Political Diary
New
Delhi, 8 May 2018
Jinnah Controversy
MAKING A MOUNTAIN OF
A MOLEHILL
By Poonam I Kaushish
Question:
Name the latest con word that can divide a nation on communal lines?
Answer:
Mohammed Ali Jinnah, Pakistan’s founder and hence responsible for India's Partition.
Question:
What is it about him that our politicians have retouched his portrait with a
fresh coat of stereotypes and suspicions about Indians Muslims?
Answer:
Vote bank politics. Whereby, all communal-secular additions, subtractions and
divisions put together provide manifold hope for our polity and is their bread
and butter to power.
Never
mind that in the process they debauch everyone and everything many times over. Conveniently,
forgetting that Jinnah was once a nationalist and rose to become an important
figure in the Indian National Congress.
The
controversy has its genesis in the BJP’s Aligarh MP writing to the Chancellor
of renowned Aligarh Muslim University last week raising objections to Pakistan’s
Qaid-e-Azam’s portrait
inside the Students Union Hall hanging there for decades to be removed questioning
this seat of learning’s patriotism and claiming the portrait’s presence was
proof the AMU harbouring anti-national elements. Earlier the Hindu Yuva Vahini had
demanded RSS shakhas on the campus
and accussed it of producing jihadis.
Adding
to the fracas UP Chief Minister Yogi asserted, “Jinnah divided the country there
is no question of celebrating or eulogizing him in India. His photo might be
coming off for good.” Added Union Minister Naqvi, “the issue would be resolved
with a sensitive approach.” Countered the Congress, Pakistan’s Qaid-e-Azam was a freedom fighter and we should respect him just as Shaeed Bhagat
Singh is respected in Pakistan. And NCP
Chief Sharad Pawar dared Yogi’s Maharashtra counterpart Fadnavis to demolish
the Jinnah House, once the Mumbai residence of Pakistan's founder.
Questionably,
why should the university which started in 1875 be forced to disown and distort
its own history? How does AMU become ‘anti-national’ by keeping Jinnah’s portrait
merely as a sign of its past? Is it the Saffron Sangh’s modus operandi to
effectively erase historical data which it does not agree with and inert their
own narrative in its place? Since AMU is a Central University why has the HRD Ministry
not removed it till now?
Is
the NDA trying to tell us that a portrait in a university tantamounts to being
anti-national? Is it trying to light up strong Hindutva policies by reigniting
old communal passions? Does this have a more vote-winning potential? Should
this become litmus of one’s patriotism? Is this the Sangh’s way of teaching us
a lesson in rashtra prem and desh bhakti?’
Replete with ‘It’s my way or highway’ attitude.
Undoubtedly,
one can argue that universities and other educational institutions are
established to impart learning and skills to students and arm them with the
requisite knowledge to prosper later in any sphere they desire. Further, as
these institutions are heavily subsidized it stands to reason that the students
study and not create nuisance, fan hatred or ignite communal fires.
Certainly,
at one end it betrays a new fragility in our national ego, which thrives on a
virulent anti-intellectualism. Educational institutions, it seems, must conform
to prescriptive nationalist histories or pay the price. Forgetting the portrait
was put up long before Indian and Pakistani histories were bifurcated. Thus, to
erase this past is regressive.
Added
a historian, “AMU is also a historical artefact, a realisation of the Aligarh
Movement in concrete, literally. Like most of India's artefacts, the University
tells us about the long journey the idea of India has undertaken with all its
complexities and contradictions. The past is not an annoying neighbour you
decide to stay away from.”
At
the other, undoubtedly, the Hindutva Brigade’s ball game seems to be of using
Jinnah’s portrait as an issue to demonize AMU, ‘fix it’ to draw battle lines on
a campus ideologically far-removed from the Sangh, consequently vilify Indian
Muslims and paint them as divisive, having affiliations with and sympathies for
Pakistan and resort to majoritarian.
Thereby,
playing out the politics of communal polarisation for consolidation of electoral
gains ahead of the Kairana Lok Sabha by-poll and multiple elections in various States
along-with sustaining it till the next Lok Sabha election next year. “Jab apni sarkar hai, toh darr kis baat ka?”
is the popular sentiment.
Once
again bringing to fore the fault-lines running deep within our society. A part
of an epidemic of hooliganism, a growing trend of reacting to ideas that one does
not like with physical force. Not for them the fact that the University has a
historical tradition of conferring honorary life membership to eminent
individuals. The first ever to receive the honour was Gandhiji and Jinnah in
1938.
Other
recipients are Ambedkar, Rajendra Prasad, Maulana Azad, Sir CV Raman, Jayaprakash
Narayan, Mother Teresa etc. Conveniently forgetting that Modi had inaugurated
the Bombay High Court museum, showcasing Jinnah’s Barrister’s certificate along
with Gandhiji’s! The saffronites didn’t
protest then against the judicial preservation of history.
Besides,
the Hindutva Brigade needs to jog its memory, of ex-BJP President Advani calling Jinnah
“secular” on his visit to Pakistan in 2005. Further, he quoted Sarojini
Naidu who called Pakistan’s Qaid-e-Azam an “ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity. My
respectful homage to this great man.”
Predictably, all hell broke loose in the Saffron Sangh and Advani was
removed as President only to be reinstated two years later.
Alas,
the idea seems to be to distort history by projecting Jinnah as the sole
villain of India’s division and for the death of thousands of Hindus and
Muslims. Said a senior BJP leader, “What is it that the university is trying to
assert by not removing Jinnah’s portrait? Statues of Bal Gangadhar Tilak and
Bhagat Singh were demolished in Pakistan.”
True,
since 2014 the BJP-led Government has been on a name changing spree Delhi’s
Aurangzeb Road into ABJ Kalam, Mughalsarai station renamed Deen Dayal Upadhyay
etc. But there is only one little hitch. The fantasy of India as Akhand Bharat with a clean slate to make
it a playground for Hindutva fascism is threatened by the country's plural
history and syncretism.
Rightly
or wrongly, the country seems to be in the grip of self-styled chauvinism and
cultural dogmas wherein celebrities, films and now students are fast becoming
soft targets with knee-jerk reactions taking over debates and calibrated
decisions and no writer, thinker, historian or social scientist can honestly do
his/her research objectively.
Our
leaders need to realize history is to help society identify and assert itself in
a plularistic democracy. A history which
makes it a composite whole today with people having a tendency to hold on to
their past. A blanket condemnation of anything one does not like or approve of
is saying goodbye to another’s viewpoint and the idea of democracy. Life is
lived in the slim strip called the ‘official.’
Pertinently,
a nation is about its people. There simply is no way to erase the remnants of
the long journey India has undertaken before it turned into a republic. We need
to obfuscate the issue as it exaggerates the world creating a demonology of its
own that sees every act of defiance as a monster. As philosopher-poet George
Santayana said: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
What gives? ------ INFA
(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)
|