In 1940,during a meeting of the Muslim League,there werent many Muslims attending the actual meeting. I know,because I was there, remembers Professor Mubashir Hasan,former finance minister of Pakistan. Hasan is blunt about why Jinnah became a leader to reckon with: the fact that he asked for a separate state of Pakistan,which had tremendous appeal to Muslims. Indian historians were in agreement with him today,debunking the Jaswant Singh school of thought which suggests that Jinnah was under pressure to create Pakistan. They were speaking at the launch of the book,Pathway to Indias Partition ,the march to Pakistan (1937-47) by historian Bimal Prasad. Jinnah was a great leader since 1916. But no Muslim paid attention to him. Its only when he put the claim of Partition that a crowd gathered, Hasan says. So was Jinnah a victim of a Muslim Nationalist surge? Was he the only Indian leader to suggest the Partition? No,maintained the academics from both sides of the border. The claim that if Jinnah wasnt there,there wouldnt have been a Pakistan,or that it was a creation of Nehru and Patel is false. Hindu leader Lala Lajpat Rai in 1925 recognised that a separate state would be created, he adds. However,Prasad adds,There was no alternative to Partition. There was no doubt that Jinnah was one of the greatest leaders in the sub-continent. But Partition was inevitable. Muslims would not have lived under a Hindu majority leadership,and it was inevitable that there would be a Hindu majority as there would be a Parliamentary system. These Muslims were the same people whose forefathers had ruled India for 600 years. As long as Partition is looked at as a tragedy, argued academic SR Mehrotra,myths will continue to prosper,like the myth that Congress leaders caused it. But there are more questions to be asked now,the academics say. Like what are the faces of the three types of Muslim Nationalism now Indian,Pakistani,and Bangladeshi. And why did Pakistani politicians make the mistake of choosing Urdu as Pakistans National language,when it wasnt the mother tongue of its inhabitants? The academics said no matter how many books were written,people would still question history and believe their own version.
