The article predominantly deals with the issue of the Partition of India, and Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s role in it. The title of the article, along with the first line quoting Jinnah as saying “I am not prepared to discuss ethics” creates a negative image of Jinnah in the reader’s mind. This article reminds the reader of the “unimaginable massacre” of Hindus in Calcutta in 1946, which invokes the emotions of anger, sympathy for the victims, but may also invoke religious hatred. The writer mentions that 6000 people were killed, but his bias is evident, he does not mention that of those both Hindus and Muslims were killed, as even some Hindus responded violently to the “direct action” and use of “the pistol” of the Muslim League.
The issue of who was responsible for the killings in Calcutta is an example of problems of finding truth in History, especially when the topic is nationally and religiously sensitive; with the Congress and Hindu groups blaming the leaders of the Muslim League for genocide of Hindus, and the Muslim League blaming Congress and other Hindu organisations for beginning violence due to the demand for Pakistan. Quoting the Online Encyclopaedia of Mass Violence, “..there may have been very rational calculations at work on the side of the instigators and perpetrators of the killings. It was actually a fight over who was to be master of Calcutta. By organizing huge demonstrations, occupying the Maidan and using whatever State power it had at its disposal, the Bengal Provincial Muslim League was trying to stake its claim to Calcutta as the capital of a Muslim Bengal, which would be part of Pakistan, whose shape was still hazy at the time. A massacre was probably not the League’s goal (although one pamphlet circulating amongst Muslims warned of a “general massacre” of Kafirs, infidels, i.e. Hindus), but the League’s supporters did not shrink from using violence on a significant scale to advance their objectives. Although the use of violence by a minority against the majority could appear irrational to us, in the mindset of many Muslims at the time it was not so, because they considered the Hindus cowardly and effeminate, and thought they were no match for Muslims in an open fight. As for the “Hindu” political parties, both Congress and the Mahasabha were bent on making a counter-demonstration of their superior muscle power. Therefore, they were not adverse to large-scale killings to decisively defeat the Muslim League’s attempts to impose its dominance. The massacre was the result of the clash of two wills, between which no compromise was possible.”
Besides, the article goes on to mention various negative aspects of Jinnah, including how he was unfit to be a leader of Muslims. It mentions how he could barely speak Urdu, had British tastes, and changed his birthday to Christmas day when he was young. This makes the knower suspect that his demand for a separate Muslim nation, and his unwillingness to accept a secular, united India, was due to his ambition and desire for power.
The author, apart from discussing the evils of Jinnah, very skilfully attempts to glorify his own viewpoints and force his own opinions on the knower. He glorifies Syama Prasad Mookerjee, leader of the Hindu Mahasabha. Incidentally, this leader is a source of inspiration for the BJP. Thus, the author is trying to portray BJP in a positive light by glorifying the leaders that it is inspired by. Besides the author mentions that “the Gita and RSS teaches us..” – he has equated his organization, RSS to the Gita, which is one of holiest books for Hindus. Thus, he is trying to promote his organization, RSS. Due to this, the knower begins to respect RSS, as he is not aware that the organization has promoted enmity and often indulged in violence. While the parts that describe Jinnah may be partially true, the parts that glorify the RSS and BJP, can be considered biased.
No comments:
Post a Comment