Jinnah's interview with Beverley Nichols
The reasons adduced for joint economic collaboration between India and Pakistan are precisely those advanced against the Partition of the sub-continent. Arguments, decisively settled by Partition, have been resurrected. The objections of the Indian National Congress to a division of the sub-continent's economy and security forces had been overruled at the creation of Pakistan by the Muslim's decision to be 'separate and equal'. Many years ago, in a conversation between Mr. Jinnah and the British author Beverley Nichols, the economic and defence
consequences of Partition were discussed.
CHPTER III
DIALOGUE WITH A GIANT
TAKEN FROM A BOOK Verdict on India by Beverley Nichols
Publishers: JONATHAN CAPE, THIRTY BEDFORD SQUARE, LONDON
I have called Mr. Jinnah ‘the most important man in Asia’. That was to ensure you kept him spot lit in your mind. Like all superlatives the description is open to argument, but it is not really so far from the truth. India is likely to be the world’s greatest problem for some years to come, and Mr. Jinnah is in a position of unique strategic importance. He can sway the battle this way or that as he chooses. His 100 million Muslims will march to the left, to the right, to the front, to the rear at his bidding and at nobody else’s…. that is the point. It is not the same in the Hindu ranks. If Gandhi goes, there is always Nehru, or Rajagopalachari or Patel or a dozen others. But if Jinnah goes, who is there?
By this I do not mean that the Muslim League would disintegrate – it is far too homogeneous and virile a body – but that its actions would be incalculable. It might run completely off the rails, and charge through India with fire and slaughter; it might start another war. As long as Jinnah is there, nothing like this will happen.
And so, you see, a great deal hangs on the grey silk cord of that monocle.
I first met him on December 18th, 1943. He said he could give me half an hour, and gave me nearly three. In that space of time he surveyed a very wide field; the gist of his remarks, however, the living essence, is in the following dialogue, which he has been good enough to edit.
Here we are then, sitting in a quiet room looking out on to a garden, discussing one of the most important problems in the world, with man most competent to solve it.
II
SELF The most common accusation of your critics is that you have not defined Pakistan with sufficient precision – that there are many details of defence, economics, minorities, etc., which you have left deliberately vague. Do you think that is a just criticism?
JINNAH It is neither just nor intelligent, particularly if it is made by an Englishman with any knowledge of his own history. When Ireland was separated from Britain, the document embodying the terms of separation was approximately ten lines. Ten lines of print to settle a dispute of incredible complexity which has poisoned British politics for centuries” All the details were left to the Future – and the Future is often an admirable arbitrator. Well, I’ve already given the world a good deal more than ten lines to indicate the principles and practice of Pakistan, but it is beyond the power of any man to provide, in advance, a blue-print in which every detail is settled. Besides, Indian history proves that such a blue-print is totally unnecessary. Where was the blue-print when the question of Burmah’s separation was decided at the Round Table Conference? Where was the blue-print when Sind was separated from Bombay? The answer, of course, is ‘nowhere’. It didn’t exist. It didn’t need to exist. The vital point was that the principle of separation was accepted; the rest followed automatically.
SELF How would you describe the vital principles’ of Pakistan?
JINNAH In five words. The Muslims are a Nation. If you grant that, and if you are an honest man, you must grant the principle of Pakistan. You would have to grant it even if the obstacles were a hundred times more formidable than they actually are. Of course, if you do not grant it, then …. He shrugged his shoulders and smiled …..Then, there is an end of the matter.
SELF When you say the Muslims are a Nation, are you thinking in terms of religion?
JINNAH Partly, but by no means exclusively. You must remember that Islam is not merely a religious doctrine but a realistic and practical Code of Conduct. I am thinking in terms life, of everything important in life. I am thinking in terms of our history, our heroes, our art, our architecture, our music, our laws, our jurisprudence…..
SELF Please, I would like to write these things down.
JINNAH (AFTER A PAUSE) In all these things our outlook is not only fundamentally different but often radically antagonistic to the Hindus. We are different beings. There is nothing in life which links us together. Our names, our clothes, our foods – they are all different; our economic life, our educational ideas, our treatment of women, our attitude to animals … we challenge each other at every point of the compass. Take on example, the eternal question of the cow. We eat the cow, the Hindus worship it. A lot of Englishmen imagine that this ‘worship’ is merely a picturesque convention, an historical survival. It is nothing of the sort. Only a few days ago, in this very city, the cow question became a matter for the police. The Hindus were thrown into the greatest agitation because cows were being killed in public. But the cow question is only one of a thousand. (Apause) What have you written down?
Self I have only written ‘The Muslims are a Nation’.
JINNAH And do you believe it?
SELF I do.
JINNAH (with a smile) What other questions have you got there?
SELF The first is economic. Are the Muslims likely to be richer or poorer under Pakistan? And would you set up tariffs against the rest of India?
JINNAH: I'll ask you a question for a change. Supposing you were asked which you would prefer ... a rich England under Germany or a poor England free, what would your answer be?
SELF: It's hardly necessary to say.
JINNAH: Quite. Well, doesn't that make your question look a little shoddy? This great ideal rises far above mere questions of personal comfort or temporary convenience. The Muslims are a tough people, lean and hardy. If Pakistan means that they will have to be a little tougher, they will not complain.
But why should it mean that? What conceivable reason is there to suppose that the gift of nationality is going to be an economic liability? A sovereign nation of a hundred million people - even if they are not immediately self-supporting and even if they are industrially backward - is hardly likely to be in a worse economic position than if its members are scattered and disorganized, under the dominance of two hundred and fifty million Hindus whose one idea is to exploit them.
How any European can get up and say that Pakistan is 'economically impossible' after the Treaty of Versailles is really beyond my comprehension. The great brains who cut Europe into a ridiculous patchwork of conflicting and artificial boundaries are hardly the people to talk economics to us, particularly as our problem happens to be far simpler.
SELF And does that also apply to defense?
JINNAH: Of course it applies to defense. Once again I will ask you a question. How is Afghanistan defended? Well? The answer is not very complicated. By the Afghans. Just that. We are a brave and united people who are prepared to work and, if necessary, fight. So how does the question of defense present any peculiar difficulties? In what way do we differ from other nations? From Iran, for example? Obviously, there will have to be a transition period. We are not asking the British to quit India overnight. The British have helped to make this gigantic muddle, and they must stay help to clear it up. But before they can do that, they will have to do a lot of hard thinking. And that reminds me – I have something I would like to show you.
He excused himself and left the room. I lit a cigarette and waited. And suddenly I realized that something very remarkable was happening, or rather was not. I was not loosing my temper. Jinnah had been almost brutally critical of British policy (though I have not quoted his remarks in the4 above dialogue), but his criticism had been clear and creative. It was not merely a medley of wild words, a hotchpotch of hatred and hallucination, in the Hindu manner. It was more like a diagnosis. The difference between Jinnah and the typical Hindu politician was the difference between a surgeon and a witch doctor. Moreover, he was a surgeon you could trust, even though his verdict was harsh.
“The British must realize,’ he had said to me before we tackled the problem of Pakistan, ‘that they have not a friend in the country. Not a friend.’
A Hindu politician would have said that at the top of his voice with delight. Jinnah said it quietly, with regret. Here he was again. In his hand he carried a book.
JINNAH: You will remember I said, a moment ago, that the British would have to do a lot of hard thinking. It's a habit they don't find very congenial; they prefer to be comfortable, to wait and see, trusting that everything will come right in the end. However, when they do take the trouble to think, they think as clearly and creatively as any people in the world. And one of their best thinkers at least on the Indian problem was old John Bright. Have you ever read any of his speeches?
