English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Gandhi vs Jinnah

Published

9 years ago

on

Gandhi vs Jinnah

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Sheela Reddy’s book on his traumatic personal life is also a revisionist look at the man better known as the Mahatma 

By Binoo K John

In India’s nationalistic narrative Mohammed Ali Jinnah never got the place he deserved which was totally usurped by Mohandas Gandhi. Few nationalist historians have dared to cast a cynical look at Gandhi’s life and machinations and almost all of them have  chosen to paper over the many warts in Gandhi’s personal, professional and nationalistic  life.

In that sense senior journalist Sheela Reddy’s recently-published Mr and Mrs Jinnah (Penguin) is a welcome relief and offers a daring and clinical insight intothe life of two of the national movement’s biggest stalwarts. The book’s focus is on Jinnah’s traumatic married life to Ruttie, the teenaged daughter of a Parsi upper class family of Mumbai but often the author casts a bright light into deliberately darkened areas of Gandhi’s life which we opted not to see or dwell upon for long. Such acts of Gandhi might be worth a relook.

After all that we have read about Gandhi’s conciliatory attitude towards minorities in the later part of the national movement, his early hatred and suspicion of Muslims is shocking even now as we read it in this book. When Motilal Nehru’s elder daughter Nan fell in love with Syud Hossain, an aristocratic and dashing young Muslim who was editor of Independent and thus had free access to Anand Bhawan, all hell broke loose. In that chaotic and liberal household, where Muslims were considered part of the family, it is no wonder that the beautiful Nan and the attractive Syud fell in love and were almost living together. Motilal espoused liberalism and modernity but when it came to his daughter marrying a Muslim he wavered.  Unlike a liberal Motilal had betrothed her to another Hindu aristocrat’s son when she was just 12 or 13  but Nan, the carefree daughter of a liberal household, had other ideas. She thought that marrying Syud wouldn’t pose any problems in that ‘modern’ household.

After their affair became known, Nan was promptly despatched to Gandhi’s ashram for a cleansing ritual and for dissuading her from marrying a Muslim. Gandhi ran the ashram like a prison and had “bizarre and primeval” rituals. Ashramites lives in utter fear of Gandhi. Gandhi had by then brutally punished a young lady who had fallen in love with another ashramite (not a Muslim) and personally cut off the girl’s beautiful long silky hair, an act which can today be considered criminal.

As part of Nan’s cleansing and ‘cultural reorientation’ Gandhi lectured the sister of the future prime minister about the evil nature of Muslims. She wrote: “He told me when I was at the ashram that this event (Syud affair) had shaken his belief in Mussalmans… what right had you to allow yourself even for a minute to look with love at a Mussalman.” Then later. “Out of nearly 20 crores of Hindus couldn’t you find a single one who came up to your ideals—but you must needs pass them all over and throw yourself into the arms of a Mohammeddan!!!”  Nan who  was nonplussed by all this  wrote: “Poor man! To him  it is inconceivable for a Hindu  and Mussalman to  marry and live happily.”

This statement by Nan about Gandhi’s real beliefs about Muslims can still shock us. Gandhi later confronted Syud and asked him how he dared make love to a Hindu girl who he ought to have looked upon as a sister. Syud, rather flummoxed, said: “Well, I did look upon her as a sister in the beginning.” Neither Syud nor Nan was ever taught to look at people as Hindu, Muslim or Christian. It was Gandhi who tried to ingrain this thought into them.

In fact, Reddy points out in detail that all the characters in the early part of the anti-colonial movement were brought up in extremely liberal, modern atmospheres and most of them rebelled against brahmanical social mores. Aghorenath Chattapadhyay, father of Sarojini  Naidu, for instance, flung his sacred thread into the Ganges at 14, to  rebel against caste. Brought up in an entirely cosmopolitan atmosphere, Sarojini claimed proudly that theirs “was a home of Indians and not of Hindus or Brahmins”. Compared to all this, Gandhi’s ashram was a patriarchal heaven, a medieval, casteist monastery where ashramites were regularly chastised on moral, religious grounds.

Compared to Gandhi’s overtly Hindu and monastic attitude infused with vague notions of celibacy and vegetarianism, Jinnah was completely modern, secular, liberal and had a worldview which now looks similar to that of Nehru.  Jinnah completely ignored or rebelled against his own Muslim Khoja orthodoxy and superstitions. “He not only defiantly dressed like a British gentleman but openly smoked, drank, ate pork and, more seriously, insisted on putting his sister into a convent boarding school despite opposition from his community”, Reddy writes.

Jinnah’s later move towards the Muslim right was largely due to the opposition he faced from Gandhi within the Congress and, of course, other pro-Hindu factions like the Hindu Mahasabha, etc. Jinnah, as is known, had made various attempts to bring the Muslim League close to the Congress but was rebutted by the government and also by Gandhi on various occasions. In 1915, for instance, Jinnah brought the Muslim League close to the Congress by holding the session at the same time as the Congress’s in Bombay, but the proceedings were disrupted.

All details of the Gandhi-Jinnah conflict are known but Jinnah’s role in trying to bring together a Hindu-Muslim political conciliation has been underplayed. Jinnah’s Delhi Proposals were accepted by the Congress but was fiercely opposed by the Hindu Mahasabha at the all-party conference. “Jinnah’s personality dominated both the issues in the Assembly and in the All Parties Conference. Never have I admired him more than now. What dignity and courage in the midst of suffering—what patience, persuasion and real statesmanship he showed during the most trying period of the prolonged conference,” Sarojini Naidu wrote in February1928 when she was in the inner circles of the Congress.

In contrast, such glowing references to Gandhi by senior Congress leaders are rare to find. In fact, during the early phase of the struggle it was Jinnah who had the guts to take the British head on while Gandhi was extremely conciliatory. Once Jinnah joined the anti-Rowlatt agitation led by Gandhi, he resigned from the assembly and plunged headlong into it. “It was Jinnah whom the government feared, considering him a far more dangerous power centre than Gandhi. Unlike Gandhi who sent out mixed signals about his approach to the British government, even volunteering to recruit Indian soldiers for the War effort without placing any conditions, Jinnah took on the British frontally,” Reddy writes.

Gandhi saw in Jinnah both a threat and a rival, so treated him with disdain. Once when Jinnah wrote him a nice letter from abroad asking Gandhi for news about political developments, Gandhi gave him gratuitous advice suggesting that he learn Gujarati and Hindi and asking Ruttie be sent to spinning classes!

Reddy’s book is evidence that in our nationalistic pride and hurt about the formation of Pakistan we failed  to properly understand the role that Jinnah had played in trying for a united Muslim-Hindu  political unity, before he was pushed to a corner and went the other way. Reddy’s book is a serious attempt to look dispassionately at the role that Jinnah played and for once keep Gandhi aside in the narrative of the national movement, so that a we can get a better view of Jinnah the man and leader, minus the blinkers.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

India News

Delhi Police offers 11-person limit for CJP’s Connaught Place protest

Delhi Police has offered to facilitate a group of 11 people at Central Park in Connaught Place for the Cockroach Janata Party’s October 16 protest, while warning that violations of prohibitory orders could invite legal action.

Published

8 hours ago

on

October 15, 2026

By

CJP protest to continue

Delhi Police has proposed allowing a group of 11 people to carry the national flag and sing the national anthem at Central Park in Connaught Place on October 16, ahead of a protest called by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) over alleged electoral fraud.

The police said it could facilitate the group at a suitable place in the park, while appealing to the public not to join the proposed gathering in large numbers. The offer comes amid prohibitory orders in Connaught Place and adjoining areas under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke has called on people to assemble at Central Park at 5 pm on Friday with the national flag. The proposed demonstration, named “Lehra Do Tiranga”, follows the detention of CJP members Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka during an earlier protest.

Why Delhi Police proposed limiting the gathering

In its statement, Delhi Police cited the prevailing security and law-and-order situation in the area. It also referred to information from the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) that Central Park would remain closed on October 16 and 17 for administrative reasons.

Deputy Commissioner of Police Neha Yadav said the NDMC had informed the police about the closure and had asked that no gathering be allowed near the park.

The police also cited representations from trader and market associations in Connaught Place and surrounding areas. According to the police, the associations had raised concerns about unlawful assemblies and their impact on businesses, particularly during the festive season.

Police warned that violations of Section 163 BNSS would invite appropriate legal action. It also stressed that the national flag must be displayed and carried, and the national anthem sung, in the prescribed manner with due respect and dignity.

Delhi High Court declines to stop CJP protest

The proposed gathering reached the Delhi High Court after a vendor sought intervention over concerns about disruption to businesses and public movement in Connaught Place.

On Thursday, the court declined to restrain the CJP from holding the protest. It recorded the police’s assurance that all possible measures under the law would be taken to regulate the gathering and maintain peace.

The petition was filed by a vendor at Palika Bazar in Connaught Place, who raised concerns about the potential impact of the demonstration on traders and others working in the area.

Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, appearing for the authorities, told the court that steps had already been taken to regulate the proposed protest.

CJP’s protest call follows detention of party members

Dipke’s October 16 protest call follows earlier demonstrations over alleged electoral fraud. CJP members Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka are in jail on trespass charges after raising the national flag at Jantar Mantar earlier this week, according to the report.

The party has been protesting over alleged electoral fraud and has raised questions about the Election Commission.

Dipke has urged people to gather at Central Park with the national flag, arguing that raising the Tricolour should not be treated as a crime.

The police’s proposal to facilitate a group of 11 people came as the authorities sought to prevent a larger gathering at the site. The CJP’s response to the police’s offer was still awaited in the report published on October 15.

Continue Reading

India News

Actor Imran Khan asked to leave India after CJP protest

Actor Imran Khan has been asked to leave India by October 28, days after participating in a protest called by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) in Mumbai.

Published

9 hours ago

on

October 15, 2026

By

Actor Imran Khan, nephew of Bollywood star Aamir Khan, has been asked to leave India by the Mumbai Police, days after participating in a protest organised by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) in Mumbai.

According to the notice, the actor has been given until October 28 to leave the country. The development follows his participation in the demonstration, which brought the actor into the spotlight over his involvement in a political protest.

Imran Khan is believed to hold US citizenship and an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card rather than full Indian citizenship, according to the report.

What led to the notice against Imran Khan?

The notice came days after Imran Khan joined a protest called by the CJP in Mumbai. The group, described as a satirical political organisation, had called for the demonstration.

The actor’s participation was followed by action from the authorities, with the Mumbai Police directing him to leave India by the specified deadline.

The notice does not, by itself, mean that the actor has already left the country or has been deported. October 28 is the deadline mentioned for his departure.

Imran Khan and his citizenship status

Imran Khan is known for his work in Hindi films, including Jaane Tu… Ya Jaane Na and Delhi Belly. He is also the nephew of actor Aamir Khan.

The report states that Imran Khan is believed to be a US citizen and hold an OCI card. OCI status does not confer Indian citizenship, although it provides eligible foreign citizens of Indian origin with specified privileges under Indian law.

The notice directing the actor to leave India follows his participation in the Mumbai protest. The reported development has brought attention to the intersection of immigration rules and the participation of foreign nationals in political demonstrations.

Continue Reading

India News

Election Commission orders voter roll revision in 17 states, UTs

The Election Commission has ordered a Special Summary Revision of electoral rolls in 17 states and Union Territories. Draft rolls are scheduled for November 12, with final rolls due on January 4, 2027.

Published

9 hours ago

on

October 15, 2026

By

The Election Commission of India (ECI) has ordered a Special Summary Revision (SSR) of electoral rolls in 17 states and Union Territories, with the exercise aimed at facilitating voter registration and including eligible electors who may have been left out during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR).

The order was issued on Thursday, October 15, amid continuing political controversy over the SIR process and concerns raised by opposition parties regarding the exclusion of names from electoral rolls.

Under the announced schedule, January 1, 2027, will be the qualifying date for the revision. The draft electoral rolls are scheduled to be published on November 12, while the final rolls are due on January 4, 2027. Uttar Pradesh and Punjab, two states included in the exercise, are scheduled to go to the polls by February 2027.

Which states and Union Territories are covered?

The Special Summary Revision will cover the following 17 states and Union Territories:

  • Andaman and Nicobar Islands
  • Assam
  • Bihar
  • Chhattisgarh
  • Goa
  • Gujarat
  • Kerala
  • Lakshadweep
  • Madhya Pradesh
  • Manipur
  • Puducherry
  • Punjab
  • Rajasthan
  • Tamil Nadu
  • Uttar Pradesh
  • Uttarakhand
  • West Bengal

The Election Commission’s order follows earlier instructions issued to state election officials on September 29 to undertake a special drive to enrol eligible voters who had been left out, along with young and first-time electors.

Why has the Election Commission ordered the revision?

The announcement comes amid protests and political disagreements over the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. Opposition parties have raised concerns about names being excluded during the exercise.

Another point of contention has been an additional declaration required from applicants submitting Form 6 for voter enrolment while the SIR was underway. The declaration required applicants to map their parents to the last SIR, which was conducted around 20 years ago.

The Election Commission had clarified on October 7 that the additional declaration applied only in states and Union Territories where the SIR was being conducted. It said the regular forms prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, would apply outside the SIR period.

The latest SSR order refers to applications for inclusion through Form 6 but does not mention the additional declaration.

What happens in states not covered by the current schedule?

The Election Commission has said that the schedule for the Special Summary Revision will be announced later in states and Union Territories where the SIR is ongoing or has recently been completed.

These include Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Chandigarh, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu, Haryana, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, the National Capital Territory of Delhi, Odisha, Sikkim, Tripura and Telangana.

For Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh, where the SIR has not yet started, the schedule for electoral roll revision will be announced in due course, taking local weather conditions into account.

The Election Commission’s latest order sets out a separate timeline for the 17 states and Union Territories covered by the current SSR exercise, while leaving the schedules for the other regions to be announced later.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com