SIR, In his article “Was Jinnah secular?” published today, Nandalal Chakrabarty exposes the political ambitions of Muhammad Ali Jinnah that ultimately drove him to claim Pakistan on the basis of the two-nation theory. Once I read a book about Jinnah where it was mentioned that he never visited a mosque to offer “Namaz”. From this point of view, Jinnah has been considered secular.
But his political activities do not corroborate that he was truly secular. Once BJP leader Lal Krishna Advani went to Pakitan and described Jinnah as secular. There was a huge hue and cry over Advani’s comment.
To my mind, had Jinnah been given space in the Congress party he would not have joined the Muslim League.
With the support of Gandhiji, Jawaharlal Nehru and his group never wanted Jinnah to get importance in the Congress party, because Jinnah too had the ambition of becoming prime minister of independent India.
Being ignored by Congress, Jinnah had no option but to join the Muslim League to fulfill his political ambition.
Jinnah perhaps knew that if he had to reach the ultimate goal, he needed to be less secular.
The great Calcutta killing and other incidents mentioned in the article by Chakraborty are nothing but an outcome of Jinnah’s political ambitions.
Muslims cannot co-exist with the Hindus was the theory on which a separate Pakistan was claimed by Jinnah.
But are all Muslims in Pakistan happy? Why is Pakistan being identified as a terrorist country in the world today? Had Jinnah been alive today, would he have an answer?