Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 168 views

    Book Review PDF

    Uploaded by

    deadlegend14
    The document summarizes a book review of Ayesha Jalal's book "The Sole Spokesman Jinnh, The Muslim League and the demand for Pakistan". The reviewer provides background on the author and outlines the book's main chapters. While praising Jalal's professional analysis, the reviewer disagrees with some of her arguments. Specifically, the reviewer argues that Jalal ignores historical factors showing the Muslim demand for Pakistan was based on their interests and aspirations, not British influence as Jalal claims. The reviewer also argues Jalal is wrong that Jinnah did not truly want partition and used it only as a bargaining tactic. Overall, the reviewer believes the book provides a valuable analysis but overlooks some important

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Book Review PDF

    Uploaded by

    deadlegend14
    168 views5 pages
    The document summarizes a book review of Ayesha Jalal's book "The Sole Spokesman Jinnh, The Muslim League and the demand for Pakistan". The reviewer provides background on the author and outlines the book's main chapters. While praising Jalal's professional analysis, the reviewer disagrees with some of her arguments. Specifically, the reviewer argues that Jalal ignores historical factors showing the Muslim demand for Pakistan was based on their interests and aspirations, not British influence as Jalal claims. The reviewer also argues Jalal is wrong that Jinnah did not truly want partition and used it only as a bargaining tactic. Overall, the reviewer believes the book provides a valuable analysis but overlooks some important

    Original Title

    8. Book Review.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes a book review of Ayesha Jalal's book "The Sole Spokesman Jinnh, The Muslim League and the demand for Pakistan". The reviewer provides background on the author and outlines the book's main chapters. While praising Jalal's professional analysis, the reviewer disagrees with some of her arguments. Specifically, the reviewer argues that Jalal ignores historical factors showing the Muslim demand for Pakistan was based on their interests and aspirations, not British influence as Jalal claims. The reviewer also argues Jalal is wrong that Jinnah did not truly want partition and used it only as a bargaining tactic. Overall, the reviewer believes the book provides a valuable analysis but overlooks some important

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    168 views5 pages

    Book Review PDF

    Uploaded by

    deadlegend14
    The document summarizes a book review of Ayesha Jalal's book "The Sole Spokesman Jinnh, The Muslim League and the demand for Pakistan". The reviewer provides background on the author and outlines the book's main chapters. While praising Jalal's professional analysis, the reviewer disagrees with some of her arguments. Specifically, the reviewer argues that Jalal ignores historical factors showing the Muslim demand for Pakistan was based on their interests and aspirations, not British influence as Jalal claims. The reviewer also argues Jalal is wrong that Jinnah did not truly want partition and used it only as a bargaining tactic. Overall, the reviewer believes the book provides a valuable analysis but overlooks some important

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 5

    Journal of Historical Studies

    Vol. 1 No1 (January-June 2015)

    Ayesha Jalal, The Sole Spokesman Jinnh, The Muslim


    League and the demand for Pakistan, Cambridge:
    Cambridge University Press, 1985
    REVIEWED BY
    Dr. Turab-ul- Hassan Sargana
    Department of History, Bahauddin Zakariay Univeristy, Multan

    The partition of the Indian subcontinent into two


    separate states in 1947 fundamentally altered the subsequent
    course of history in this region. The historical factors which
    contributed to the making of this fateful event have since been
    a subject of debate and inquiry generating conflicting opinions
    regarding them. The more and more evidence has surfaced in
    the process leading to better understanding of the complex
    issues involved. The sole spokesman by Ayesha Jalal is a
    valuable addition in this regard. The book is based on doctoral
    dissertation submitted to the Cambridge University in 1982
    and was published in 1985 by the Press Syndicate of the
    University of Cambridge.
    Dr. Ayesha Jalal, presently a Professor of History at
    Tufts University Boston, has earned a remarkable repute as a
    prolific writer on South Asian themes. Her other books
    include The State of Martial Rule, Democracy
    authoritarianism in Asia - a comparative and historical
    perspective, and the Self and Sovereignty. Her all books has
    been well received among the intellectuals and those having
    interest in South Asian history.
    The author has divided the book The Sole
    Spokesman into seven chapters tracing the significant phases
    of struggle and strategy of Jinnah and Muslim League.
    These chapters are:
    1. Jinnah between the wars
    2. Jinnah and Leagues search for survival
    3. Jinnah and Muslim Majority Provinces

    90

    Dr. Turab-ul- Hassan Sargana

    4. Centre and Province: Simla and the election of 194546.


    5. Jinnahs Pakistan and the Cabinet Mission Plan.
    6. The interim government: Jinnah in retreat.
    7. The end game: Mountbatten and Partition.
    Before as well as after 1947, in Pakistan, history has
    been written with a particular thinking. Sometimes it was
    arranged on the governmental level to meet the national
    requirements and to inform the new generations about their
    countrys history. Much of the history has been written by
    those people who worked with Quaid-e-Azam and had
    emotions of love for the Quaid and Muslim League. They
    were not academic or professional historians, they were only
    followers and devotes of Jinnah, so their writing are full of
    praises for their beloved leader.
    Aysha Jalals The Sole Spokesman-- a book by a
    professional historian has been well-received and stimulated
    considerable discussion and rethinking on the subject. It marks
    a significant departure from earlier works, as the author
    questions many generally established notions regarding the
    evolution of the demand for Pakistan and its ultimate birth.
    The most significant aspect of the work is that it seeks
    to explain the emergence of Pakistan as the product of
    innumerable historical factors shaping and conditioning the
    attitudes and options of the political forces. Mountabatten ,
    Jinnah and Nehru all the principal actors of this historical
    drama, seem at times, to be at the mercy of the formidable
    forces of history, Such as to which Pakistani historiography
    too often resorts.
    In spite of all its utility, there are some points which
    can be disagreed. The most controversial and conflicting
    views are about Pakistan Resolution and the partition of India
    and Jinnahs strategy about it. The authors assumption that in
    1940 Jinnah was working for the British needs or her opinion
    that Jinnah has no love for the partition and he was only using
    this demand for bargaining and to gain a better share for the

    91

    Journal of Historical Studies


    Vol. 1 No1 (January-June 2015)

    Muslims at the centre, are completely against the historical


    facts. About Pakistan Resolution authors point of view that it
    was inspired by the British is completely wrong and it cant be
    proved by historical facts and Professor Dr. Sikandar Hayat is
    quite right when he says that, Ayesha Jalal has based on her
    interpretations on immediate interests. She does not view the
    Lahore Resolution in a larger, historical perspective in line
    with the Muslim separatist political movement which
    developed steadily at the hands of Syed Ahmed Khan through
    Maulana Muhammad Ali and Allama Muhammad Iqbal or
    indeed through the more recent developments of 1937-1939.
    If we study the Pakistan Resolution in
    larger, historical perspective in line with the
    Muslim separatist political movement, we can
    say confidently that here author has
    deliberately ignored the facts. There were so
    many historical, socio-economic and religiopolitical factors which brought the Muslims to
    the conclusion that the only solution to their all
    problems was that they should have a separate
    homeland. The main factor among them were
    that Jinnahs all efforts for Hindu-Muslim unity
    had been failed and the congress rule of 19371939 showed the Muslims that they could not
    expect any justice or fair play at the hands of
    Hindus. The fact is that the Lahore resolution
    was essentially an outcome of Muslim interests,
    aspirations and ideals.
    The central argument of the author is that Muslim
    Leagues demand for a separate homeland which Jinnah
    always kept vague to muster maximum support of the
    Muslims- was merely a strategy for forcing Congress
    leadership for and honourable and equitable settlement with
    the former at the centre. Here author gives reference to
    Jinnahs acceptance of the Cabinet Mission Plan. Jinnahs
    rejection of a truncated Pakistan as proposed in the plan B of
    the Cabinet Mission and his willingness to consider the three-

    92

    Dr. Turab-ul- Hassan Sargana

    tier union (plan A) if congress would do the same, was, in


    authors opinion, the first open indication that he (Jinnah)
    might settle for something less than a sovereign Pakistan.
    This theme of Ayesha Jalal is against the historical
    evidence. The course of events from the Nehru Report of 1928
    to the Congress rule of 1937-1939 had left no doubt in
    Jinnahs mind about the fate of Muslims in a polity dominated
    by the Hindu majority. Jinnah, addressing the All India
    Muslim League(AIML) Lahore session 1940, declared that he,
    too, stood unequivocally for the freedom of India. But he
    insisted, it must be freedom for all India and not freedom of
    one section, or worse still, of the congress caucus and slavery
    of Musalmans and other minorities. Jinnah therefore,
    demanded the division of India in the best interest of the two
    nations. Jinnah had no inwardness or vagueness about the
    partition as it is claimed by Ayesha Jalal. He was fully clear
    about it. He demanded that India was inhabited by two
    nations, Hindus and Muslims, and thus must be divided
    between them. He was convinced that this was the only way to
    settle the constitutional problems of India. So it is not
    justifiable to say that Jinnah did not like the India of partition
    and he was only using this demand to gain better share for the
    Muslims in the centre. Historically it is wrong.
    An inwardness of Jinnahs strategy is a theme at
    which author has put a special emphasis. This assumption of
    the author appears to be far-fetched as she herself accepts that
    no amount of detective work on what led to the resolution or
    how it came to be interpreted afterwards can hope to tease out
    its inwardness.
    The mere fact that Jinnah kept his demands open for
    negotiations or that these demands were not formulated in
    precise terms did not sufficiently prove that there was an
    inherent inwardness attached to his strategy. On the other
    hand it can hardly be denied that political demands cannot be
    spelled out in precise and inflexible terms. Instead they require
    necessary readjustment in the light of unseen exigencies of

    93

    Journal of Historical Studies


    Vol. 1 No1 (January-June 2015)

    politics. Besides, unnecessary preciseness hinders a leaders


    capacity for manoeuvring and bargaining. Further, uncalled
    for details about a political goal are bound to have a divisive
    effect upon its supporters.
    In spite of having difference of opinion with the author
    about some of her views, in nutshell, it can be said of the
    book that it is a commendable attempt to analyse the
    complex political and historical factors that led to partition
    in a logical and argumentative manner.

    94

    You might also like