|
It was reported in the press that Mr. M. K. Gandhi while offering his ‘puja’ was not the least affected when a snake crawled around him in a circle. The Hindu press proclaimed that Mr. Gandhi was a ‘Mahatma’. Later on, the press urged the Quaid to comment on the incident. Mr. Jinnah said that there was nothing unusual in the snake not biting the ‘Mahatma’. After all, “There is a professional etiquette”. In 1947, Begum Ghulam Hussain Hidayatullah fastened “Imam Zamin” on his wrist at the banquet hosted by the Governor. The Quaid asked, “What is this for?” the lady replied, Sir, it will protect from every evil influence”. The Quaid promptly addressed Altaf Hussain, editor of “The Dawn” standing close to him, saying, “Now I can face you”. Once Mr. Gandhi asked Mr. Jinnah, “How have you mesmerized the Muslims?” “The way you have hypnotized the Hindus”, was the quick-witted answer. In December 1946, to a Swiss Journalist who remarked: “Mr.Jinnah, were you not once in the Congress?” the Quaid gave the shattering reply: “I was in primary school once.”
In a jovial mood, Mr. Jinnah commented on the critics of Two-nation theory in these words: I am allowing full latitude to the majority community. They could wear their Dhoti, grow their Choti and eat their Dal-Roti”.
“The Quaid’s greatest passion was clarity, clarity of a point of view.”, writes Mr. Z. A. Suleri in his book, “My Leader”. “To its articulation went not only his amazing power of analyzing but the whole might of his character. Every dot and comma mattered. He set himself such a high standard of clear thinking that only a pervasive person could mistake his meaning.” Here is an instance of remarkable clarity of his expression:
“It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders, and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality, and this misconception of Indian nation has gone far beyond the limits and is the cause of most of our troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time.”
The Quaid has been occasionally accused of showing lack of courtesy. For instance, Campbell-Johnson refers to his hauteur and touchiness” on one occasion quoting Ismay about a communication addressed by him to Mountbatten: “It was a letter which I would not take from the king or send to a coolie.” Actually his sharp reaction to certain individuals and on certain occasions was a part of his basic integrity and propensity to call a spade a spade. That is why when Maulana Abul Kalam Azad wanted to negotiate with him, his retort was extra-ordinarily blunt: “I have received your telegram (which was addressed as ‘confidential’). I cannot reciprocate confidence. I refuse to discuss with you by correspondence or otherwise as you have completely forfeited the confidence of Muslim India. Can’t you realize you are made a Muslim show-boy Congress President to give it color that it is national and deceive foreign countries? You represent neither Muslims nor Hindus. The Congress is a Hindu body. If you have self-respect, resign at once. You have done your worst against the League so far. You know you have hopelessly failed. Give it up.” Such was “the dogged spirit that ultimately beat the enemy”. In short, the truth is that the Quaid stands peerless in the galaxy of leaders. Amazingly the Hindus complimented him by wishing if only they had a single leader of his caliber, India’s destiny would have been different while the British paid him the tribute of ‘never forgiving their Waterloo at his hands’. Here is an interesting assessment detailed by Mrs. Sarojini Naido:
“Never was there a nature whose outer qualities provided so complete an antithesis of its inner worth. Tall and stately, but thin to the point of emaciation, languid and luxurious of habit, Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s attenuated form is the deceptive sheath of a spirit of exceptional vitality and endurance. Somewhat formal and fastidious, and little aloof and imperious of manner, the calm hauteur of his accustomed reserve but masks – for those who know him – a naïve and eager humanity, an intuition quick and tender as a woman’s, as a child’s. Pre-eminently rational and practical, discreet and dispassionate in his estimate and acceptance of life, the obvious sanity and serenity of his worldly wisdom effectually disguise a shy and splendid idealism which is the very essence of the man.”
|
