1. Dear Sir,
I am a student of ILS Law College, Pune and follow the news (especiallyeditorials) on the DAWN
website in an attempt to understand the view ofintellectuals in Pakistan.I read your article on
Jaswant Singh’s expulsion from the BJP and thought of writing to you in order to genuinely
understand the premise of some of your arguments.
Firstly, on Mr. Singh’s expulsion: the BJP has proven that it haslost its moorings. Given the electoral
defeat, the primary agenda of thechintanbaithak should have been to assess the cause of their
defeat ratherthan alienate the very leaders (Jaswant Singh, ArunShourie, YashwantSinha)who could
have played a role in the resurgence of the party. The BJP fails torealize that in a majority Hindu
country, radical Hinduism (if there is anysuch thing!) will not find universal support. The Vajpayee
era was aprogressive one for the party but I am certain now that elements within theparty ‘got
drunk’ on power. Besides, this ruckus is a glaring indictment of thefanaticism that is associated with
the BJP’s ideology (because of its links tothe RSS). To be fair to them though, the Congress too has
attempted to scorebrownie points over this fracas. The end result – Mr. Singh’s book willprobably be
a bestseller and he will go laughing all the way to the bank.
Secondly, regarding Mr. Jinnah: for many middle class Indians (andI can vouch at least for those
whose ideologies are not sectarian) Mr. Jinnahis considered as one amongst many factors that led to
the partition of India.His ideological turnaround and acceptance of the two-nation theory
(whicharguably was the brainchild of VirSavarkar) is also well documented in ourminds and while it
leaves us searching for answers, it certainly doesn’t leadus to demonizing him. The fact is that our
founding fathers wished for a pluraldemocracy where free and progressive thought would prevail
over historicalinaccuracies, religious bigotry and mere rhetoric. Mr. Singh’s book is justanother
attempt at upholding this ideal (and its repercussions are a glimpseinto the intolerance that
continues to exist in parts of India).
What I fail to understand is the attempt(especially by intellectuals) in Pakistan to continue to defend
the perverselogic of the two-nation theory by sighting examples from India’s communalpast and
other recent events such as theGodhra riots. No doubt, these events have been disastrous to the
secularismthat India’s Constitutionespouses, but whether or not they justify the two-nation theory
and theideological belief that Muslims and Hindus cannot live under one roof (or thatMuslims will be
second citizens in India) is questionable. The fact isthat India’sConstitution represents an ideal that is
beyond speculation i.e. of a secularstate where citizens enjoy equal rights and equal opportunities in
their questfor growth (whether spiritual/religious or economic). How far we have come torepresent
this ideal can be debated but to strike at the very vision of our Constitutionwould be to disrespect
that vision – and I can’t see why any progressive personwould seek to do that.
I do realize the need forPakistanis to seek a truism and hold on to an ideal in order to
propelthemselves out of the vicious circle of chaos that they find themselves in.Perhaps the image of
Quaid-e-Azam satisfies that need. WhileI empathise with the people of Pakistan,as an Indian (in
search of the “truth”) I can’t help but notice the dichotomythat Mr. Jinnah creates. On the one hand,
he is a necessity for ordinarycitizens of Pakistanwhile on the other hand he espouses a cause that is
a conundrum to anyone whowould care to analyse it. This is not to take away from his vision for
Pakistan– that it become a secular state where Muslims in spite of being a majoritywould treat
minorities with compassion, respect and understanding. Howevernoble his vision might have been,

2. the premise of his argument can only be neglectedat the risk of leaving the gen-next of Pakistan in a
state of ideologicalchaos. While I accept that the political classes in Indiahave a long way to go
before they attain a standard even close to what Nehru orPatel desired, for the intellectuals in
Pakistan, there is an equal duty toreassess the basis on which the noble ideals of Mr. Jinnah were
founded. ThatPakistan exists is undeniable; that it was founded on the fear of inequality ina
primarily Hindu state cannot be denied; that India has strived and failed (tosome degree) to put this
fear to rest is unfortunately true but it begs thequestion – was it an immoral act on the part of
India’s founders to visualise anation where Hindus and Muslims would progress side by side; where
religion,caste, class or creed would not affect the dignity of the individual; where aconfluence of
cultures would result in a kaleidoscopic mixture; where Indiawould rid herself of excess baggage
andstrive to reclaim her place under the sun?
If Mr. Jinnah was human (and not a demon as somepeople in Indiawould like to believe) then he
certainly was as susceptible to fear, ignoranceand error of judgement as he was capable of visionary
statesmanship. Mr. Jinnahmay have cast the die and possibly got it wrong.
So where does that leave us today? Could it be thatthe premise behind the creation of Pakistanwas
flawed although the ideal of Pakistan was noble? Perhaps Mr.Advani would agree with this view.
Perhaps Pakistani intellectuals need to cometo terms with it. Or maybe I am missing a piece of the
jigsaw puzzle myself.
Lookingforward to your response
Kind Regards,
SidharthaJatar