By Maheen A. Rashdi

The words tell the whole story. “Few individuals significantly alter the course of history. Fewer still modify the map of the world. Hardly anyone can be credited with creating a nation-state. Mohammad Ali Jinnah did all three.” So begins Professor Stanley Wolpert in his sketch of Mohammad Ali Jinnah, setting the incisive tone of his biography, which fittingly puts into words the versatility of the man that was Jinnah.

Pre-eminence has its own pitfalls. It is hardly ever easy to carry the onus of high achievement and trust that all humankind will accept the selfless accomplishment with good grace. Such has been the case with Mohammad Ali Jinnah, for whom the creation of Pakistan - a near-impossible feat, to be sure - was a vision driven by strong principles of justice.

But principles are often viewed askance, and there are always those - as in the case of the Quaid - who bitterly criticize Jinnah’s motive for dividing the subcontinent. Professor Wolpert reacts severely against such views. “If, as you say, there are those who state that it was purely Jinnah’s personal goal of achieving political greatness then let me tell you that they are wrong. It is absolutely erroneous to put such a color to his endeavors.”

Professor Wolpert was in Karachi for a brief stay en route to Islamabad where he was to attend a conference on peace and Pakistan-India relations. In a meeting organized by Liaquat Merchant, the great grand-nephew of the Quaid, the professor emphasized the need for peace in the region.

“If Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah were alive, he would have whole-heartedly blessed a message of peace designed to help Pakistan become the great nation that he really thought Pakistan would be. The road to peace is long overdue. Fifty-six years is time enough as more than 60,000 lives have been lost and a huge amount of money has been wasted. It will be better for the 1.2 billion people of the subcontinent to become one family who don’t need any more violence in their lives.”

Emphasizing Jinnah’s wish of having a peaceful and prosperous coexistence in the region, especially between the two divided nations of the subcontinent, he, in fact, underscored the option of opening the boundaries between the two countries rather than closing them.

Wolpert refers to the Quaid as an “inspirational father for his people” and has described him as the shrewd and skillful leader who combined his expertise and single-minded doggedness to press his case for the creation of Pakistan on behalf of the Muslim nation.

“The Quaid-i-Azam wanted a nation in which all kinds of people and all the minorities are welcome as equal citizens. He wanted no hatred, but rather love to prosper in this land of the pure in which there would be a proper bountiful future for all of your children, grandchildren and great grandchildren.”

Among the Quaid’s critics, there are many who feel his political ambition actually resulted in a personal rivalry with Gandhi, and it was what led Jinnah to take a rigid stance on the issue of dividing the subcontinent.

Besides, his rigidity has often been critically viewed by some of his biographers. Ayesha Jalal, for instance, writes in The Sole Spokesman, “... This fusion of religion and politics [Khilafat Movement] had left Jinnah cold in the wings. He denounced Gandhi for causing schism and split not only amongst Hindus and Muslims, but also between Hindus and Hindus and Muslims and Muslims and even between father and sons ... Jinnah now resigned as a member of the Congress. This was the parting of ways between Jinnah and the Congress under Gandhi ... Proud, with an assurance painfully constructed in difficult circumstances, he was never prepared to compromise over principles and had little liking for India’s white masters with whom he never felt wholly at ease ...”

Wolpert, on the other hand, has passed no critical judgment on Jinnah, and has defended - almost protected, one would say - the Quaid’s moves, rigid or principled, which, according to him, were “astute and just” under the circumstances in the days preceding Partition.

Then there is also that section of historians who say that Jinnah was felt betrayed by some of his colleagues soon after Partition and had begun to mistrust Liaquat Ali Khan, Pakistan’s first prime minister, who had been with him throughout his struggle for freedom.

But Wolpert contradicts that thought. “It is wrong to make such a conjecture, as that was not so at all. Firstly, he didn’t live long enough after Partition, and then he was very sick and very fragile and he was upset and sad and worried about many things in his last days of life. And, anyway, the recent biography of Liaquat Ali has dispelled these doubts and so must those who hold this view.”

Kalim Siddiqui, in Conflict, Crisis and War in Pakistan, has referred to the reasons which, in his view, set off the Kashmir conflict in which Jinnah’s ‘prejudices had a substantial role’. He writes, “The Kashmir dispute arose because the political struggle of the people of Kashmir [against the Maharajah] had been waged outside the Congress-League framework ... Jinnah failed to adjust to the Kashmiri Muslims’ approach as a majority in their state. Neither could Jinnah reconcile himself to the existence of a rival charismatic leader like Shaikh Abdullah ... In 1947, Abdullah first sent an emissary, G.M. Sadiq, to Pakistan to negotiate [Kashmir’s joining with Pakistan]. Jinnah, instead of meeting Sadiq, did not even grant him an audience ... Abdullah then went to New Delhi and approved the accession of Kashmir to India.”

When asked for comments, Wolpert replied: “These details cannot be commented upon since I have not studied the work of the author. But, to my knowledge, Jinnah in no way compromised the Kashmir situation and this was not at all the case.”

The inconsistencies in Jinnah’s character-building by the people of the nation he built, have fluctuated between extremes. While some have accorded him a hallowed status, others have derided his every intention, picking even on his personal tastes and unyielding character. Wolpert, on his part, ranks him among “history’s most remarkable, tenacious, enigmatic figures”.

What we shall not forget, however, is that Jinnah, above all, was a human, with natural imperfections that makes humans different from androids. It is a different matter though that when weighed against the imperfect or near-perfect humans, he was the first among equals.