashmir. This princely state was supposed to join Pakistan on account of the fact that the majority of the people in Kashmir were Muslims. This was on the basis of the two-nation theory under which Muslim majority regions would become part of the new nation of Pakistan while Hindu-majority regions would remain part of India. It is also based on the core factor in the agreement reached by the British colonial rulers with the leaders of the Indian National Congress and the All India Muslim League on the division of British India into two nations – India and Pakistan. I also indicated in the article about the wars fought between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, as well as the intervention of the United Nations to end the first war and the subsequent resolutions, adopted by the global body, that called for holding a plebiscite in Kashmir so that its people can decide the future on the basis of self-determination. The plebiscite would have been an acceptable solution to the problem had India not backtracked from its earlier promise of holding it. It is interesting to note that Jawaharlal Nehru, the first prime minister of independent India, was among those who had favored a UN-sponsored plebiscite in the beginning. What prompted me to write once again about this topic now was the reactions made by some readers who repeated their old arguments that are nothing to do with the subject matter of my article, which was meant to express solidarity with the people of Kashmir who are being denied of their genuine right to self-determination. These comments were related mainly to the very idea of the partition of the subcontinent. Some of the commentators pointed out that the biggest blunder committed by Muslims was their demand for the partition. It was the byproduct of shortsightedness and bad planning; they said and argued that had there not been any partition, the condition of the Muslims in the subcontinent would have been much better. They hold fast to these arguments after deliberately ignoring the heroic struggle and great sacrifices made by Muslims for their own nation for several decades. These commentators also argued that these sacrifices and struggle were made in realization of the desire and implementation of the decision of a single individual. He is none other than the leader of All Indian Muslim League Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah. They tried to belittle his significant role by raising baseless allegations against him such as "Jinnah was a tool in the hands of the British rulers'. They either forget or pretend to forget the remarkable contributions made by this unmatched leader and his fellow Muslim leaders from all regions of India. Pakistan was the fruit of the great struggle and sacrifices made by these leaders and their followers. The idea of a separate nation for Muslims was an old idea whose proponents include several great Muslim thinkers and philosophers. This was the outcome of a harsh realization of the fact that the peaceful coexistence between Hindus and Muslims was not possible in India. This was obvious since the beginning of the 20th century when the British divided Bengal and put Eastern Bengal and parts of Assam under an administrative subdivision of the British Raj. However, the British rulers were forced to annul the partition after yielding to intense pressures and protests made by hardline Hindus. This happened well before crystallizing even the very idea of a separate nation of Pakistan. These commentators are also forgetting or pretending to forget the reality that Jinnah began his political career in the Indian National Congress party. Being a leader of the Congress party, he was one of the staunch advocates of unity between Hindus and Muslims. However, when he realized that the Congress party and its Hindu leaders were working to consolidate the hegemony of Hindus in the political life, leaving Muslims to remain marginalized, he came forward with a demand to protect the rights of Muslims through legislation. He proposed the famous "14 Points" as a constitutional reform plan to safeguard the political rights of Muslims in a self-governing India. These points covered all of the interests of the Muslims, and Jinnah stated that rejection of these points would be his parting of ways with the Congress. These points were rejected by the Congress leadership and that led to his quitting of the party and joining the Muslim League.Jinnah was soon elected as president of Muslim League thanks to his extraordinary qualities such as strength of character, integrity of thinking, unblemished public life and above all his charismatic leadership. Subsequently, Jinnah had become the towering leader of the entire leaders and followers of the Muslim League party in the subcontinent. Jinnah was a respectable leader even among the Hindu leaders of the Congress party, mainly Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru despite their differences of opinion with regard to his demand for a separate nation for Muslims. However, subsequently they agreed to accept his demand and a formal agreement had been reached with the involvement of all the stakeholders. Everyone knows the position taken by Mahatma Gandhi when the Indian government, which came to power after partition, refused to give Pakistan some of the rights entitled to it as per the Partition Agreement. This forced Gandhi to stage hunger strike until the government came forward to grant the rights. It is surprising that these commentators come forward after 70 years of partition to underestimate this great Muslim leader and belittle his lofty position among the Muslims of the subcontinent. It also drew my attention that some of these readers wrote lengthy comments that had nothing to do with the subject matter of my article. They praised their fellow commentators who backed their views while some of them repeated the same ideas that were articulated in their previous comments. As far as some other commentators who had disagreements with them are concerned, they criticized them in an inappropriate way, asking them to read history. I don't know what history they have meant by this. Everybody must resort to the history written by historians instead of blindly relying on the theories propounded by those who advocate hype and publicity. — Dr. Ali Al-Ghamdi is a former Saudi diplomat who specializes in Southeast Asian affairs. He can be reached at [email protected]
