Confujun to hai utter
Never have so many been so puzzled so much by so little.
You don’t say!
Darius Nakhoonwala
Sometimes old men get fed up with things and act in unexpected ways. L K Advani is 78. Ergo his statement about Mohammad Ali Jinnah being secular when, even if he believes otherwise, he should not be praising the man who divided India. What he actually said was this: "His address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on August 11, 1947 is a classic, a forceful espousal of a secular state in which every citizen would be free to practise his own religion but the state shall make no distinction between one citizen and another on the grounds of faith." And he didn`t say this, he wrote it in the Visitor`s Book at Jinnah`s mausoleum.
And what he actually said was "What has been stated in this speech — namely, equality of all citizens in the eyes of the state and freedom of faith for all citizens — is what we in India call a secular or a non-theocratic state. There is no place for bigotry, hatred, intolerance and discrimination in the name of religion in such a state. And there can certainly be no place, much less state protection, for religious extremism and terrorism in such a state."
Completely unexceptionable stuff, as pointed out by Harish Khare in The Hindu. But the leader writers have had their knickers in an awful twist, especially since Mr Advani resigned after the extended family, the Sangh Parivar, protested over his statements.
I felt sorriest for the Pioneer. As a BJP mouthpiece for the liberal reader, it simply didn`t know how to disguise its nervous babble. It reminded me of Abhishek Singhvi trying to defend Sonia Gandhi after Jharkhand. " It`s a supreme irony that Mr LK Advani has had to resign from his post as president of the Bharatiya Janata Party on an issue as abstract as whether Mohammed Ali Jinnah was secular", it wrote and termed Mr Advani`s statement as a "turnaround", which is what the Sangh Parivar is saying. It ruled out the possibility that Mr Advani had become sentimental while visiting his old home town. It praised him for being the great helmsman of the party. Then it said " Flatterers may disagree, but Mr Advani knew the moment to pass on the baton had arrived. Perhaps that moment would have been better defined had Mr Advani been more cautious in his choice of words while in Pakistan. But it can be argued that circumspection is a vice that afflicts the weak, not the courageous. Although in the case of the VHP, exception would prove the rule."
The Hindu, on the other hand, could barely hide its glee. In the Left parties that it supports, the leaders are neither forthright nor do they resign. But it gave the whole affair a rather bizarre Indo-Pak angle. "It is a measure of the impressive distance India and Pakistan have travelled on the peace route that Pervez Musharraf and Lal Krishna Advani are talking to, not at, each other." Duh? "…no topic was taboo for this most interesting visitor from across the border. Mr. Advani acknowledged the emergence of India and Pakistan as "an unalterable reality of history"; in once hometown Karachi, he described Jinnah as that "rare individual" who created history, who espoused the cause of secular Pakistan." Then, like a dog at a lamppost it lapsed into unalterable habit. "Earlier, with official Pakistan applauding, Mr. Advani flagged off a project to restore seven ancient temples associated in mythology with the Mahabharata. Of course, the irony was not lost on the accompanying press corps who wondered if General Musharraf could similarly restore a mosque in India." But then how many Hindus are there in Pakistan?
The Indian Express got it most right. It described Mr Adavani statement as an act of courage and was the only paper to point to that " Indian history is not a simple black and white story of heroes and villains that it is often made out to be." It then wrote "Jinnah may be held responsible for furthering communalism in Indian politics by insisting on thinking of representation in communal terms and then pressing for partition. But that is not incompatible with the claim that Jinnah wanted a Pakistan that was not a theocracy." Absolutely. Just the point because "Advani may have reignited the debate over the character of Pakistan. This is a far greater achievement than the Sangh, with its lack of historical sense, will ever acknowledge. Indians should have a more complicated view of Jinnah`s role in Partition.
The Times of India was predictably vapid and missed the point altogether by dwelling on BJP-Congress politics. It did, however, say that "these are existential questions the party, and Advani, have to settle." Surprisingly, even The Telegraph missed the crux. But it did make a point others didn`t, that " the resignation also marks the distance between a section of the BJP`s leadership and Hindutva. Leaders like Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee and, more recently, Mr Advani have been trying to place governance above ideology within the agenda of the BJP. It is significant that Mr Vajpayee has not approved of the harsh criticism the Sangh Parivar has directed at Mr Advani." But then it went completely wrong: "He wanted to project himself as a leader not just of the Hindus but of all Indians; he wanted the people of Pakistan to see him not as a bigoted anti-Pakistani but as a statesman who thought of the entire subcontinent. The praise for Jinnah followed: Jinnah, a leader of the Muslims, was secular; so was Advani, a leader of the Hindus.
Rubbish.